[Wikimedia-l] On wiki versus off wiki - it may not be that simple

[Stephen Philbrick]

Please keep in mind the plausible scenario that one or more people
contacted T & S, and asserted that editor X is extremely distressed about
harassment arriving from on wiki edits. Fram can be literally telling the
truth when they say that they are unaware of any off wiki commincations,
while T&S Is in possession of information that cannot simply be summarized
as on wiki or off wiki. It may well be off wiki real life observations but
not related to any off wiki communications involving Fram.

Phil
___
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] Copyright issues

[Stephen Philbrick]

I have seen a couple comments on copyright issues in the last couple days
so I thought I'd share some information that I think may be not well-known
by everyone.

Very roughly, copyright issues (text) can be viewed in three categories:
1. Addition of copyrighted material to articles in years past, not yet
removed (one-off)
2. Same as above, except by a serial violator
3. Close to real-time edits which may include copyrighted material

The reason for distinguishing these three categories is that our approach
and success rates are very different.

In case 1, an editor identifies what they believe to be a copyright issue
in an existing article. They can report it to Wikipedia:Copyright_problems.
In the case of a single issue or a very small handful of issues, those
items are identified and taken care of by volunteers. (I think this aspect
is handled adequately — I used to be active there but haven't been recently)

The second case arises when a potential violation is identified. An
examination of the editors contributions reveals many examples (typically
five or more). If this occurs, it is referred to Wikipedia:Contributor
copyright investigations. A CCI is opened, and the intent is to examine
every single edit by that editor. This aspect is extremely backlogged. I've
spent many hours working on CCI's, but it isn't easy, it isn't rewarding,
and it is discouraging because I think the backlog is increasing rather
than decreasing. (This isn't due to newly created copyright issues but
newly found ones.)

The third case is handled by Copy Patrol, a  foundation created tool that
examines all new edits in close to real time and generates a report, which
is handled by volunteers.

I want to emphasize this third aspect for multiple reasons. I think it is
one of the least known tools. Some of the prior emails on the subject leave
the impression that the authors are unaware of the existence of this tool.
On the one hand, it works very well, as almost all of the several hundred
reports each week are reviewed, most within 24 hours.

Good news:
* Copy Patrol is working, so my guess is that the growth in true copyright
issues is close to nonexistent.

Bad news:
* Copy Patrol is adequately staffed but just barely. One editor is
responsible for the handling of far more than half of all of these reports
(major kudos to Diannaa), but that much reliance on a single volunteer is
not good for the long-term health of the project.

* The copy patrol tool is pretty good, and was being improved for a while,
but I've identified some desirable improvements and my sense is that it's a
very back burner project in terms of additional enhancements.

* CCI clearance is going to take many years

Phil (Sphilbrick)
___
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] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

[Stephen Philbrick]

Three points:

When I first saw the document, I was exceedingly unhappy, but fortuitously,
I was unable to respond at the time due to RL travel. Fortuitous, because
my writeup would have been a pale version of Risker's excellent response,
so if anyone hasn't managed to read all the posts on this subject, please
make sure to read that one. In short, this is an exceedingly bad idea.

My small contribution is to make a positive point - I'm impressed at the
number of people who observed that the content very much mirrored their own
beliefs, yet they were adamant that this should not be a Wikimedia
Foundation document. It might well be an award-winning presentation for
some advocacy group, but it doesn't feel right for this Foundation. Some
has asked what aspects are disconsonant with the Wikimedia Mission, but
that's the wrong question. When one's prime directive is to "given free
access to the sum of all human knowledge", almost by definition, no subject
is "outside" our mission. It is a different question to determine which
subjects best summarize our core mission.

Third, while this discussion has been most illuminating, I share the
concerns of those who wonder where we go from here. I don't even know if we
are viewing a draft, and there is a potential for change, or if it has
already been finalized and we are merely evaluating the mistakes.

Sphilbrick
___
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] Foundation official response re Daily Mail issue

[Stephen Philbrick]

Does anyone have a link to the recent Foundation Statement about the Daily
Mail? We are receiving inquires at OTRS, and it would be nice if I see see
our official position.


Sphilbrick

On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 10:25 AM, 
wrote:

> Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Chapter De-Recognition: Wikimedia Hong Kong (Katie Chan)
>2. Thank you for your service, Wikimedia Hong Kong (Lodewijk)
>3. Re: Thank you for your service, Wikimedia Hong Kong (Vi to)
>4. Re: Chapter De-Recognition: Wikimedia Hong Kong (Chris Keating)
>5. Re: Thank you for your service, Wikimedia Hong Kong
>   (Manuel Schneider)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 14:54:48 +
> From: Katie Chan 
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Chapter De-Recognition: Wikimedia Hong Kong
> Message-ID: <98f26c1a-2937-6869-ddf1-37ab30fcf...@ktchan.info>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> This particular decision has arguably been a long time coming, but I am
> sad that it has indeed happened. My best wishes to all Wikimedians in
> Hong Kong with whatever their plans are for the future.
>
> KTC
>
> On 08/02/2017 02:19, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > Recognition as a Wikimedia movement affiliate — a chapter, thematic
> > organization, or user group — is a privilege that allows an independent
> > group to officially use the Wikimedia trademarks to further the Wikimedia
> > mission. While most affiliates adhere to the basic compliance standards
> set
> > forth in their agreements with the Wikimedia Foundation, a protocol has
> > been developed to address the exceptional cases when a Wikimedia movement
> > affiliate does not meet basic compliance standards and their continued
> > recognition as a Wikimedia movement affiliate presents a risk to the
> > Wikimedia movement.
> >
> > On September 9, 2016, Wikimedia Hong Kong was notified of their
> suspension
> > as a Wikimedia affiliate due to long standing non-compliance with
> reporting
> > requirements, and was provided with an explicit list of tasks and
> deadlines
> > in order to return to compliance with their chapter agreement. The
> chapter
> > failed to complete these tasks by the deadline of November 1, 2016, and
> was
> > consequently notified that they would no longer be recognized as a
> > Wikimedia chapter after the termination of their Chapter Agreement on
> > February 1, 2017.
> >
> > If you have questions about what this means for the community members in
> > Wikimedia Hong Kong’s geographic area or language scope, we have put
> > together a very basic FAQ, which may be found at
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_
> affiliate_de-recognition_FAQ
>
>
> --
> Katie Chan
> Any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the
> author and do not necessarily represent the view of any organisation the
> author is associated with or employed by.
>
>
> Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
>  - Heinrich Heine
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 16:13:31 +0100
> From: Lodewijk 
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List , Wong
> Rover 
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Thank you for your service, Wikimedia Hong Kong
> Message-ID:
>  gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> As the chapter status of Wikimedia Hong Kong has come to an end, I would
> like to thank the volunteers at Wikimedia Hong Kong for their incredible
> work over the past years. It is easy to start discussions about the
> validity of the decision, or to play a blame game - but lets at least agree
> some pretty cool stuff has been done over the past years.
>
> Most of us will remember the Wikimania conference that was organized in
> Hong Kong in 2013 - an amazing conference with an incredible amount of
> volunteers that were collected from all over society to help welcome these
> Wikipedians. Especially in their earliest years, I believe that Wikimedia
> HK was active in supporting other Asian chapters to collaborate better and
> grow.
>
> Thank you, Wikimedians from Hong Kong, for your service! You have helped
> the Wikimedia movement in Hong Kong a lot over the past years, and I hope
> that we will still hear a lot from you in t

[Wikimedia-l] Support for Yair Rand's post

[Stephen Philbrick]

I strongly support Yair Rand's post.


I am intensely interested in political issues, but try to discuss them in
political forums, not Wikipedia discussion threads.


While there will be some occasions (SOPA) where Wikipedia is directly
threatened by political footballs, and must be discussed, we should
endeavor to limit political activism to such issues, and not bring it into
every discussion where it might have a tangential aspect. Not all editors
share the same political persuasion, and allowing political discussions in
these threads (beyond that which is absolutely necessary) has the potential
of tearing apart the community interested in bring the sum of all knowledge
to the world.


Stephen Philbrick (Sphilbrick)
___
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] Kevin Gorman

[Stephen Philbrick]

So sorry to hear the news. I've had to good fortune to meet him at several
Wiki-events.

On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 8:00 AM, 
wrote:

> Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Kevin Gorman has passed away (Mardetanha)
>2. Re: Kevin Gorman has passed away (Shlomi Fish)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2016 13:47:30 +0430
> From: Mardetanha 
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Kevin Gorman has passed away
> Message-ID:
>  pm1mdrpt1evchollyrqjmgnlz...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> it is sad to know about this, May God bless his soul, Rest in peace Kevin
>
> Mardetanha
>
> On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 12:05 PM, bobby shabangu 
> wrote:
>
> > My condolences to his family.
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 6:32 AM, Tito Dutta  wrote:
> >
> > > Very sad news. :(
> > >
> > > On 30 July 2016 at 02:55, Ed Erhart  wrote:
> > >
> > > > I regret to inform everyone that Kevin Gorman, a Wikipedian who was
> the
> > > > first Wikipedian-in-residence at a US university or college, has
> passed
> > > > away. There is a memorial page on Facebook, and editors are leaving
> > > > condolences on his English Wikipedia talk page.
> > > >
> > > > https://www.facebook.com/bombus.memoriam/
> > > >
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kevin_Gorman
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > --Ed
> > > > ___
> > > > 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 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,
> > 
> >
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2016 12:34:51 +0300
> From: Shlomi Fish 
> To: Ed Erhart 
> Cc: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Kevin Gorman has passed away
> Message-ID: <20160730123451.05739...@telaviv1.shlomifish.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 16:25:49 -0500
> Ed Erhart  wrote:
>
> > I regret to inform everyone that Kevin Gorman, a Wikipedian who was the
> > first Wikipedian-in-residence at a US university or college, has passed
> > away. There is a memorial page on Facebook, and editors are leaving
> > condolences on his English Wikipedia talk page.
> >
> > https://www.facebook.com/bombus.memoriam/
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kevin_Gorman
> >
>
> Sorry to hear that! These are sad news.
>
> Regards,
>
> Shlomi Fish
>
> > Best,
> > --Ed
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
>
>
>
> --
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list,  guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
>
> --
>
> End of Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 148, Issue 61
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubs

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 148, Issue 29

[Stephen Philbrick]

Sorry but I had a very different reaction to that essay. While there are
some useful kernels of truth, they were overshadowed by dreck.

I get why nonprofits prefer unrestricted grants.

I get why donors prefer restricted grants.

In general, my sympathy is with the donors. There may be times, hopefully
many times that the donor is generally supportive of the work of the
nonprofit— then an unrestricted grant is the best way to go. There are
other times that a donor is seeking to accomplish some goal, casts about to
locate a nonprofit who might be able to achieve that goal, and undertakes
to provide a grant. In this case it would be absurd for the donor to
provide an unrestricted grant.

The essay started with an anecdote about onerous reporting requirements.
However, my response to that anecdote is different than the authors. The
grant wording just didn't pop up out of the blue, it almost certainly was
known to the nonprofit before the money exchanged hands. Did someone read
it to realize that there was a mismatch in line items? A relatively naïve
donor may have just asked some low-level employee to dream up some sort of
reporting requirements. In that case, prior to the acceptance it would've
been a good time for a discussion to point out the mismatch in line items.
It is very possible the donor just want some type of accounting and might
be flexible and willing to accept the nonprofits line item structure.
Another possibility is that the donor is experienced and the line items
makes sense, in which case some introspection about one's own line item
structure is warranted. The main point being that the discussion about the
reporting requirements should take place before the grant is accepted not
whined about after the grant is accepted.

Sphilbrick

On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 8:00 AM, 
wrote:

> Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: With my thanks to everyone ... (Jan-Bart de Vreede)
>2. Essay: "We need to stop treating nonprofits the way society
>   treats poor people" (Pine W)
>3. Re: Essay: "We need to stop treating nonprofits the way
>   society treats poor people" (Gerard Meijssen)
>4. 100k articles written with Content Translation tool
>   (Runa Bhattacharjee)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 14:09:20 +0200
> From: Jan-Bart de Vreede 
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] With my thanks to everyone ...
> Message-ID: 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Hi Geoff
>
> What can I say that others have not said earlier in this thread…
>
> Well… perhaps that you were a Rock(star) during my tenure as (vice-)chair
> of the Foundation Board of Trustees. Relying on you to give sound advice
> was one of the easiest decisions I ever made. You have shaped many of our
> governance aspects, and can take credit for a lot of our growth in
> professionalism and have given us great examples of how to have a
> department conduct community consultations. Your enthusiasm for the mission
> combined with your warm human side always made it a pleasure to work with
> you. There is a reason that there is a stereotype of the typical “Lawyer”,
> the reason is that you were able to clearly break through that ;) The world
> is a small place and I am sure that some of us will run into you sooner or
> later, if only because you simply get to enjoy Wikimania in Montreal as a
> volunteer?
>
> Many many many thanks for everything you have contributed to the
> Foundation over the past years.
>
> Jan-Bart
>
>
>
> > On 13 Jul 2016, at 23:25, Geoff Brigham  wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Over the past five years, I’ve been honored to serve as the General
> Counsel
> > and Secretary of the Wikimedia Foundation. This job has been amazing, and
> > I’m grateful to everyone who has made it so rewarding. It's now time for
> my
> > next step, so, in the coming days, I will be leaving the Foundation to
> > pursue a new career opportunity.
> >
> > I depart with such love for the mission, the Foundation, the Wikimedia
> > communities, and my colleagues at work. I thank my past and present
> bosses
> > as well as the Board for their support and guidance. I stand in awe of
> the
> > volunteer writers, editors, and photographers who contribute every day to
> > the Wikimedia projects. And I will hold special to my heart my past and
> > current teams, including legal and community advocac

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 148, Issue 20

[Stephen Philbrick]

Congratulations Geoff. I've had the good fortune to work with you, and know
that YouTube is getting a good one. Best of luck.

Sphilbrick

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 2:27 AM, 
wrote:

> Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: With my thanks to everyone ... (Steven Walling)
>2. Re: With my thanks to everyone ... (Patricio Lorente)
>3. Re: With my thanks to everyone ... (Florence Devouard)
>4. Re: With my thanks to everyone ... (Erik Moeller)
>5. Re: With my thanks to everyone ... (Michael Snow)
>6. Re: With my thanks to everyone ... (Ting Chen)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 22:47:21 +
> From: Steven Walling 
> To: reachout2is...@gmail.com,  Wikimedia Mailing List
> 
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] With my thanks to everyone ...
> Message-ID:
> <
> cabxvvqvsoz_rkm_1vqzr4rgx8p+tvqohmrytfz_uo93ftvm...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Congrats on the new role Geoff, and thank you so much for your leadership
> over the last half-decade. You have been a huge asset to the movement, and
> will be sorely missed.
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 3:29 PM Olatunde Isaac 
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for your impeccable service,  Geoff. Wishing you all the best in
> > your future endeavors.
> >
> > Isaac
> > Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile.
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Pine W 
> > Sender: "Wikimedia-l" Date:
> Wed,
> > 13 Jul 2016 14:32:29
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] With my thanks to everyone ...
> >
> > Thank you for your service, Geoff. I hope that we will still see you
> > around. Good luck with the new gig. :)
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Pine
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Geoff Brigham 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Over the past five years, I’ve been honored to serve as the General
> > Counsel
> > > and Secretary of the Wikimedia Foundation. This job has been amazing,
> and
> > > I’m grateful to everyone who has made it so rewarding. It's now time
> for
> > my
> > > next step, so, in the coming days, I will be leaving the Foundation to
> > > pursue a new career opportunity.
> > >
> > > I depart with such love for the mission, the Foundation, the Wikimedia
> > > communities, and my colleagues at work. I thank my past and present
> > bosses
> > > as well as the Board for their support and guidance. I stand in awe of
> > the
> > > volunteer writers, editors, and photographers who contribute every day
> to
> > > the Wikimedia projects. And I will hold special to my heart my past and
> > > current teams, including legal and community advocacy. :) You have
> > taught,
> > > given, and enriched me so much.
> > >
> > > After my departure, Michelle Paulson will serve as interim head of
> Legal,
> > > and, subject to Board approval, Stephen LaPorte will serve as interim
> > > Secretary to the Board. I can happily report that they have the
> > experience
> > > and expertise to ensure a smooth and professional transition.
> > >
> > > The future of the Foundation under Katherine's leadership is exciting.
> > > Having had the pleasure of working for her, I know Katherine will take
> > the
> > > Foundation to its next level in promoting and defending the outstanding
> > > mission and values of the Wikimedia movement. Although I'm delighted
> > about
> > > my next opportunity, I will miss this new chapter in the Foundation's
> > > story.
> > >
> > > My last day at the Foundation will be July 18th. After that, I will
> take
> > a
> > > month off to recharge my batteries, and then I start my new gig at
> > YouTube
> > > in the Bay Area. There, I will serve as Director of YouTube Trust &
> > Safety,
> > > managing global teams for policy, legal, and anti-abuse operations. As
> > with
> > > Wikimedia, I look forward to learning from those teams and tackling
> > > together a new set of exciting, novel challenges.
> > >
> > > For those who want to stay in touch, please do! My personal email is:
> > > geoffrey.r.brig...@gmail.com.
> > >
> > > With respect, admiration, and gratitude,
> > >
> > > Geoff
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 147, Issue 43

[Stephen Philbrick]

I would urge caution at reading too much into the A.T.Kearney study. It is
quite plausible that companies in trouble may decide they need a
turn-around specialist, almost certainly an outsider. While some will
succeed, companies in trouble are almost certainly going to underperform
those that were not in trouble. Thus, hiring a homegrown CEO may be a
result of good management, not a cause.
Sphilbrick

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 8:00 AM, 
wrote:

> Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Community survey to support the WMF ED search starts
>   right now (Peter Southwood)
>2. somja (Gerard Meijssen)
>3. Re: Invitation to “Engaging local Wikipedians” and
>   “German Wikipedia” Workshop at Wikimania (Tanweer Morshed)
>4. Recognition of Kentucky Wikimedians (Carlos M. Colina)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 17:56:30 +0200
> From: "Peter Southwood" 
> To: "'Wikimedia Mailing List'" 
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community survey to support the WMF ED
> search  starts right now
> Message-ID: <01f701d1ca43$27ab1c80$77015580$@telkomsa.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain;   charset="UTF-8"
>
> The Kearney report rings true for me.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of rupert THURNER
> Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2016 11:47 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community survey to support the WMF ED search
> starts right now
>
> hi,
>
> 2011 A T Kearney published a study saying that hiring a homegrown CEO let
> a company outperform other companies. also price waterhouse coopers
> Strategy& and RHR international come to similar conclusions:
> *
>
> https://www.atkearney.com/documents/10192/529727/Home-Grown_CEO.pdf/bbba713e-1a54-421f-81f9-4299faad42aa
> * http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news-archive/17975.html
> *
>
> http://www.rhrinternational.com/sites/default/files/V25N1-CEO-Succession-Makin_1.pdf
> * (de)
>
> http://www.finews.ch/themen/karriere/23186-korn-ferry-stefan-steger-ceo-nachfolge-wechsel-pwc-strategy?xing_share=news
> hiring an outsider CEO has the following effects:
> * higher compensation
> * greater risk profile
> * wrong expectations about business area and its specifics
>
> best
> rupert
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Fæ  wrote:
>
> > Thank you! Hopefully there will be a good range of viewpoints!
> >
> > I look forward to reading a summary of the feedback!
> >
> > Fae
> >
> > On 16 June 2016 at 11:25, Alice Wiegand  wrote:
> > > Update: The survey is still open!
> > > In order to hear from more people, the search team decided to hold
> > > the ED search survey [1] open until Friday, June 17. If you haven’t
> > > already, please take a few minutes to fill it out before then.
> > >
> > > Thank you for your participation!
> > >
> > > [1] - ED Search Survey:
> > > https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_5hVS2mJTcJNCxBX
> > >
> > > Alice.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 12:58 AM, Nikola Kalchev <
> > nikola.kalc...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> As a patroller on my homewiki I can say that 15 of the 50 most
> > >> active editors according to stats.wikimedia.org would be capable of
> > >> answering
> > the
> > >> questions in one of the ten languages. Those are the people who
> > translate
> > >> articles from the ten languages of the survey (13 from English, 2
> > >> from Russian). Ask a few more patrollers from other communities,
> > >> multiply by
> > the
> > >> number of very active editors on those wikis and divide by the
> > >> number of asked patrollers :). It is not impossible to get a rough
> estimate.
> > >>
> > >> Best regards,
> > >> User:Lord Bumbury / Nikola Kalchev
> > >> Wikimedians of Bulgaria, a Wikimedia CEE Spring international
> > >> organiser
> > >>
> > >> On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 11:45 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak
> > >> 
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Nikola Kalchev <
> > nikola.kalc...@gmail.com
> > >> >
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> Dariusz, thank you for your clarification. I understand that
> > >> translations
> > >> >> take time.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Would you please elaborate on the assumption that the most
> > >> >> important principle of the ED search committee was speed and not,
> e.g.
> > >> participation
> > >> >> of a larger part of the community? Wha

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 146, Issue 90

[Stephen Philbrick]

I've been surprised at the number of editors who watchlist my talk page,
but the experiences invariably been positive. In some cases my talk page
has been vandalized, and I don't think I've ever been the first to see the
vandalism, I invariably see that the TPS has reverted it. More importantly,
on several occasions I've been involved in a discussion with an editor and
a TPS has volunteered very helpful advice.

I have no idea whether it's technically possible to stop such behavior but
I don't particularly care as I am adamantly opposed to stopping it.

I get that some people might see the term "stalker" as negative, given that
it is almost always a term self invoked, it doesn't make my list of the top
1000 things to worry about.

Sphilbrick

On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 8:00 AM, 
wrote:

> Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Community Tech survey on watchlist use (Lodewijk)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 10:06:26 +0200
> From: Lodewijk 
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community Tech survey on watchlist use
> Message-ID:
> <
> cacf6bevoffq8pzguiahyv7hg3dk52wgmgsa5v_l1+r4ax9k...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Yeah, I don't guess this is a matter of whether it is technically possible,
> but rather if the community would like to allow such functionality (what
> would then stop a troll to selectively disable all admins to watch his/her
> talkpage?)
>
> Lodewijk
>
> 2016-05-27 6:31 GMT+02:00 James Heilman :
>
> > Talk pages are for communication. If people were unable to watch these
> > pages they would become less useful.
> >
> > J
> >
> > On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Newyorkbrad 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > "Talkpage watcher" would do fine.
> > >
> > > Newyorkbrad/IBM
> > >
> > > On 5/26/16, David Goodman  wrote:
> > > > talk-page stalker is not necessarily an unfriendly term. It's meant
> as
> > an
> > > > explanation for why the person saw the question, and posted there.
> But
> > > > perhaps we could find a better term for this, as stalker does have
> > > > unfortunate connotations.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Trillium Corsage <
> > > trillium2...@yandex.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> My English Wikipedia talkpage is watchlisted by a surprising number
> of
> > > >> users that I have no cooperative or friendly editing relationship
> > with.
> > > >> Some of them refer to themselves as "talkpage stalkers." Might it be
> > > >> possible for a user to prohibit such persons from watchlisting him
> or
> > > her?
> > > >> If it's not possible to selectively prohibit, how about an on/off
> > > switch,
> > > >> i.e. *no-one* may watchlist an editor's individual talkpage.
> > > >>
> > > >> Trillium Corsage
> > > >>
> > > >> 21.05.2016, 02:20, "Johan Jönsson" :
> > > >> > On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 1:06 AM, Danny Horn 
> > > wrote:
> > > >> >>  Hi everyone,
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>  WMF's Community Tech team is starting to work on a Cross-wiki
> > > >> watchlist,
> > > >> >>  one of the top 10 wishes in the Community Wishlist Survey that
> we
> > > >> conducted
> > > >> >>  at the end of last year. [1]
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>  We're running a survey on how people use their watchlists, to
> help
> > > >> inform
> > > >> >>  our work.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Hi everyone,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > A couple of months ago, the Community Tech team ran a survey to
> > gather
> > > >> > information on how Wikimedians use their watchlists. You can see
> the
> > > >> > results here:
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Tech/Cross-wiki_watchlist#Survey_results
> > > >> >
> > > >> > If you're interested, there are also some very early and rough
> > > >> > wireframes available on the project page:
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Tech/Cross-wiki_watchlist#Current_work.2C_for_discussion
> > > >> >
> > > >> > //Johan Jönsson
> > > >> > --
> > > >> >
> > > >> > ___
> > > >> > 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
> > > ,
> > > >>  ?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 146, Issue 9

[Stephen Philbrick]

I have some comments on Denny’s summary of events but I would like to
preface my comments by noting that I have Board experience. I served
several years on the Board of an organization of professions, two years on
a governmental board, and (currently) on the board of a non-profit
organization. I am also an active Wikipedian, who understands, but doesn’t
fully buy the message in the guideline “Be Bold” (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold). To oversimplify, one of
the arguments in favor of Be Bold is that errors are (usually) easily
rectified. While generally true in the Wikipedia world, it is not always
true in other worlds, so one ought to take care in other venues, such as
board actions.


I suspect I share an attribute with many board members – when I learn about
a problem, I want to fix it. This typically involves (or should involve)
gathering information so as to make an informed decision or recommendation.

If I were a Board member and multiple employees reached out to say that
there are concerns requiring action, my first instinct would be to attempt
to gather more information. However, my second instinct, which I hope would
take over before the first is acted upon, is to remember that this isn’t
Wikipedia where a bungled attempt at a fix can be reverted easily. One is a
member of a Board, and one has responsibilities very different than a
Wikipedia editor. We may think that Wikipedia has too much bureaucracy, but
sometimes there are good reasons for processes, and one thing one should
not do is start interactions with employees without the knowledge of other
board members, one should not be promising confidentially if one
simultaneously has a responsibility to share some information with fellow
board members.


In other words, an honest and undoubtedly heartfelt intention to address
and solve a problem as quickly as possible turned into a sticky wicket.
Some board members managed to get themselves into a situation where they
now had information they were both obligated to share, and had promised not
to share. Once down that road, there was no “revert” button.


Retrospect, as if often said, is so clear, but in retrospect, the early
indications that there were some concerns by employees should have been
handled differently.


Phil (Sphilbrick)

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 1:43 PM, 
wrote:

> Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Account of the events leading to James Heilman's  removal
>   (Denny Vrandečić)
>2. Re: What New Thing is WMF Doing w. Cookies, & Why is Legal
>   Involved? (Gergo Tisza)
>3. Re: Account of the events leading to James Heilman's  removal
>   (Michel Vuijlsteke)
>4. Re: Account of the events leading to James Heilman's  removal
>   (Adam Wight)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 17:10:21 +
> From: Denny Vrandečić 
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James
> Heilman's   removal
> Message-ID:
> <
> cajvtbfddkwgvrvnzoqm9eh-hoxr1xybekcpuk_9_eqozazy...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> In the following I want to present a personal account of events leading to
> James’ removal as a Board member, as I remember them. It was written while
> I was still on the Board, and the Board agreed on having it sent. The text
> was heavily discussed and edited amongst members of the Board, but in the
> end it remains my personal account. I realize that it potentially includes
> post-factum sensemaking, affecting my recollection of events.
>
> October 1 and 2 2015, Dariusz, James, Patricio and I received phone calls
> from a small number of Wikimedia Foundation staff expressing concerns about
> the Foundation. They asked explicitly for confidentiality. I wanted to
> approach the whole Board immediately, but due to considerations for
> confidentiality, the sensitive nature of the topic, and the lack of an HR
> head at the time, the others decided against at this moment. Effectively,
> this created a conspiracy within the Board from then on for the following
> weeks.
>
> With Patricio’s approval, Dariusz and James started to personally collect
> and ask for reports from staff. Unfortunately, this investigation was not
> formally approved by the whole Board. It was also conducted in a manner
> that would not secure a professional and impartial pro

[Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia is basically just another giant bureaucracy

[Stephen Philbrick]

I just scanned an article: "Wikipedia is basically just another giant
bureaucracy",
http://www.sciencealert.com/wikipedia-is-basically-just-another-old-fashioned-bureaucracy-study-finds

and it is astonishing how bad it is.

I don't really quibble with the headline - it is a bureaucracy, but some of
the content of the article is head-scratching.

For example, how many editors do you know who have achieved the rank of
super-contributor?

Can one take an article seriously that blunders this badly?

Phil
___
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] WikiProject Accuracy

[Stephen Philbrick]

Improved accuracy is like motherhood and apple pie — I trust no one will be
opposed to the goal.

However the initial proposal to achieve that goal needs a fair amount of
work.



*Clarify scope* – the page WikiProject_Accuracy is in the English
Wikipedia, so implicitly, the initial scope is the English Wikipedia. I
note that page has a scope section with no content as yet. However, I think
taking on the entire English Wikipedia is biting off too much initially.
Projects such as this work best if started as a pilot project. While
someone may envision this eventually applying to all languages and treat
English as the pilot, there is no way in which a project who scope is over
5 million articles can meaningfully be described as a pilot. Consider a
much more limited scope pilot. For example all articles within the purview
of wiki project medicine might be a good start, primarily because of the
importance of that subject matter and partly because of the strong
initiatives of editors in that area.


*Clarify ownership* – the seal of approval appears to be granted by a group
called the Project Accuracy's Editorial Review Board (PAERB). Are these WMF
employees? Editors who meet some criteria? Who establishes the criteria?


*Clarify mechanics* – unless there is a fundamental change to the way
Wikipedia works, it will be meaningless to slap a seal of approval on any
particular article, as that article could change literally seconds later. I
see two possible options although there may be more. The first and most
likely option is that the seal of approval appears on the article itself
but is actually a permanent link to a reviewed version. This concept has
been discussed by wiki project medicine I believe. A second option is to
add the seal to the article but then invoke pending changes protection. It
would probably have to be a new level of protection allowing only qualified
editors, either members of the PAERB, or vetted by the PAERB to make
changes. The second option will require a whole new level of bureaucracy.


*Eventual scope* – the current Wikiproject Accuracy page suggests that RAAFA
is a level beyond GA & FA. I don’t think anyone reasonably expects that all
articles in the English Wikipedia will eventually become FA, so that
implies that it is unreasonable to assume that all, or even any
meaningfully significant proportion of all articles reach the level of
RAAFA. Is it intended to limit this to some subset such as vital articles?



Sphilbrick
___
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Stephen Philbrick]

I would also like to more about the decision to remove James — I am not yet
able to reconcile the public statements I’ve seen from James and Jimmy.
However, I am less concerned about the apparent disconnect between the
board statement of unanimous support and James claim that there was not
unanimous support.

I don’t think this is hard to understand. While I do not know the exact
sequence, it has been stated that a straw poll was taken in which some
board members express support for Lila and some did not. A straw poll is a
straw poll for a reason — it is often used to determine whether a subject
needs to be explored further. It is almost always the case that straw votes
are intended to be internal and not publicized. I’m not suggesting it is
improper to mention the results of a straw poll but it would be incorrect
to characterize it as a formal board conclusion. After the straw poll,
further discussion ensued and presumably some issues were identified and
some actions identified, none of which rose to the level that required
explicit mention in the minutes. Those board members who had expressed
concern about Lila presumably were satisfied that there concerns had been
heard, and were fine with the decision that she should continue. Thus, it
is not incorrect to say that there was unanimous support that Lila should
continue as ED.



I don’t think there’s much doubt that the expression of unanimous support
mask the fact that some board members had some reservations, but this type
of thing occurs at most board meetings. While there are issues that need
clarification I don’t think this is one of them.


Phil (Sphilbrick)
___
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,