Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

[C. Scott Ananian]

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:30 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> As a reminder: IRC is governed by Freenode. Channels can have their own
> rules, and there are widely varying systems of internal governance for
> Wikimedia IRC channels. I think it's important to note that WMF and the
> Wikimedia community are guests on Freenode, and I'm uncomfortable with the
> proposition to extend a WMF policy into IRC channels without explicit
> consent from the ops of those channels; it seems to me that the TCC would
> be a per-channel opt-in on IRC, not a WMF blanket standard.
>
> Speaking more generally, I am wary of WMF encroachment into what I should
> be fundamentally community-governed spaces. I have not heard a lot of
> objections from the community to the proposed technical code of conduct,
> and I've heard some arguments for and against the rationale for having it;
> my main concern is that I would prefer that the final document be ratified
> through community-led processes.
>

I agree that changes here should involve heavy community participation,
which is a reason I'm trying to initiate broader discussion.

We have been moderately successful in "outsourcing" real time chat to a
third-party (IRC and Freenode) in the past, but it does leave us out of
control of what may become a fundamental technology for our platform.
Certainly we could simply embed a web-based IRC client in talk pages, for
instance.  That would continue the status quo. It's certainly one point in
the possible solution space, and I'm not foreclosing that.  I just think we
should discuss discussions holistically.  What are the benefits of
disclaiming responsibility for real time chat?  What are the benefits of
the freenode conduct policy?  What are the disadvantages?

We could also "more tightly integrate chat" without leaving IRC or
Freenode.  For the [[en:MIT Mystery Hunt]] many teams build quite elaborate
IRC bots that layer additional functionalities on top of IRC.  Matt's email
mentioned a "central reporting place".  We could certainly allow IRC
channels to opt-in to a WMF code of conduct and opt-in to running a WMF bot
providing a standardized and consistent reporting mechanism/block
list/abuse logger.  That's another point in the solution space.

My personal dog in the race is "tools".  I totally love community-led
processes.  But I am concerned that WMF is not providing the communities
adequate *tools* to make meaningful improvements in their social
environments.  Twitter rolled out a new suite of anti-abuse features this
week (https://9to5mac.com/2016/11/15/twitter-online-abuse-mute-features/)
so sadly the WMF platform is now behind twitter in terms of providing a
healthy working environment for our contributors.  We need to step up our
game.  As you note, the first step is this discussion involving the
community to take a broad look at discussions on our platform and determine
some basic social principles as well as architectural planks and
commonalities.  Hopefully we can then follow that up with an aggressive
development effort to deploy some new tools and features.  I believe this
will be an iterative process: our first tools will fall short, and we'll
need to continue "discussing discussions", revisiting assumptions, and
building improved tools.

But we can't allow ourselves to stand still.
 --scott

-- 
(http://cscott.net)
___
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] (no subject)

[Pine W]

As a reminder: IRC is governed by Freenode. Channels can have their own
rules, and there are widely varying systems of internal governance for
Wikimedia IRC channels. I think it's important to note that WMF and the
Wikimedia community are guests on Freenode, and I'm uncomfortable with the
proposition to extend a WMF policy into IRC channels without explicit
consent from the ops of those channels; it seems to me that the TCC would
be a per-channel opt-in on IRC, not a WMF blanket standard.

Speaking more generally, I am wary of WMF encroachment into what I should
be fundamentally community-governed spaces. I have not heard a lot of
objections from the community to the proposed technical code of conduct,
and I've heard some arguments for and against the rationale for having it;
my main concern is that I would prefer that the final document be ratified
through community-led processes.

Thanks,

Pine


On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 5:34 PM, Matthew Flaschen 
wrote:

> On 11/17/2016 04:57 PM, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
>
>> I would love to have a broader discussion about communication in the
>> projects more generally.  As you know, we currently have a few mechanisms
>> (and please correct any mischaracterizations in the below):
>>
>
> As people may know, we are working on a Code of conduct for technical
> spaces.
>
> It will cover on-wiki communication in the technical spaces (including
> talk pages), technical mailing lists, technical IRC channels, and
> Phabricator (including Conpherence).
>
> There are some existing guidelines in place.  It's a very fragmented
> picture (most guidelines only apply to one form of communication (e.g.
> IRC), and sometimes only a single IRC channel), which is part of what the
> tech CoC will improve.  I also don't necessarily endorse these older
> guidelines.
>
>   * Conversation in the Talk: namespace (either in raw wikitext or Flow)
>>  - This is archived, and presumably subject to same code of conduct
>> guidelines as parent wiki.  It is public. Anonymous/IP editors are
>> allowed.
>>
>
> Worth remembering that many important projects don't *have* a code of
> conduct or equivalent, and on those that do, it's often not enforced.
>
>   * Echo
>>  - Unarchived transient notifications, very restricted by design.
>> Could
>> be made more general (but see below).
>>
>
> Right, this not a user-user communication system (though it will notify
> you *of* user-user communications, sometimes with snippets included).
>
>   * Phabricator
>>  - Archived task-oriented discussions, leaving to a desired outcome.
>> Anonymous participation disallowed.  Search possible in theory; in
>> practice
>> the implementation is quite limited.  Some (security-sensitive)
>> conversations can be private, but (AFAIK) an ordinary user does not have a
>> means to create a private conversation.  I'm not aware of an explicit code
>> of conduct.
>>
>
> Conpherence allows either public or private conversations.
>
> There are currently guidelines (https://www.mediawiki.org/wik
> i/Bug_management/Phabricator_etiquette). The Code of Conduct for
> technical spaces will cover Phabricator as well.
>
> We have no comprehensive code of conduct/mechanisms to combat harassment,
>> vandalism, and abuse.  Harassment or vandalism which is stopped in one
>> communication mechanism can be transferred to another with impunity.  IRC
>> in particular is seen as a space where (a) private discussions can happen
>> (good), but (b) there are no cops or consequences.
>>
>
> Yeah, I agree this is an issue, and is why the technical code of conduct
> will have one central reporting place (so you always know where to report,
> and they can consider multi-space harassment).
>
> This is important stuff.  Thank you for talking and thinking about it.
>
> Matt Flaschen
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> i/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] (no subject)

[Matthew Flaschen]

On 11/17/2016 04:57 PM, C. Scott Ananian wrote:

I would love to have a broader discussion about communication in the
projects more generally.  As you know, we currently have a few mechanisms
(and please correct any mischaracterizations in the below):


As people may know, we are working on a Code of conduct for technical 
spaces.


It will cover on-wiki communication in the technical spaces (including 
talk pages), technical mailing lists, technical IRC channels, and 
Phabricator (including Conpherence).


There are some existing guidelines in place.  It's a very fragmented 
picture (most guidelines only apply to one form of communication (e.g. 
IRC), and sometimes only a single IRC channel), which is part of what 
the tech CoC will improve.  I also don't necessarily endorse these older 
guidelines.



  * Conversation in the Talk: namespace (either in raw wikitext or Flow)
 - This is archived, and presumably subject to same code of conduct
guidelines as parent wiki.  It is public. Anonymous/IP editors are allowed.


Worth remembering that many important projects don't *have* a code of 
conduct or equivalent, and on those that do, it's often not enforced.



  * Echo
 - Unarchived transient notifications, very restricted by design.  Could
be made more general (but see below).


Right, this not a user-user communication system (though it will notify 
you *of* user-user communications, sometimes with snippets included).



  * Phabricator
 - Archived task-oriented discussions, leaving to a desired outcome.
Anonymous participation disallowed.  Search possible in theory; in practice
the implementation is quite limited.  Some (security-sensitive)
conversations can be private, but (AFAIK) an ordinary user does not have a
means to create a private conversation.  I'm not aware of an explicit code
of conduct.


Conpherence allows either public or private conversations.

There are currently guidelines 
(https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Bug_management/Phabricator_etiquette). 
The Code of Conduct for technical spaces will cover Phabricator as well.



We have no comprehensive code of conduct/mechanisms to combat harassment,
vandalism, and abuse.  Harassment or vandalism which is stopped in one
communication mechanism can be transferred to another with impunity.  IRC
in particular is seen as a space where (a) private discussions can happen
(good), but (b) there are no cops or consequences.


Yeah, I agree this is an issue, and is why the technical code of conduct 
will have one central reporting place (so you always know where to 
report, and they can consider multi-space harassment).


This is important stuff.  Thank you for talking and thinking about it.

Matt Flaschen

___
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] (no subject)

[C. Scott Ananian]

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 5:32 PM, Andrew Lih  wrote:

> Love it or hate it, Facebook as a way of linking together Wikimedians
> across languages is a big plus (eg. projects like #100wikidays).
>

Ooh, man, you're pushing my hot button topics!  I proposed
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T149666 for the dev summit; my "big
picture" vision here is that we start using our machine translation tools
to tie our projects more tightly together, so we feel more like "one
project aided by a bunch of babel fish" and less like "a thousand separate
projects, each in their own tower".

So, bringing it back to chat -- and perhaps Shadow Namespaces (
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T149666) -- one goal might be to build
discussions into our platform in a way which can be cross-platform, with
integrated machine translation aids to allow near-seamless multilingual
conversations, thereby bridging barriers between our communities.  Of
course the vandalism and anti-harassment and user filter tools would need
to be multilingual in the same way...
  --scott

-- 
(http://cscott.net)
___
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] (no subject)

[Andrew Lih]

Also, don’t forget that Facebook groups are used quite a bit, especially
for language communities that have emerged in the last several years.

Love it or hate it, Facebook as a way of linking together Wikimedians
across languages is a big plus (eg. projects like #100wikidays).

-Andrew


On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 4:57 PM, C. Scott Ananian 
wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 3:36 AM, John Mark Vandenberg 
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 11:37 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
> > wrote:
> > > Until we have better tech available, I want to assure you that I want
> to
> > be
> > > available, and apart from Meta, I gladly offer IRC or video
> > conversations,
> > > or other media, to whoever feels it may be useful (let's track this
> > > committment of mine in the old-fashioned way for now).
> >
> > Rather than IRC or video, which both have significant problems for
> > this type of open engagement, perhaps WMF could install a modern group
> > chat system, like Zulip, or another Slack-like tool.
> >
> > The enthusiasm for Discourse hasnt resulted in any significant adoption.
> > I venture to suggest that this is because it isnt mobile friendly, and
> > doesnt integrate with MediaWiki authentication.
> > Their app is little more than a web-browser (and the WMF labs instance
> > doesnt support the necessary API anyway.)
> > https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T124691
> > https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T150733
> >
> > I've created a task about this problem for GCI and Outreachy which are
> > about to start:
> >
> > https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T150732
> >
> > I see Slack is being used by Portuguese Wikipedia
> >
> > https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Slack
> >
> > It would be good to hear their opinion on this tool?
> >
>
> I would love to have a broader discussion about communication in the
> projects more generally.  As you know, we currently have a few mechanisms
> (and please correct any mischaracterizations in the below):
>
>  * Conversation in the Talk: namespace (either in raw wikitext or Flow)
> - This is archived, and presumably subject to same code of conduct
> guidelines as parent wiki.  It is public. Anonymous/IP editors are allowed.
>
>  * Echo
> - Unarchived transient notifications, very restricted by design.  Could
> be made more general (but see below).
>
>  * Conversation on mailing lists
> - Also archived, often moderated.  Public, although you can always send
> an unarchived private reply email to a particular sender.  Anonymity is
> harder here, although possible with some effort.  Code of conduct is
> "whatever the moderator will allow, if there is a moderator."
>
>  * Conversation on IRC
> - Deliberately not archived.  Intended for casual conversation and
> informal negotiation.  Public, although not searchable after the fact
> (unless you keep a private log).  Anonymity is fairly easy -- in fact, it
> can be quite difficult to associate IRC nicks with on-wiki identities even
> if all parties are willing.  No code of conduct, although there are ops who
> can boot you (sometimes).
>
>  * Phabricator
> - Archived task-oriented discussions, leaving to a desired outcome.
> Anonymous participation disallowed.  Search possible in theory; in practice
> the implementation is quite limited.  Some (security-sensitive)
> conversations can be private, but (AFAIK) an ordinary user does not have a
> means to create a private conversation.  I'm not aware of an explicit code
> of conduct.
>
>  * OTRS
> - Similar to Phabricator, except that by default all conversations are
> private to OTRS staff and the submitter.  I'm not aware of an explicit code
> of conduct, although this is mitigated by the fact that the conversations
> are not public which limits the possibility of abuse.
>
>  *  Slack on ptwiki, apparently?
>
>  *  Conpherence as part of Phabricator.  (I don't have enough experience
> with the last two to categorize them.)
>
> We are missing currently missing:
>
>   * Conversations anchored to specific editing tasks, like "comments" in
> google docs.
>
>   * Integrated conversation associated with an editing session (like the
> integrated chat in google docs)
>
>   * Integrated real-time chat -- like IRC, but anchored to on-wiki
> identities, so I can send a "you still around and editing?" message before
> reverting or building on a recent change.
>
>   * Workflow-oriented chat.  Like the task-oriented chat in Phabricator,
> but integrated with on-wiki activities such as patrolling or admin tasks.
>
>   * Probably other forms of conversation!
>
> WHAT'S EVEN MORE IMPORTANT, THOUGH:
>
> We have no comprehensive code of conduct/mechanisms to combat harassment,
> vandalism, and abuse.  Harassment or vandalism which is stopped in one
> communication mechanism can be transferred to another with impunity.  IRC
> in particular is seen as a space where (a) private discussions can happen
> (good), but (b) there are no cops or consequences.
>
> This is not really just a questi

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

[C. Scott Ananian]

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 3:36 AM, John Mark Vandenberg 
wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 11:37 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
> wrote:
> > Until we have better tech available, I want to assure you that I want to
> be
> > available, and apart from Meta, I gladly offer IRC or video
> conversations,
> > or other media, to whoever feels it may be useful (let's track this
> > committment of mine in the old-fashioned way for now).
>
> Rather than IRC or video, which both have significant problems for
> this type of open engagement, perhaps WMF could install a modern group
> chat system, like Zulip, or another Slack-like tool.
>
> The enthusiasm for Discourse hasnt resulted in any significant adoption.
> I venture to suggest that this is because it isnt mobile friendly, and
> doesnt integrate with MediaWiki authentication.
> Their app is little more than a web-browser (and the WMF labs instance
> doesnt support the necessary API anyway.)
> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T124691
> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T150733
>
> I've created a task about this problem for GCI and Outreachy which are
> about to start:
>
> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T150732
>
> I see Slack is being used by Portuguese Wikipedia
>
> https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Slack
>
> It would be good to hear their opinion on this tool?
>

I would love to have a broader discussion about communication in the
projects more generally.  As you know, we currently have a few mechanisms
(and please correct any mischaracterizations in the below):

 * Conversation in the Talk: namespace (either in raw wikitext or Flow)
- This is archived, and presumably subject to same code of conduct
guidelines as parent wiki.  It is public. Anonymous/IP editors are allowed.

 * Echo
- Unarchived transient notifications, very restricted by design.  Could
be made more general (but see below).

 * Conversation on mailing lists
- Also archived, often moderated.  Public, although you can always send
an unarchived private reply email to a particular sender.  Anonymity is
harder here, although possible with some effort.  Code of conduct is
"whatever the moderator will allow, if there is a moderator."

 * Conversation on IRC
- Deliberately not archived.  Intended for casual conversation and
informal negotiation.  Public, although not searchable after the fact
(unless you keep a private log).  Anonymity is fairly easy -- in fact, it
can be quite difficult to associate IRC nicks with on-wiki identities even
if all parties are willing.  No code of conduct, although there are ops who
can boot you (sometimes).

 * Phabricator
- Archived task-oriented discussions, leaving to a desired outcome.
Anonymous participation disallowed.  Search possible in theory; in practice
the implementation is quite limited.  Some (security-sensitive)
conversations can be private, but (AFAIK) an ordinary user does not have a
means to create a private conversation.  I'm not aware of an explicit code
of conduct.

 * OTRS
- Similar to Phabricator, except that by default all conversations are
private to OTRS staff and the submitter.  I'm not aware of an explicit code
of conduct, although this is mitigated by the fact that the conversations
are not public which limits the possibility of abuse.

 *  Slack on ptwiki, apparently?

 *  Conpherence as part of Phabricator.  (I don't have enough experience
with the last two to categorize them.)

We are missing currently missing:

  * Conversations anchored to specific editing tasks, like "comments" in
google docs.

  * Integrated conversation associated with an editing session (like the
integrated chat in google docs)

  * Integrated real-time chat -- like IRC, but anchored to on-wiki
identities, so I can send a "you still around and editing?" message before
reverting or building on a recent change.

  * Workflow-oriented chat.  Like the task-oriented chat in Phabricator,
but integrated with on-wiki activities such as patrolling or admin tasks.

  * Probably other forms of conversation!

WHAT'S EVEN MORE IMPORTANT, THOUGH:

We have no comprehensive code of conduct/mechanisms to combat harassment,
vandalism, and abuse.  Harassment or vandalism which is stopped in one
communication mechanism can be transferred to another with impunity.  IRC
in particular is seen as a space where (a) private discussions can happen
(good), but (b) there are no cops or consequences.

This is not really just a question of installing .
This is a challenge to the community to do the hard work of figuring out
our social contracts and what sort of conversations we want to support and
enable, which sorts of abuse we want to control, and what sorts of filters
to give users.

We can easily go too far -- I recommend reading
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/05/opinion/what-were-missing-while-we-obsess-over-john-podestas-email.html
for context.  A global panopticon [1] where no one can hold private
conversation is equally harmful to our project.  We need to find t

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

hi Rogol,



On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 4:38 PM, Rogol Domedonfors 
wrote:

> I quite understand that some members of the Board feel that there are more
> important calls on their collective time and resources than engaging
> directly with individual members of the community, even though some do feel
> that they may be able to as individuals.  I note that you feel that it is
> possible that returning to this issue next year the Board may be able to
> make some improvements (and, we presume, may not).  So you propose to park
> the issue and maybe do something in the future, but without any sort of
> urgency or commitment.
>

I think there may be a bit of good will misunderstanding. I strongly
believe that the Board members should engage directly with individual
members of the community. I have only acknowledged the fact that our
current technologies are highly imperfect for that.



> I think this is completely mistaken.  The community has far more resources,
> far better ideas, and far more experience than the Board on its own can
> possibly hope to have – if only the Board were willing and able to tap into
> it.  Constructive engagement would not only pay for itself purely in terms
> of avoiding the conflicts which have drained everyone's time and energy in
> the past, but also enable the Board to take a more far-sighted and positive
> attitude to the future direction of the mission.
>

This is absolutely a very good point. I definitely believe that the
community has the skills, experience, and ability to help (or heavy-lift on
its own) a number of tech solutions. However, if better communication tools
are not developed from within the community, we still should make them,
that's the point.



>
> The Board's failure to engage effectively with the community until now, and
> lack of interest in doing so in the future, is putting the mission at
> risk.  What a shame.
>

Again, I have not expressed such a lack of interest, and I don't think
other members did.

best,

dariusz
___
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] (no subject)

[K. Peachey]

On 15 November 2016 at 18:36, John Mark Vandenberg  wrote:
> Rather than IRC or video, which both have significant problems for
> this type of open engagement, perhaps WMF could install a modern group
> chat system, like Zulip, or another Slack-like tool.
> ...snip...

There is conphrenece as part of our phabricator install, One example
is the team that triages and handles site requests which can be seen
here 

___
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] (no subject)

[John Mark Vandenberg]

On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 11:37 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak  wrote:
> Until we have better tech available, I want to assure you that I want to be
> available, and apart from Meta, I gladly offer IRC or video conversations,
> or other media, to whoever feels it may be useful (let's track this
> committment of mine in the old-fashioned way for now).

Rather than IRC or video, which both have significant problems for
this type of open engagement, perhaps WMF could install a modern group
chat system, like Zulip, or another Slack-like tool.

The enthusiasm for Discourse hasnt resulted in any significant adoption.
I venture to suggest that this is because it isnt mobile friendly, and
doesnt integrate with MediaWiki authentication.
Their app is little more than a web-browser (and the WMF labs instance
doesnt support the necessary API anyway.)
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T124691
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T150733

I've created a task about this problem for GCI and Outreachy which are
about to start:

https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T150732

I see Slack is being used by Portuguese Wikipedia

https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Slack

It would be good to hear their opinion on this tool?

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 4:58 AM, Pine W  wrote:
> Hi Dariuz, I like how you're thinking. Perhaps the Board could make public
> use of Phabricator to triage and track issues.

+1

-- 
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Dear Dariusz

I quite understand that some members of the Board feel that there are more
important calls on their collective time and resources than engaging
directly with individual members of the community, even though some do feel
that they may be able to as individuals.  I note that you feel that it is
possible that returning to this issue next year the Board may be able to
make some improvements (and, we presume, may not).  So you propose to park
the issue and maybe do something in the future, but without any sort of
urgency or commitment.

This attitude makes perfect sense if you see engagement with individuals as
a drain on your resources, a communications overhead which can only
distract and detract from the other more important things that you need to
be doing, whatever those may be.  It makes sense if the Board regards
itself as lacking in all other resources, human and financial, to invest in
making an engagement productive.  It makes sense if the Board regards the
community as a lumpenproletariat of contributors fit only for routine work
but devoid of all strategic capacity, understanding and insight.

I think this is completely mistaken.  The community has far more resources,
far better ideas, and far more experience than the Board on its own can
possibly hope to have – if only the Board were willing and able to tap into
it.  Constructive engagement would not only pay for itself purely in terms
of avoiding the conflicts which have drained everyone's time and energy in
the past, but also enable the Board to take a more far-sighted and positive
attitude to the future direction of the mission.

The Board's failure to engage effectively with the community until now, and
lack of interest in doing so in the future, is putting the mission at
risk.  What a shame.

Yours
"Rogol"
___
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] (no subject)

[Pete Forsyth]

On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Rogol Domedonfors 
wrote:

> Jimmy Wales wrote: "it is possible and welcomed to bring forward issues to
> board members at any time".


To Jimmy and the board:

This statement is, frankly, very much belied by the facts.

In 2014, I delivered a letter signed by *one thousand people* to every
member of the board. And yet, the existence of that letter has never been
formally acknowledged, much less have its requests been formally addressed.

One thousand people.

As long as that communication goes unacknowledged, many of us will have
little faith in assurances that communication to board members is a viable,
productive pursuit.

-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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

[Pine W]

Hi Dariuz, I like how you're thinking. Perhaps the Board could make public
use of Phabricator to triage and track issues.

Rogol, I share some of the frustration about communication problems.
However, I'd also like to note that Dariuz, Christophe, and Natalia have
been responsive to discussions here on WIkimedia-l, and that the general
tone of WMF has become notably more cooperative with the community during
the past several months. There is still much work to do, but much progress
has been made. In the big picture I feel that WMF is heading in a good
direction, and I'm grateful to the people who are working to make that
happen.

Pine


On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 8:37 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
wrote:

> Dear Rogol,
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Rogol Domedonfors 
> wrote:
>
> > Jimmy Wales wrote: "it is possible and welcomed to bring forward issues
> to
> > board members at any time".
> >
> > It would be most helpful to know where and how the Board in general would
> > welcome such issues being raised and how much resource they will have to
> > sustain those discussions.
>
>
>
> I think it is fair to say that we lack good, efficient and scalable
> communication channels. We have discussed additional ones, commitment
> tracking possibilities, etc. at Wikimania with the communication staff
> (who, by the way, are extremely professional and skilled), and it is my
> understanding that while it is impossible to make rapid improvements, we
> can come back to this conversation in 2017 and possibly make some
> improvements.
>
> I personally would love e.g. to see a system of Board members cmmitments
> tracking (useful for the Board, just as much as for communal control), or a
> system in which the community could upvote/downvote partiular ideas to
> discuss (like in a community's wishlist).
>
> Until we have better tech available, I want to assure you that I want to be
> available, and apart from Meta, I gladly offer IRC or video conversations,
> or other media, to whoever feels it may be useful (let's track this
> committment of mine in the old-fashioned way for now).
>
> best,
>
> dariusz "pundit"
> ___
> 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] (no subject)

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

Dear Rogol,


On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Rogol Domedonfors 
wrote:

> Jimmy Wales wrote: "it is possible and welcomed to bring forward issues to
> board members at any time".
>
> It would be most helpful to know where and how the Board in general would
> welcome such issues being raised and how much resource they will have to
> sustain those discussions.



I think it is fair to say that we lack good, efficient and scalable
communication channels. We have discussed additional ones, commitment
tracking possibilities, etc. at Wikimania with the communication staff
(who, by the way, are extremely professional and skilled), and it is my
understanding that while it is impossible to make rapid improvements, we
can come back to this conversation in 2017 and possibly make some
improvements.

I personally would love e.g. to see a system of Board members cmmitments
tracking (useful for the Board, just as much as for communal control), or a
system in which the community could upvote/downvote partiular ideas to
discuss (like in a community's wishlist).

Until we have better tech available, I want to assure you that I want to be
available, and apart from Meta, I gladly offer IRC or video conversations,
or other media, to whoever feels it may be useful (let's track this
committment of mine in the old-fashioned way for now).

best,

dariusz "pundit"
___
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] (no subject) - was Agenda for the November 13, 2016 Board Meeting

[Jimmy Wales]

On 11/13/16 5:57 PM, Rogol Domedonfors wrote:
> Jimmy
> 
> You seem anxious to deflect my question by making an unfounded accusation
> of distortion.  

I'm afraid you have misunderstood me.  It is never appropriate to quote
part of a conversation when the issue is broader.

The board welcomes engagement.  That one particular mechanism isn't
working is unfortunate, but not cause to cast aspersions.

--Jimbo


___
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] (no subject) - was Agenda for the November 13, 2016 Board Meeting

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Jimmy

You seem anxious to deflect my question by making an unfounded accusation
of distortion.  The plain meaning of the posting I quoted was that Board
members had no more time to devote to engagement with community members
than they were currently allocating, and you clearly have read the entire
thread that made it clear that that particular venue was faling at its
avowed purpose of bringing Board and community together, apparently for the
very reason of lack of time.  That seems to me entirely relevant to the
topic under discussion, in which you stated that "it is possible and
welcomed to bring forward issues to board members at any time", which has
not always been my experience in the past.  Your knee-jerk antagonism does
not help.

"Rogol"
___
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] (no subject)

[Tim Landscheidt]

Pavel Richter  wrote:

> […]
>3.

>So think hard before you grant confidentiality
>If someone asks you to keep something they are going to tell you
>confidential, think hard before you agree to it. In the case of James
>Heilman (or any other board member), their obligation is towards the WMF,
>and they can not step away from this in order to keep certain information
>confidential. So, in my opinion, no board member is able to grant
>confidentiality to a staff member, because there is a good chance that they
>are obliged to disclose this information under their obligations towards
>the WMF.

> […]

Is that true?  Apparently James Heilman withheld information
from the board that was given to him confidentially, and ad-
vised by both internal and external legal counsel the board
did not force him to disclose that information.  That looks
to me more like that board members' obligations to the WMF
can be met (at least most times) while maintaining confiden-
tiality.

There are probably cases where for example a confidential
reporter is the only witness to a crime against the WMF and
thus his identity must be revealed to others but I don't see
why board members would need to disclose who suggested to
them to take a closer look at something.

Tim


___
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] (no subject)

[Ed Erhart]

+1 Marc. Both of us were volunteers for years before starting work at the
WMF, and I'm sure we both have opinions that don't line up with the WMF's
overall vision. Quoting Marc's personal thoughts as representative of the
organization as a whole is not helpful for anyone involved.

@Richard and the moderators, I'm rather not start a new thread to respond
here. Please allow responses to the currently ongoing threads and reject
any *new* (no subject) threads. Thanks.

--Ed

On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 6:44 PM, Ed Erhart  wrote:

> +1 Marc. Both of us were volunteers for years before starting work at the
> WMF, and I'm sure we both have opinions that don't line up with the WMF's
> overall vision. Quoting Marc's personal thoughts as representative of the
> organization as a whole is not helpful for anyone involved.
>
> --Ed
>
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Marc A. Pelletier 
> wrote:
>
>> On 15-12-04 04:14 AM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
>> > Funny how the first response from a WMF employee was that they thought
>> > using stock images was OK.
>>
>> Please don't put words into my mouth that weren't there.  I said that I
>> didn't find it /concerning/, not that it was "OK".
>>
>> My point in that email was that commons makes it ungodly hard to find
>> what you want, not commenting on whether or not the use of stock
>> photography is desirable.
>>
>> Also, I don't work with fundraising and am not involved with the banners
>> in any way.  Even if I /had/ expressed the opinion that it was Ok to use
>> stock photography, it'd just be that - my personal opinion.
>>
>> -- Marc
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> 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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

[Bohdan Melnychuk]

Wikimedia community consists of many professionals of very different 
trades. I am pretty sure we have professional graphic designers within 
the community who would willingly do the work done for free. Just a 
small effort should be done reaching them. --Base


On 04.12.2015 2:21, geni wrote:

On 3 December 2015 at 23:29, Gnangarra  wrote:


hold it, back up the truck for a moment

If the WMF has a fundraising team and a PR/media team why is it paying a
third party to provide the banners surely someone should be able to design
them in house, what about someone from the design teams working on other
projects.   If no one has the skills to layout a banner why not ask the
community for some options there are many skilled volunteers that would
gladly do it for free, the WMF could even offer a scholarship to Wikimania
as an incentive to get it done within a short time frame.



Graphic design is really one of those things better left to professionals.
Equally for a handful of banners going externally rather than employing
someone full time makes sense. Admittedly the WMF hasn't had the best of
luck with its external contractors (wikipedia forever, this) but in
principle it is a valid approach.





___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

[Marc A. Pelletier]

On 15-12-04 04:14 AM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
> Funny how the first response from a WMF employee was that they thought
> using stock images was OK.

Please don't put words into my mouth that weren't there.  I said that I
didn't find it /concerning/, not that it was "OK".

My point in that email was that commons makes it ungodly hard to find
what you want, not commenting on whether or not the use of stock
photography is desirable.

Also, I don't work with fundraising and am not involved with the banners
in any way.  Even if I /had/ expressed the opinion that it was Ok to use
stock photography, it'd just be that - my personal opinion.

-- Marc


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

[Peter Southwood]

Nope, doesn’t help.
Surely it is possible to have a direct link to the banner which always works, 
wherever you are, and whether or not you are logged in.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Michael Peel
Sent: Friday, 04 December 2015 5:58 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

Try when logged out - the links worked fine for me after logging out.

Thanks,
Mike

> On 4 Dec 2015, at 15:54, Peter Southwood  wrote:
> 
> Lisa, when you give us links to look at new versions of banners, please try 
> to use links that actually display the banners.
> Cheers,
> Peter
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On 
> Behalf Of Lisa Gruwell
> Sent: Thursday, 03 December 2015 9:30 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)
> 
> We agree with you that WMF fundraising should not use stock photography.
> This was a mistake by a designer.  We specify in our contracts with outside 
> designers that the images used should be custom artwork that WMF owns (and 
> can then share) or freely licensed images.  We pulled that banner yesterday 
> and asked our designers for a new custom image that we can freely license.
> We are running another banner with a custom light bulb image at 100% now.
> This artwork will be added to Commons.   We also have a few new banners
> featuring some beautiful Commons images that are under development:   Stars
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/?banner=B1516_0916_en6C_dsk_p1_lg_strinf&for
> ce=1&country=US>
> , Penguin
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/?banner=B1516_0916_en6C_dsk_p1_lg_pngsml&for
> ce=1&country=US>
> Thank
> you for pointing this out to us.
> 
> 
> 
> Best,
> 
> Lisa
> 
>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Rob  wrote:
>> 
>> I don't think this rises to the level of outrage, but it's a little 
>> important.  The goal of the WMF should be to promote free and open 
>> content, and this adds to the perception that the WMF is disconnected 
>> from those goals and the community.  I don't care if they use a stock 
>> photo if they need to, but when they have smart, capable, and 
>> creative people like Victor Grigas on staff, they can certainly 
>> manage to photograph a cup of coffee and release it as a CC photo to 
>> set a good example for the community and movement.
>> 
>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:41 AM, Gerard Meijssen 
>>  wrote:
>>> Hoi,
>>> It is that time of year where money is asked from the people. 
>>> Arguably we would do more when the Wikimedia foundation was not so 
>>> FF-ing Wikipedia centred.The arguments for not giving Wikisource 
>>> have passed their sell by date and usability for exposing its 
>>> wonderful work is imho a
>> disfigurement
>>> on the resume of the WMF (among others). This is a cheap one to fix. 
>>> It makes sense to fix it as I understand sources are part of 
>>> "Wikimedia
>> Zero"
>>> and it would make a world of a difference when the sources can 
>>> actually
>> be
>>> found.
>>> 
>>> Unicef among others has fundraising campaigns for education because 
>>> it is not its most important priority. As long as kids die because 
>>> of lack of food, safe water, preventable disease and temperature it is 
>>> obvious why.
>>> Such an excuse the WMF does not have. It could ask for additional 
>>> funding for Wikisource, for Wikidata for ... and it would have a solid 
>>> argument.
>>> Thanks,
>>>  GerardM
>>> 
>>>> On 3 December 2015 at 10:25, Andrea Zanni 
>>>> 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Pine W  wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Under the redesigned grants scheme, WMF Project grants might be 
>>>>> able
>> to
>>>>> help with this kind of software development work for Commons 
>>>>> and/or Wikisource. I happen to know a developer here in Cascadia 
>>>>> who might be interested, either as an individual or in association 
>>>>> with a Wikimedia affiliate, in doing this kind of work on a grant or 
>>>>> contract basis.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Pinging Kacie for comment about possible grant funding. (:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Pine, thanks for the comment.
>>>> I understand what you mean, and I do believe there is space to work 
>>>> on Wik

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

[Brad Jorsch (Anomie)]

On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Michael Peel  wrote:

> Try when logged out - the links worked fine for me after logging out.
>

They work fine for me even when logged-in. Since it's enwiki, you might
check if you have the "Suppress display of fundraiser banners" gadget
enabled (or similar code in your user .js or .css) if it's not working for
you.


-- 
Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
Senior Software Engineer
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

[Michael Peel]

Try when logged out - the links worked fine for me after logging out.

Thanks,
Mike

> On 4 Dec 2015, at 15:54, Peter Southwood  wrote:
> 
> Lisa, when you give us links to look at new versions of banners, please try 
> to use links that actually display the banners.
> Cheers,
> Peter
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf 
> Of Lisa Gruwell
> Sent: Thursday, 03 December 2015 9:30 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)
> 
> We agree with you that WMF fundraising should not use stock photography.
> This was a mistake by a designer.  We specify in our contracts with outside 
> designers that the images used should be custom artwork that WMF owns (and 
> can then share) or freely licensed images.  We pulled that banner yesterday 
> and asked our designers for a new custom image that we can freely license.
> We are running another banner with a custom light bulb image at 100% now.
> This artwork will be added to Commons.   We also have a few new banners
> featuring some beautiful Commons images that are under development:   Stars
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/?banner=B1516_0916_en6C_dsk_p1_lg_strinf&force=1&country=US>
> , Penguin
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/?banner=B1516_0916_en6C_dsk_p1_lg_pngsml&force=1&country=US>
> Thank
> you for pointing this out to us.
> 
> 
> 
> Best,
> 
> Lisa
> 
>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Rob  wrote:
>> 
>> I don't think this rises to the level of outrage, but it's a little 
>> important.  The goal of the WMF should be to promote free and open 
>> content, and this adds to the perception that the WMF is disconnected 
>> from those goals and the community.  I don't care if they use a stock 
>> photo if they need to, but when they have smart, capable, and creative 
>> people like Victor Grigas on staff, they can certainly manage to 
>> photograph a cup of coffee and release it as a CC photo to set a good 
>> example for the community and movement.
>> 
>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:41 AM, Gerard Meijssen 
>>  wrote:
>>> Hoi,
>>> It is that time of year where money is asked from the people. 
>>> Arguably we would do more when the Wikimedia foundation was not so 
>>> FF-ing Wikipedia centred.The arguments for not giving Wikisource 
>>> have passed their sell by date and usability for exposing its 
>>> wonderful work is imho a
>> disfigurement
>>> on the resume of the WMF (among others). This is a cheap one to fix. 
>>> It makes sense to fix it as I understand sources are part of 
>>> "Wikimedia
>> Zero"
>>> and it would make a world of a difference when the sources can 
>>> actually
>> be
>>> found.
>>> 
>>> Unicef among others has fundraising campaigns for education because 
>>> it is not its most important priority. As long as kids die because 
>>> of lack of food, safe water, preventable disease and temperature it is 
>>> obvious why.
>>> Such an excuse the WMF does not have. It could ask for additional 
>>> funding for Wikisource, for Wikidata for ... and it would have a solid 
>>> argument.
>>> Thanks,
>>>  GerardM
>>> 
>>>> On 3 December 2015 at 10:25, Andrea Zanni 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Pine W  wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Under the redesigned grants scheme, WMF Project grants might be 
>>>>> able
>> to
>>>>> help with this kind of software development work for Commons 
>>>>> and/or Wikisource. I happen to know a developer here in Cascadia 
>>>>> who might be interested, either as an individual or in 
>>>>> association with a Wikimedia affiliate, in doing this kind of work on a 
>>>>> grant or contract basis.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Pinging Kacie for comment about possible grant funding. (:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Pine, thanks for the comment.
>>>> I understand what you mean, and I do believe there is space to work 
>>>> on Wikisource via grants, BUT.
>>>> 
>>>> But I already did a Individual Engagement Grant in 2013 (with David
>> Cuenca)
>>>> regarding Wikisource.
>>>> It was great, but IEGs don't give you staff time. So me and David 
>>>> used Google Summer of Code, and we mentored 4 projects: if I'm not 
>>>> mistaken, only one was really finished, meaning it pr

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

[Peter Southwood]

Lisa, when you give us links to look at new versions of banners, please try to 
use links that actually display the banners.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Lisa Gruwell
Sent: Thursday, 03 December 2015 9:30 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

We agree with you that WMF fundraising should not use stock photography.
This was a mistake by a designer.  We specify in our contracts with outside 
designers that the images used should be custom artwork that WMF owns (and can 
then share) or freely licensed images.  We pulled that banner yesterday and 
asked our designers for a new custom image that we can freely license.
We are running another banner with a custom light bulb image at 100% now.
This artwork will be added to Commons.   We also have a few new banners
featuring some beautiful Commons images that are under development:   Stars
<https://en.wikipedia.org/?banner=B1516_0916_en6C_dsk_p1_lg_strinf&force=1&country=US>
, Penguin
<https://en.wikipedia.org/?banner=B1516_0916_en6C_dsk_p1_lg_pngsml&force=1&country=US>
 Thank
you for pointing this out to us.



Best,

Lisa

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Rob  wrote:

> I don't think this rises to the level of outrage, but it's a little 
> important.  The goal of the WMF should be to promote free and open 
> content, and this adds to the perception that the WMF is disconnected 
> from those goals and the community.  I don't care if they use a stock 
> photo if they need to, but when they have smart, capable, and creative 
> people like Victor Grigas on staff, they can certainly manage to 
> photograph a cup of coffee and release it as a CC photo to set a good 
> example for the community and movement.
>
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:41 AM, Gerard Meijssen 
>  wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > It is that time of year where money is asked from the people. 
> > Arguably we would do more when the Wikimedia foundation was not so 
> > FF-ing Wikipedia centred.The arguments for not giving Wikisource 
> > have passed their sell by date and usability for exposing its 
> > wonderful work is imho a
> disfigurement
> > on the resume of the WMF (among others). This is a cheap one to fix. 
> > It makes sense to fix it as I understand sources are part of 
> > "Wikimedia
> Zero"
> > and it would make a world of a difference when the sources can 
> > actually
> be
> > found.
> >
> > Unicef among others has fundraising campaigns for education because 
> > it is not its most important priority. As long as kids die because 
> > of lack of food, safe water, preventable disease and temperature it is 
> > obvious why.
> > Such an excuse the WMF does not have. It could ask for additional 
> > funding for Wikisource, for Wikidata for ... and it would have a solid 
> > argument.
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> > On 3 December 2015 at 10:25, Andrea Zanni 
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Pine W  wrote:
> >>
> >> > Under the redesigned grants scheme, WMF Project grants might be 
> >> > able
> to
> >> > help with this kind of software development work for Commons 
> >> > and/or Wikisource. I happen to know a developer here in Cascadia 
> >> > who might be interested, either as an individual or in 
> >> > association with a Wikimedia affiliate, in doing this kind of work on a 
> >> > grant or contract basis.
> >> >
> >> > Pinging Kacie for comment about possible grant funding. (:
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi Pine, thanks for the comment.
> >> I understand what you mean, and I do believe there is space to work 
> >> on Wikisource via grants, BUT.
> >>
> >> But I already did a Individual Engagement Grant in 2013 (with David
> Cuenca)
> >> regarding Wikisource.
> >> It was great, but IEGs don't give you staff time. So me and David 
> >> used Google Summer of Code, and we mentored 4 projects: if I'm not 
> >> mistaken, only one was really finished, meaning it produced 
> >> concrete results on Wikisource. Others stopped before (for example, 
> >> two dedicated mediawiki extensions were not put in production). 
> >> Within the IEG, we made a big survey among Wikisource communities, 
> >> to develop a wishlist and a roadmap for WS communities. We set up a 
> >> Wikisource Community User Group. We
> talked
> >> and talked. Bugs were and are reported, from years. Two weeks ago, 
> >> we convened the very first inte

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

[John Mark Vandenberg]

On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 3:25 PM, James Heilman  wrote:
> 1) Yes everyone realizes that using a non free image in our fundraising
> banners is not okay. It was a mistake. These things happen and we correct
> them.

Funny how the first response from a WMF employee was that they thought
using stock images was OK.

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-December/080112.html

Im not sure the Fundraising team are on board with your 'free content
only' expectations.  Lisa indicated that contractors are also allowed
to use WMF owned media that hasnt been released as free content, and
'upload to Commons' is not part of their processes before media is
used in worldwide campaigns.

Some declared fundraising principles, which everyone agrees and
adheres to, would be good.

> 2) When is it okay to run smaller commercial ads rather than larger
> fundraising banners? Never.

I think the acceptable model for 'commercial' ads worth exploring is
to run 'thank you' ads for large corporate donors, provided those
'ads' are not targeted based on content or user. e.g. targeting only
based on time segments or countries.

Would you find a donation matching 'ad' acceptable, like was done for
Virgin Unite in 2006?

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_thanks_Virgin_Unite

> I would much rather see the WMF become smaller
> than to see ads run.

'smaller' isnt a good way to look at it.  reduced expenditure may be
achieved by being more efficient, especially by using volunteers more
effectively.

Are you doing any planning around that possibility?

My understanding is the WMF management + fundraising costs are ~30% of
expenditure, which is below the American Institute of Philanthropy
(AIP) 's best practise of 80% program spend.  The current rate is
still in acceptable efficiency ranges according to the AIP.  If the
revenue decreases, as is a credible concern that has been raised by
WMF Fundraising team, fundraising costs will need to decrease to avoid
that percentage moving into the unacceptable range.

-- 
John Vandenberg

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I rather see the WMF pick up the work that it does not do. Money seems to
be a dirty word but it is what makes some things possible. Money is raised
by adverts. DEAL WITH IT

When people say that they rather see the WMF and its need for money become
less, they typically are well served . They complain for ideological
reasons about Wikipedia Zero and they have all the bandwidth in the world.
They think the gender gap is so big but that is cultural. The excuses why
countries like Syria are so badly served in Wikipedia are hardly expressed
because as a problem it does not even register.

Wikidata, Wikisource suck big time in the usability department. For
Wikidata the only tool that provides information from the data glut is
Reasonator. For Wikisource the notion of readers is not really considered.
Get real, we are immature and a lot of the big work is ahead of us not
behind us. Consequently our need for funding will increase not decrease.

Having a centrally led fundraising is part of the problem. It is concerned
about "global" issues and it does not even see the local need or
opportunity. Consequently it does not raise the amount of money in
countries like the Netherlands it could.

And now you want to curtail our future because some people dislike ads ?
REALLY you should be ashamed, I dislike ads but I like our future more.
Thanks,
GerardM

On 4 December 2015 at 05:25, James Heilman  wrote:

> 1) Yes everyone realizes that using a non free image in our fundraising
> banners is not okay. It was a mistake. These things happen and we correct
> them.
>
> 2) When is it okay to run smaller commercial ads rather than larger
> fundraising banners? Never. I would much rather see the WMF become smaller
> than to see ads run.
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
>
> The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
>
> As of July 2015 I am a board member of the Wikimedia Foundation
> My emails; however, do not represent the official position of the WMF
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

[MZMcBride]

Rob wrote:
>It was a photo of a cup of coffee.  It was a mistake that was quickly
>acknowledged and corrected.  Let's keep things in perspective, please.

Agreed. I'd much rather see focus put on Liam's e-mail about the general
fund-raising problem, the current solution to which is deploying overly
large advertisements on Wikipedia in a few rich countries for several
weeks. If we're willing to donate the entire screen space to an ad for the
Wikimedia Foundation, it probably makes sense to at least reconsider
whether a smaller, less obtrusive paid ad for a company or organization
would be better. I imagine many companies and organizations would be
willing to pay a premium for a much smaller ad slot, given Wikipedia's
level of traffic and the limited supply of ad space that we'd likely be
willing to sell. At what point is having horribly large and intrusive ads
worse than having much smaller and faster paid ad campaigns?

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

[geni]

On 3 December 2015 at 23:30, Rob  wrote:

>
> It was a photo of a cup of coffee.  It was a mistake that was quickly
> acknowledged and corrected.  Let's keep things in perspective, please.
>

It was a Getty image on one of the most high profile sites on the web.
Legal doesn't need the extra workload.

-- 
geni
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

[geni]

On 3 December 2015 at 23:29, Gnangarra  wrote:

> hold it, back up the truck for a moment
>
> If the WMF has a fundraising team and a PR/media team why is it paying a
> third party to provide the banners surely someone should be able to design
> them in house, what about someone from the design teams working on other
> projects.   If no one has the skills to layout a banner why not ask the
> community for some options there are many skilled volunteers that would
> gladly do it for free, the WMF could even offer a scholarship to Wikimania
> as an incentive to get it done within a short time frame.
>
>
Graphic design is really one of those things better left to professionals.
Equally for a handful of banners going externally rather than employing
someone full time makes sense. Admittedly the WMF hasn't had the best of
luck with its external contractors (wikipedia forever, this) but in
principle it is a valid approach.


-- 
geni
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

[Rob]

"It looks like WMF has some pleasure from spitting on some of the
values which define it and which are very important for us. For me to
look on these particular mentioned wikis, to see a bad abuse there and
to be able to do nothing is very humiliating."

It was a photo of a cup of coffee.  It was a mistake that was quickly
acknowledged and corrected.  Let's keep things in perspective, please.

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Bohdan Melnychuk  wrote:
> That is not a small thing. That is an enormous thing. We show people some
> unfree image while propagating free stuff. Hypocrisy? We are speaking about
> thousands of people seeing it.
>
> It is good that the stuff was removed, but from my point of view that
> another image with link to an external site rather than to Commons is still
> a very bad thing. It reminds me those games where ads are ways better than
> the game itself.
>
> Commons must contain the images used to help funding projects one of which
> is Commons.
>
> Another disturbing point indeed is WMF hiding on all these wikis like
> donatewiki, votewiki
> and
> similar where it freely violates its own licensing policy and where they are
> safe from the community.
>
> It looks like WMF has some pleasure from spitting on some of the values
> which define it and which are very important for us. For me to look on these
> particular mentioned wikis, to see a bad abuse there and to be able to do
> nothing is very humiliating.
>
> I just cannot imagine such things to be mistakes. If it after all is a
> mistake then it's systematical one and something with the organization is
> wrong. Wrong things are those which need fixes.
>
> --Base
>
>
> On 03.12.2015 23:49, Rob wrote:
>>
>> I doubt the selection of a single image occupied that much staff time
>> and discussion.  No process is perfect. This is a small thing, that
>> was quickly fixed.  I doubt a lot of money was wasted here.
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:11 PM, John Mark Vandenberg 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> "On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 6:29 AM, Lisa Gruwell 
>>> wrote:

 We agree with you that WMF fundraising should not use stock photography.
 This was a mistake by a designer.  We specify in our contracts with
 outside
 designers that the images used should be custom artwork that WMF owns
 (and
 can then share) or freely licensed images.
>>>
>>> Someone needed to approve purchasing the stock photograph.  They are
>>> not free...?  Was it WMF or Trilogy?
>>> Even if it was Trilogy, WMF sanity check processes are also not
>>> working.  Surely someone at WMF is responsible for QA of the images
>>> used in fundraising?
>>>
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles shows this stock
>>> photograph was uploaded to donate.wikimedia.org many times, and worked
>>> on by WMF staff members.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:10-coffee-txt-thepricekeepswikithriving.jpg
>>> - SPatton (WMF)
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:03-coffee-txt-goingallyear.jpg
>>> - SPatton (WMF)
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Newgreen.jpg - SPatton (WMF)
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greencoffeecup-alt.jpg - SPatton
>>> (WMF)
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greencoffeecup-4.jpg - SPatton
>>> (WMF)
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-price-overhead-redcup.jpg
>>> - SPatton (WMF) (marked as CC-BY-SA; is that legal with the Getty
>>> Image?)
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-overhead-3dollars.jpg -
>>> RStearns (Trilogy)
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-overhead-small.jpg -
>>> RStearns (Trilogy)
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-overhead-no-text.jpg -
>>> BHouse (Trilogy)
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-overhead-small.png -
>>> RStearns (Trilogy)
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-fr-faites_v1.png - Jseddon
>>> (WMF)
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-fr-offrez_v2.png - Jseddon
>>> (WMF)
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-fr-offrez_v1.png - Jseddon
>>> (WMF)
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-it-oggi_offri_v2.png -
>>> Jseddon (WMF)
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-it-oggi_offri_v1.png -
>>> Jseddon (WMF)
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-it-dona_caffe_v2.png -
>>> Jseddon (WMF)
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-it-dona_caffe_v1.png -
>>> Jseddon (WMF)
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-en-donate_coffee_v2.png
>>> - Jseddon (WMF)
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-en-donate_coffee_v1.png
>>> - Jseddon (WMF)
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-price-overhead.jpg -
>>> BHouse (Trilogy)
>>>
>>> Jseddon uploaded several alternative coffee cup photographs to
>>> donate.wikimedia.org (no metadata, but they look like his own work...,
>>> and not too shabby) . How did a stock phot

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

[Gnangarra]

hold it, back up the truck for a moment

If the WMF has a fundraising team and a PR/media team why is it paying a
third party to provide the banners surely someone should be able to design
them in house, what about someone from the design teams working on other
projects.   If no one has the skills to layout a banner why not ask the
community for some options there are many skilled volunteers that would
gladly do it for free, the WMF could even offer a scholarship to Wikimania
as an incentive to get it done within a short time frame.



On 4 December 2015 at 07:11, Bohdan Melnychuk  wrote:

> That is not a small thing. That is an enormous thing. We show people some
> unfree image while propagating free stuff. Hypocrisy? We are speaking about
> thousands of people seeing it.
>
> It is good that the stuff was removed, but from my point of view that
> another image with link to an external site rather than to Commons is still
> a very bad thing. It reminds me those games where ads are ways better than
> the game itself.
>
> Commons must contain the images used to help funding projects one of which
> is Commons.
>
> Another disturbing point indeed is WMF hiding on all these wikis like
> donatewiki, votewiki <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Forum/Archives/2015-06#License_policy_abuse_on_votewiki>and
> similar where it freely violates its own licensing policy and where they
> are safe from the community.
>
> It looks like WMF has some pleasure from spitting on some of the values
> which define it and which are very important for us. For me to look on
> these particular mentioned wikis, to see a bad abuse there and to be able
> to do nothing is very humiliating.
>
> I just cannot imagine such things to be mistakes. If it after all is a
> mistake then it's systematical one and something with the organization is
> wrong. Wrong things are those which need fixes.
>
> --Base
>
>
> On 03.12.2015 23:49, Rob wrote:
>
>> I doubt the selection of a single image occupied that much staff time
>> and discussion.  No process is perfect. This is a small thing, that
>> was quickly fixed.  I doubt a lot of money was wasted here.
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:11 PM, John Mark Vandenberg 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 6:29 AM, Lisa Gruwell 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 We agree with you that WMF fundraising should not use stock photography.
 This was a mistake by a designer.  We specify in our contracts with
 outside
 designers that the images used should be custom artwork that WMF owns
 (and
 can then share) or freely licensed images.

>>> Someone needed to approve purchasing the stock photograph.  They are
>>> not free...?  Was it WMF or Trilogy?
>>> Even if it was Trilogy, WMF sanity check processes are also not
>>> working.  Surely someone at WMF is responsible for QA of the images
>>> used in fundraising?
>>>
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles shows this stock
>>> photograph was uploaded to donate.wikimedia.org many times, and worked
>>> on by WMF staff members.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:10-coffee-txt-thepricekeepswikithriving.jpg
>>> - SPatton (WMF)
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:03-coffee-txt-goingallyear.jpg
>>> - SPatton (WMF)
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Newgreen.jpg - SPatton (WMF)
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greencoffeecup-alt.jpg - SPatton
>>> (WMF)
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greencoffeecup-4.jpg - SPatton
>>> (WMF)
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-price-overhead-redcup.jpg
>>> - SPatton (WMF) (marked as CC-BY-SA; is that legal with the Getty
>>> Image?)
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-overhead-3dollars.jpg -
>>> RStearns (Trilogy)
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-overhead-small.jpg -
>>> RStearns (Trilogy)
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-overhead-no-text.jpg -
>>> BHouse (Trilogy)
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-overhead-small.png -
>>> RStearns (Trilogy)
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-fr-faites_v1.png -
>>> Jseddon (WMF)
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-fr-offrez_v2.png -
>>> Jseddon (WMF)
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-fr-offrez_v1.png -
>>> Jseddon (WMF)
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-it-oggi_offri_v2.png -
>>> Jseddon (WMF)
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-it-oggi_offri_v1.png -
>>> Jseddon (WMF)
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-it-dona_caffe_v2.png -
>>> Jseddon (WMF)
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-it-dona_caffe_v1.png -
>>> Jseddon (WMF)
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-en-donate_coffee_v2.png
>>> - Jseddon (WMF)
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-en-donate_coffee_v1.png
>>> - Jseddon (WMF)
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-price-overhead.jpg -
>>> BHouse (Trilogy)
>>>
>>> Jseddon uploaded several alternative coffe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

[Bohdan Melnychuk]

That is not a small thing. That is an enormous thing. We show people 
some unfree image while propagating free stuff. Hypocrisy? We are 
speaking about thousands of people seeing it.


It is good that the stuff was removed, but from my point of view that 
another image with link to an external site rather than to Commons is 
still a very bad thing. It reminds me those games where ads are ways 
better than the game itself.


Commons must contain the images used to help funding projects one of 
which is Commons.


Another disturbing point indeed is WMF hiding on all these wikis like 
donatewiki, votewiki 
and 
similar where it freely violates its own licensing policy and where they 
are safe from the community.


It looks like WMF has some pleasure from spitting on some of the values 
which define it and which are very important for us. For me to look on 
these particular mentioned wikis, to see a bad abuse there and to be 
able to do nothing is very humiliating.


I just cannot imagine such things to be mistakes. If it after all is a 
mistake then it's systematical one and something with the organization 
is wrong. Wrong things are those which need fixes.


--Base

On 03.12.2015 23:49, Rob wrote:

I doubt the selection of a single image occupied that much staff time
and discussion.  No process is perfect. This is a small thing, that
was quickly fixed.  I doubt a lot of money was wasted here.

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:11 PM, John Mark Vandenberg  wrote:

"On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 6:29 AM, Lisa Gruwell  wrote:

We agree with you that WMF fundraising should not use stock photography.
This was a mistake by a designer.  We specify in our contracts with outside
designers that the images used should be custom artwork that WMF owns (and
can then share) or freely licensed images.

Someone needed to approve purchasing the stock photograph.  They are
not free...?  Was it WMF or Trilogy?
Even if it was Trilogy, WMF sanity check processes are also not
working.  Surely someone at WMF is responsible for QA of the images
used in fundraising?

https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles shows this stock
photograph was uploaded to donate.wikimedia.org many times, and worked
on by WMF staff members.

https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:10-coffee-txt-thepricekeepswikithriving.jpg
- SPatton (WMF)
https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:03-coffee-txt-goingallyear.jpg
- SPatton (WMF)
https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Newgreen.jpg - SPatton (WMF)
https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greencoffeecup-alt.jpg - SPatton (WMF)
https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greencoffeecup-4.jpg - SPatton (WMF)
https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-price-overhead-redcup.jpg
- SPatton (WMF) (marked as CC-BY-SA; is that legal with the Getty
Image?)
https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-overhead-3dollars.jpg -
RStearns (Trilogy)
https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-overhead-small.jpg -
RStearns (Trilogy)
https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-overhead-no-text.jpg -
BHouse (Trilogy)
https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-overhead-small.png -
RStearns (Trilogy)
https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-fr-faites_v1.png - Jseddon (WMF)
https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-fr-offrez_v2.png - Jseddon (WMF)
https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-fr-offrez_v1.png - Jseddon (WMF)
https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-it-oggi_offri_v2.png -
Jseddon (WMF)
https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-it-oggi_offri_v1.png -
Jseddon (WMF)
https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-it-dona_caffe_v2.png -
Jseddon (WMF)
https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-it-dona_caffe_v1.png -
Jseddon (WMF)
https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-en-donate_coffee_v2.png
- Jseddon (WMF)
https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-en-donate_coffee_v1.png
- Jseddon (WMF)
https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-price-overhead.jpg -
BHouse (Trilogy)

Jseddon uploaded several alternative coffee cup photographs to
donate.wikimedia.org (no metadata, but they look like his own work...,
and not too shabby) . How did a stock photograph become selected over
other options, and ownership/copyright was never raised during those
selection discussions?

That is a lot of donor money wasted by someone somehow deciding to use
a Getty image as part of a multimillion dollor fundraising drive for
an organisation supporting "It is like a library or a public park. It
is like a temple for the mind. It is a place we can all go to think,
to learn, to share our knowledge with others."

I do hope your contract with the external design company allows you to
reclaim the wasted donor money caused by their violation of the
contract regarding image selection.

"We’ve worked hard over the years to keep it lean and tight. We
fulfill our mission, and leave waste to others."


We pulled that banner yesterday

Than

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

[Rob]

I doubt the selection of a single image occupied that much staff time
and discussion.  No process is perfect. This is a small thing, that
was quickly fixed.  I doubt a lot of money was wasted here.

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:11 PM, John Mark Vandenberg  wrote:
> "On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 6:29 AM, Lisa Gruwell  wrote:
>> We agree with you that WMF fundraising should not use stock photography.
>> This was a mistake by a designer.  We specify in our contracts with outside
>> designers that the images used should be custom artwork that WMF owns (and
>> can then share) or freely licensed images.
>
> Someone needed to approve purchasing the stock photograph.  They are
> not free...?  Was it WMF or Trilogy?
> Even if it was Trilogy, WMF sanity check processes are also not
> working.  Surely someone at WMF is responsible for QA of the images
> used in fundraising?
>
> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles shows this stock
> photograph was uploaded to donate.wikimedia.org many times, and worked
> on by WMF staff members.
>
> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:10-coffee-txt-thepricekeepswikithriving.jpg
> - SPatton (WMF)
> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:03-coffee-txt-goingallyear.jpg
> - SPatton (WMF)
> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Newgreen.jpg - SPatton (WMF)
> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greencoffeecup-alt.jpg - SPatton (WMF)
> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greencoffeecup-4.jpg - SPatton (WMF)
> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-price-overhead-redcup.jpg
> - SPatton (WMF) (marked as CC-BY-SA; is that legal with the Getty
> Image?)
> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-overhead-3dollars.jpg -
> RStearns (Trilogy)
> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-overhead-small.jpg -
> RStearns (Trilogy)
> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-overhead-no-text.jpg -
> BHouse (Trilogy)
> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-overhead-small.png -
> RStearns (Trilogy)
> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-fr-faites_v1.png - Jseddon (WMF)
> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-fr-offrez_v2.png - Jseddon (WMF)
> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-fr-offrez_v1.png - Jseddon (WMF)
> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-it-oggi_offri_v2.png -
> Jseddon (WMF)
> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-it-oggi_offri_v1.png -
> Jseddon (WMF)
> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-it-dona_caffe_v2.png -
> Jseddon (WMF)
> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-it-dona_caffe_v1.png -
> Jseddon (WMF)
> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-en-donate_coffee_v2.png
> - Jseddon (WMF)
> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-en-donate_coffee_v1.png
> - Jseddon (WMF)
> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-price-overhead.jpg -
> BHouse (Trilogy)
>
> Jseddon uploaded several alternative coffee cup photographs to
> donate.wikimedia.org (no metadata, but they look like his own work...,
> and not too shabby) . How did a stock photograph become selected over
> other options, and ownership/copyright was never raised during those
> selection discussions?
>
> That is a lot of donor money wasted by someone somehow deciding to use
> a Getty image as part of a multimillion dollor fundraising drive for
> an organisation supporting "It is like a library or a public park. It
> is like a temple for the mind. It is a place we can all go to think,
> to learn, to share our knowledge with others."
>
> I do hope your contract with the external design company allows you to
> reclaim the wasted donor money caused by their violation of the
> contract regarding image selection.
>
> "We’ve worked hard over the years to keep it lean and tight. We
> fulfill our mission, and leave waste to others."
>
>> We pulled that banner yesterday
>
> Thank you.
>
>> and asked our designers for a new custom image that we can freely license.
>
> Why not use the Coffee SVG I found (very easily I must say)?
>
>> We are running another banner with a custom light bulb image at 100% now.
>> This artwork will be added to Commons.
>
> IMO they should be uploaded to Commons first, with full metadata, and
> create a workflow added around begging the Commons community to
> prioritise checking these images quickly so they can be used in the
> fundraiser.  That was how it was done before donate.wikimedia.org ,
> when wikimediafoundation.org was used for these uploads, and that wiki
> had a significant volunteer community assisting in maintenance.
>
> Uploads to donate.wikimedia.org should either be limited to people
> competent in copyright and responsible for that aspect, or at the very
> least the upload forms should require that metadata is filled in, and
> someone at WMF checks new additions regularly.
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> U

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

[John Mark Vandenberg]

"On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 6:29 AM, Lisa Gruwell  wrote:
> We agree with you that WMF fundraising should not use stock photography.
> This was a mistake by a designer.  We specify in our contracts with outside
> designers that the images used should be custom artwork that WMF owns (and
> can then share) or freely licensed images.

Someone needed to approve purchasing the stock photograph.  They are
not free...?  Was it WMF or Trilogy?
Even if it was Trilogy, WMF sanity check processes are also not
working.  Surely someone at WMF is responsible for QA of the images
used in fundraising?

https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles shows this stock
photograph was uploaded to donate.wikimedia.org many times, and worked
on by WMF staff members.

https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:10-coffee-txt-thepricekeepswikithriving.jpg
- SPatton (WMF)
https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:03-coffee-txt-goingallyear.jpg
- SPatton (WMF)
https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Newgreen.jpg - SPatton (WMF)
https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greencoffeecup-alt.jpg - SPatton (WMF)
https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greencoffeecup-4.jpg - SPatton (WMF)
https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-price-overhead-redcup.jpg
- SPatton (WMF) (marked as CC-BY-SA; is that legal with the Getty
Image?)
https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-overhead-3dollars.jpg -
RStearns (Trilogy)
https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-overhead-small.jpg -
RStearns (Trilogy)
https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-overhead-no-text.jpg -
BHouse (Trilogy)
https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-overhead-small.png -
RStearns (Trilogy)
https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-fr-faites_v1.png - Jseddon (WMF)
https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-fr-offrez_v2.png - Jseddon (WMF)
https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-fr-offrez_v1.png - Jseddon (WMF)
https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-it-oggi_offri_v2.png -
Jseddon (WMF)
https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-it-oggi_offri_v1.png -
Jseddon (WMF)
https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-it-dona_caffe_v2.png -
Jseddon (WMF)
https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-it-dona_caffe_v1.png -
Jseddon (WMF)
https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-en-donate_coffee_v2.png
- Jseddon (WMF)
https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-en-donate_coffee_v1.png
- Jseddon (WMF)
https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-price-overhead.jpg -
BHouse (Trilogy)

Jseddon uploaded several alternative coffee cup photographs to
donate.wikimedia.org (no metadata, but they look like his own work...,
and not too shabby) . How did a stock photograph become selected over
other options, and ownership/copyright was never raised during those
selection discussions?

That is a lot of donor money wasted by someone somehow deciding to use
a Getty image as part of a multimillion dollor fundraising drive for
an organisation supporting "It is like a library or a public park. It
is like a temple for the mind. It is a place we can all go to think,
to learn, to share our knowledge with others."

I do hope your contract with the external design company allows you to
reclaim the wasted donor money caused by their violation of the
contract regarding image selection.

"We’ve worked hard over the years to keep it lean and tight. We
fulfill our mission, and leave waste to others."

> We pulled that banner yesterday

Thank you.

> and asked our designers for a new custom image that we can freely license.

Why not use the Coffee SVG I found (very easily I must say)?

> We are running another banner with a custom light bulb image at 100% now.
> This artwork will be added to Commons.

IMO they should be uploaded to Commons first, with full metadata, and
create a workflow added around begging the Commons community to
prioritise checking these images quickly so they can be used in the
fundraiser.  That was how it was done before donate.wikimedia.org ,
when wikimediafoundation.org was used for these uploads, and that wiki
had a significant volunteer community assisting in maintenance.

Uploads to donate.wikimedia.org should either be limited to people
competent in copyright and responsible for that aspect, or at the very
least the upload forms should require that metadata is filled in, and
someone at WMF checks new additions regularly.

--
John Vandenberg

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

[Rob]

Excellent (and prompt) resolution, thank you!  We can all put down our
pitchforks now.

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Lisa Gruwell  wrote:
> We agree with you that WMF fundraising should not use stock photography.
> This was a mistake by a designer.  We specify in our contracts with outside
> designers that the images used should be custom artwork that WMF owns (and
> can then share) or freely licensed images.  We pulled that banner yesterday
> and asked our designers for a new custom image that we can freely license.
> We are running another banner with a custom light bulb image at 100% now.
> This artwork will be added to Commons.   We also have a few new banners
> featuring some beautiful Commons images that are under development:   Stars
> 
> , Penguin
> 
>  Thank
> you for pointing this out to us.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Lisa
>
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Rob  wrote:
>
>> I don't think this rises to the level of outrage, but it's a little
>> important.  The goal of the WMF should be to promote free and open
>> content, and this adds to the perception that the WMF is disconnected
>> from those goals and the community.  I don't care if they use a stock
>> photo if they need to, but when they have smart, capable, and creative
>> people like Victor Grigas on staff, they can certainly manage to
>> photograph a cup of coffee and release it as a CC photo to set a good
>> example for the community and movement.
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:41 AM, Gerard Meijssen
>>  wrote:
>> > Hoi,
>> > It is that time of year where money is asked from the people. Arguably we
>> > would do more when the Wikimedia foundation was not so FF-ing Wikipedia
>> > centred.The arguments for not giving Wikisource have passed their sell by
>> > date and usability for exposing its wonderful work is imho a
>> disfigurement
>> > on the resume of the WMF (among others). This is a cheap one to fix. It
>> > makes sense to fix it as I understand sources are part of "Wikimedia
>> Zero"
>> > and it would make a world of a difference when the sources can actually
>> be
>> > found.
>> >
>> > Unicef among others has fundraising campaigns for education because it is
>> > not its most important priority. As long as kids die because of lack of
>> > food, safe water, preventable disease and temperature it is obvious why.
>> > Such an excuse the WMF does not have. It could ask for additional funding
>> > for Wikisource, for Wikidata for ... and it would have a solid argument.
>> > Thanks,
>> >   GerardM
>> >
>> > On 3 December 2015 at 10:25, Andrea Zanni 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Pine W  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Under the redesigned grants scheme, WMF Project grants might be able
>> to
>> >> > help with this kind of software development work for Commons and/or
>> >> > Wikisource. I happen to know a developer here in Cascadia who might be
>> >> > interested, either as an individual or in association with a Wikimedia
>> >> > affiliate, in doing this kind of work on a grant or contract basis.
>> >> >
>> >> > Pinging Kacie for comment about possible grant funding. (:
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Hi Pine, thanks for the comment.
>> >> I understand what you mean, and I do believe there is space to work on
>> >> Wikisource via grants, BUT.
>> >>
>> >> But I already did a Individual Engagement Grant in 2013 (with David
>> Cuenca)
>> >> regarding Wikisource.
>> >> It was great, but IEGs don't give you staff time. So me and David used
>> >> Google Summer of Code, and we mentored 4 projects: if I'm not mistaken,
>> >> only one was really finished, meaning it produced concrete results on
>> >> Wikisource. Others stopped before (for example, two dedicated mediawiki
>> >> extensions were not put in production). Within the IEG, we made a big
>> >> survey among Wikisource communities, to develop a wishlist and a roadmap
>> >> for WS communities. We set up a Wikisource Community User Group. We
>> talked
>> >> and talked. Bugs were and are reported, from years. Two weeks ago, we
>> >> convened the very first internationl Wikisource conference, in Vienna,
>> >> hosted by Wikimedia Austria (3 members from WMF were there, and we had a
>> >> great and productive time, reports will follow).
>> >>
>> >> I've personally been involved in all of these efforts, so I've also seen
>> >> that real impact of Wikisource infrastructure (core WS extension,
>> design,
>> >> interface, performance, development) has been minimal. I don't really
>> want
>> >> to have this conversation here and now, but I have had a fair amount of
>> >> experience in this to say that until the WMF (or some affiliate big
>> enough
>> >> and high enough in the software pipeline) commit to WS, change won't
>> >> magically happen by itself. We have practically one real volunteer
>> >> developer, and he's full of 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

[geni]

On 3 December 2015 at 19:29, Lisa Gruwell  wrote:

> We agree with you that WMF fundraising should not use stock photography.
> This was a mistake by a designer.
>

They made a mistake with a Getty image?

>We pulled that banner yesterday
>and asked our designers for a new custom image that we can freely license.

To clarify these are different designers? Messing with Getty is not
something you want to be doing.

-- 
geni
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

[Lisa Gruwell]

We agree with you that WMF fundraising should not use stock photography.
This was a mistake by a designer.  We specify in our contracts with outside
designers that the images used should be custom artwork that WMF owns (and
can then share) or freely licensed images.  We pulled that banner yesterday
and asked our designers for a new custom image that we can freely license.
We are running another banner with a custom light bulb image at 100% now.
This artwork will be added to Commons.   We also have a few new banners
featuring some beautiful Commons images that are under development:   Stars

, Penguin

 Thank
you for pointing this out to us.



Best,

Lisa

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Rob  wrote:

> I don't think this rises to the level of outrage, but it's a little
> important.  The goal of the WMF should be to promote free and open
> content, and this adds to the perception that the WMF is disconnected
> from those goals and the community.  I don't care if they use a stock
> photo if they need to, but when they have smart, capable, and creative
> people like Victor Grigas on staff, they can certainly manage to
> photograph a cup of coffee and release it as a CC photo to set a good
> example for the community and movement.
>
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:41 AM, Gerard Meijssen
>  wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > It is that time of year where money is asked from the people. Arguably we
> > would do more when the Wikimedia foundation was not so FF-ing Wikipedia
> > centred.The arguments for not giving Wikisource have passed their sell by
> > date and usability for exposing its wonderful work is imho a
> disfigurement
> > on the resume of the WMF (among others). This is a cheap one to fix. It
> > makes sense to fix it as I understand sources are part of "Wikimedia
> Zero"
> > and it would make a world of a difference when the sources can actually
> be
> > found.
> >
> > Unicef among others has fundraising campaigns for education because it is
> > not its most important priority. As long as kids die because of lack of
> > food, safe water, preventable disease and temperature it is obvious why.
> > Such an excuse the WMF does not have. It could ask for additional funding
> > for Wikisource, for Wikidata for ... and it would have a solid argument.
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> > On 3 December 2015 at 10:25, Andrea Zanni 
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Pine W  wrote:
> >>
> >> > Under the redesigned grants scheme, WMF Project grants might be able
> to
> >> > help with this kind of software development work for Commons and/or
> >> > Wikisource. I happen to know a developer here in Cascadia who might be
> >> > interested, either as an individual or in association with a Wikimedia
> >> > affiliate, in doing this kind of work on a grant or contract basis.
> >> >
> >> > Pinging Kacie for comment about possible grant funding. (:
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi Pine, thanks for the comment.
> >> I understand what you mean, and I do believe there is space to work on
> >> Wikisource via grants, BUT.
> >>
> >> But I already did a Individual Engagement Grant in 2013 (with David
> Cuenca)
> >> regarding Wikisource.
> >> It was great, but IEGs don't give you staff time. So me and David used
> >> Google Summer of Code, and we mentored 4 projects: if I'm not mistaken,
> >> only one was really finished, meaning it produced concrete results on
> >> Wikisource. Others stopped before (for example, two dedicated mediawiki
> >> extensions were not put in production). Within the IEG, we made a big
> >> survey among Wikisource communities, to develop a wishlist and a roadmap
> >> for WS communities. We set up a Wikisource Community User Group. We
> talked
> >> and talked. Bugs were and are reported, from years. Two weeks ago, we
> >> convened the very first internationl Wikisource conference, in Vienna,
> >> hosted by Wikimedia Austria (3 members from WMF were there, and we had a
> >> great and productive time, reports will follow).
> >>
> >> I've personally been involved in all of these efforts, so I've also seen
> >> that real impact of Wikisource infrastructure (core WS extension,
> design,
> >> interface, performance, development) has been minimal. I don't really
> want
> >> to have this conversation here and now, but I have had a fair amount of
> >> experience in this to say that until the WMF (or some affiliate big
> enough
> >> and high enough in the software pipeline) commit to WS, change won't
> >> magically happen by itself. We have practically one real volunteer
> >> developer, and he's full of work to do (also, I already asked him if he
> >> would like to receive a grant to work on certain issues, and he can't,
> and
> >> he's the only one who could do that, thanks to his unique experience).
> >>
> >> Grant works for little things, I'm afraid. Maj

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

[Rob]

I don't think this rises to the level of outrage, but it's a little
important.  The goal of the WMF should be to promote free and open
content, and this adds to the perception that the WMF is disconnected
from those goals and the community.  I don't care if they use a stock
photo if they need to, but when they have smart, capable, and creative
people like Victor Grigas on staff, they can certainly manage to
photograph a cup of coffee and release it as a CC photo to set a good
example for the community and movement.

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:41 AM, Gerard Meijssen
 wrote:
> Hoi,
> It is that time of year where money is asked from the people. Arguably we
> would do more when the Wikimedia foundation was not so FF-ing Wikipedia
> centred.The arguments for not giving Wikisource have passed their sell by
> date and usability for exposing its wonderful work is imho a disfigurement
> on the resume of the WMF (among others). This is a cheap one to fix. It
> makes sense to fix it as I understand sources are part of "Wikimedia Zero"
> and it would make a world of a difference when the sources can actually be
> found.
>
> Unicef among others has fundraising campaigns for education because it is
> not its most important priority. As long as kids die because of lack of
> food, safe water, preventable disease and temperature it is obvious why.
> Such an excuse the WMF does not have. It could ask for additional funding
> for Wikisource, for Wikidata for ... and it would have a solid argument.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 3 December 2015 at 10:25, Andrea Zanni  wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Pine W  wrote:
>>
>> > Under the redesigned grants scheme, WMF Project grants might be able to
>> > help with this kind of software development work for Commons and/or
>> > Wikisource. I happen to know a developer here in Cascadia who might be
>> > interested, either as an individual or in association with a Wikimedia
>> > affiliate, in doing this kind of work on a grant or contract basis.
>> >
>> > Pinging Kacie for comment about possible grant funding. (:
>> >
>>
>>
>> Hi Pine, thanks for the comment.
>> I understand what you mean, and I do believe there is space to work on
>> Wikisource via grants, BUT.
>>
>> But I already did a Individual Engagement Grant in 2013 (with David Cuenca)
>> regarding Wikisource.
>> It was great, but IEGs don't give you staff time. So me and David used
>> Google Summer of Code, and we mentored 4 projects: if I'm not mistaken,
>> only one was really finished, meaning it produced concrete results on
>> Wikisource. Others stopped before (for example, two dedicated mediawiki
>> extensions were not put in production). Within the IEG, we made a big
>> survey among Wikisource communities, to develop a wishlist and a roadmap
>> for WS communities. We set up a Wikisource Community User Group. We talked
>> and talked. Bugs were and are reported, from years. Two weeks ago, we
>> convened the very first internationl Wikisource conference, in Vienna,
>> hosted by Wikimedia Austria (3 members from WMF were there, and we had a
>> great and productive time, reports will follow).
>>
>> I've personally been involved in all of these efforts, so I've also seen
>> that real impact of Wikisource infrastructure (core WS extension, design,
>> interface, performance, development) has been minimal. I don't really want
>> to have this conversation here and now, but I have had a fair amount of
>> experience in this to say that until the WMF (or some affiliate big enough
>> and high enough in the software pipeline) commit to WS, change won't
>> magically happen by itself. We have practically one real volunteer
>> developer, and he's full of work to do (also, I already asked him if he
>> would like to receive a grant to work on certain issues, and he can't, and
>> he's the only one who could do that, thanks to his unique experience).
>>
>> Grant works for little things, I'm afraid. Major change requires something
>> else.
>>
>> Aubrey
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> 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
> 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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
It is that time of year where money is asked from the people. Arguably we
would do more when the Wikimedia foundation was not so FF-ing Wikipedia
centred.The arguments for not giving Wikisource have passed their sell by
date and usability for exposing its wonderful work is imho a disfigurement
on the resume of the WMF (among others). This is a cheap one to fix. It
makes sense to fix it as I understand sources are part of "Wikimedia Zero"
and it would make a world of a difference when the sources can actually be
found.

Unicef among others has fundraising campaigns for education because it is
not its most important priority. As long as kids die because of lack of
food, safe water, preventable disease and temperature it is obvious why.
Such an excuse the WMF does not have. It could ask for additional funding
for Wikisource, for Wikidata for ... and it would have a solid argument.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 3 December 2015 at 10:25, Andrea Zanni  wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Pine W  wrote:
>
> > Under the redesigned grants scheme, WMF Project grants might be able to
> > help with this kind of software development work for Commons and/or
> > Wikisource. I happen to know a developer here in Cascadia who might be
> > interested, either as an individual or in association with a Wikimedia
> > affiliate, in doing this kind of work on a grant or contract basis.
> >
> > Pinging Kacie for comment about possible grant funding. (:
> >
>
>
> Hi Pine, thanks for the comment.
> I understand what you mean, and I do believe there is space to work on
> Wikisource via grants, BUT.
>
> But I already did a Individual Engagement Grant in 2013 (with David Cuenca)
> regarding Wikisource.
> It was great, but IEGs don't give you staff time. So me and David used
> Google Summer of Code, and we mentored 4 projects: if I'm not mistaken,
> only one was really finished, meaning it produced concrete results on
> Wikisource. Others stopped before (for example, two dedicated mediawiki
> extensions were not put in production). Within the IEG, we made a big
> survey among Wikisource communities, to develop a wishlist and a roadmap
> for WS communities. We set up a Wikisource Community User Group. We talked
> and talked. Bugs were and are reported, from years. Two weeks ago, we
> convened the very first internationl Wikisource conference, in Vienna,
> hosted by Wikimedia Austria (3 members from WMF were there, and we had a
> great and productive time, reports will follow).
>
> I've personally been involved in all of these efforts, so I've also seen
> that real impact of Wikisource infrastructure (core WS extension, design,
> interface, performance, development) has been minimal. I don't really want
> to have this conversation here and now, but I have had a fair amount of
> experience in this to say that until the WMF (or some affiliate big enough
> and high enough in the software pipeline) commit to WS, change won't
> magically happen by itself. We have practically one real volunteer
> developer, and he's full of work to do (also, I already asked him if he
> would like to receive a grant to work on certain issues, and he can't, and
> he's the only one who could do that, thanks to his unique experience).
>
> Grant works for little things, I'm afraid. Major change requires something
> else.
>
> Aubrey
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

[Andrea Zanni]

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Pine W  wrote:

> Under the redesigned grants scheme, WMF Project grants might be able to
> help with this kind of software development work for Commons and/or
> Wikisource. I happen to know a developer here in Cascadia who might be
> interested, either as an individual or in association with a Wikimedia
> affiliate, in doing this kind of work on a grant or contract basis.
>
> Pinging Kacie for comment about possible grant funding. (:
>


Hi Pine, thanks for the comment.
I understand what you mean, and I do believe there is space to work on
Wikisource via grants, BUT.

But I already did a Individual Engagement Grant in 2013 (with David Cuenca)
regarding Wikisource.
It was great, but IEGs don't give you staff time. So me and David used
Google Summer of Code, and we mentored 4 projects: if I'm not mistaken,
only one was really finished, meaning it produced concrete results on
Wikisource. Others stopped before (for example, two dedicated mediawiki
extensions were not put in production). Within the IEG, we made a big
survey among Wikisource communities, to develop a wishlist and a roadmap
for WS communities. We set up a Wikisource Community User Group. We talked
and talked. Bugs were and are reported, from years. Two weeks ago, we
convened the very first internationl Wikisource conference, in Vienna,
hosted by Wikimedia Austria (3 members from WMF were there, and we had a
great and productive time, reports will follow).

I've personally been involved in all of these efforts, so I've also seen
that real impact of Wikisource infrastructure (core WS extension, design,
interface, performance, development) has been minimal. I don't really want
to have this conversation here and now, but I have had a fair amount of
experience in this to say that until the WMF (or some affiliate big enough
and high enough in the software pipeline) commit to WS, change won't
magically happen by itself. We have practically one real volunteer
developer, and he's full of work to do (also, I already asked him if he
would like to receive a grant to work on certain issues, and he can't, and
he's the only one who could do that, thanks to his unique experience).

Grant works for little things, I'm afraid. Major change requires something
else.

Aubrey
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

[Pine W]

Under the redesigned grants scheme, WMF Project grants might be able to
help with this kind of software development work for Commons and/or
Wikisource. I happen to know a developer here in Cascadia who might be
interested, either as an individual or in association with a Wikimedia
affiliate, in doing this kind of work on a grant or contract basis.

Pinging Kacie for comment about possible grant funding. (:

Pine
On Dec 3, 2015 00:55, "Andrea Zanni"  wrote:

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 12:03 AM, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> For me Commons and Wikisource could do with an abundant sprinkling of
> improved user interface.
>

Well, of course.
But, from where I see it, this is something to be address centrally:
Commons and Wikisource communities are fairly small and at least in
Wikisource we don't have any volunteer designers or UX people. The amount
of staff time dedicated from the WMF to Wikisource is zero, from the
beginning (I don't know about Commons). So, yes, you're right, but this is
not a problem that communities can solve by themselves.

Aubrey

(sorry for the OT)
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

[Andrea Zanni]

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 12:03 AM, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> For me Commons and Wikisource could do with an abundant sprinkling of
> improved user interface.
>

Well, of course.
But, from where I see it, this is something to be address centrally:
Commons and Wikisource communities are fairly small and at least in
Wikisource we don't have any volunteer designers or UX people. The amount
of staff time dedicated from the WMF to Wikisource is zero, from the
beginning (I don't know about Commons). So, yes, you're right, but this is
not a problem that communities can solve by themselves.

Aubrey

(sorry for the OT)
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

[Jane Darnell]

This is exactly why we need "Stuctured Data for Commons" and I for one was
really disappointed to see it get tossed onto the back burner yet again:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2015_Community_Wishlist_Survey/Archive#Structured_metadata_for_Commons

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 6:35 AM, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> It is. I am one of the people who agitated for Commons to be created in the
> first place. I care about Commons and I hate the lack of usability with a
> passion. Wikimedians on the other hand cost us additional money in order to
> cope with Commons.
>
> What is your problem in acknowledging that using Commons is a big problem.
> It is so bad that I typically refuse to add categories because they are not
> easy to guess and therefore to apply. At some stage it is at least what I
> hoped for, a repository for use for WMF projects. As a re-use facility it
> is a failure.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> On 3 December 2015 at 00:09, Gnangarra  wrote:
>
> > There is a big difference here between an individual and the Wikimedia
> > Foundation using Wikimedia Commons
> >
> > On 3 December 2015 at 07:03, Gerard Meijssen 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > There is an excuse. You may know those categories, I do not and I do
> not
> > > even try to find images in Commons for my blog. It is too hard to find
> > > things. The search is neither efficient nor intuitive.
> > >
> > > For me Commons and Wikisource could do with an abundant sprinkling of
> > > improved user interface. It is geared up for people adding data not
> > really
> > > for people using data. The approach is way too dogmatic as well. So no,
> > > thank you.
> > > Thanks,
> > >   GerardM
> > >
> > > On 2 December 2015 at 23:56, Gnangarra  wrote:
> > >
> > > > 29 million photos, 30 seconds type category:coffee cups
> > > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Coffee_cups  90 photos
> > > > subcategory cups of coffee a further 700 images not really difficult
> to
> > > > find or navigate to what you need.
> > > >
> > > > There is no excuse for fundraising team to not use a Free licensed
> > > > photograph and message to the community they are suppose to be trying
> > to
> > > > support and promote either on commons-l or here sayo=ing they need an
> > > image
> > > > of a cup of coffee from above would have got them even more to choose
> > > from,
> > > >
> > > > On 2 December 2015 at 22:53, Marc A. Pelletier 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 15-12-02 09:46 AM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
> > > > > > It wouldnt have been hard to make a free photo of a coffee, or
> even
> > > > > > create a derivative of this lovely CC0 SVG
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't think I'm concerned about the foundation fundraising staff
> > > > > deciding to use a stock photo - expedience and all, but I'm pretty
> > sure
> > > > > that had they known about that (absolutely gorgeous) SVG, they'd
> have
> > > > > used it.
> > > > >
> > > > > ... which I guess is my way of saying "OMG commons actually *sucks*
> > for
> > > > > reuse because it's so hard to find stuff on it that many people no
> > > > > longer even try!!1!one!".
> > > > >
> > > > > -- Marc
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ___
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > >  ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > GN.
> > > > President Wikimedia Australia
> > > > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > > > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > 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
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > GN.
> > President Wikimedia Australia
> > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
It is. I am one of the people who agitated for Commons to be created in the
first place. I care about Commons and I hate the lack of usability with a
passion. Wikimedians on the other hand cost us additional money in order to
cope with Commons.

What is your problem in acknowledging that using Commons is a big problem.
It is so bad that I typically refuse to add categories because they are not
easy to guess and therefore to apply. At some stage it is at least what I
hoped for, a repository for use for WMF projects. As a re-use facility it
is a failure.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 3 December 2015 at 00:09, Gnangarra  wrote:

> There is a big difference here between an individual and the Wikimedia
> Foundation using Wikimedia Commons
>
> On 3 December 2015 at 07:03, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > There is an excuse. You may know those categories, I do not and I do not
> > even try to find images in Commons for my blog. It is too hard to find
> > things. The search is neither efficient nor intuitive.
> >
> > For me Commons and Wikisource could do with an abundant sprinkling of
> > improved user interface. It is geared up for people adding data not
> really
> > for people using data. The approach is way too dogmatic as well. So no,
> > thank you.
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> > On 2 December 2015 at 23:56, Gnangarra  wrote:
> >
> > > 29 million photos, 30 seconds type category:coffee cups
> > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Coffee_cups  90 photos
> > > subcategory cups of coffee a further 700 images not really difficult to
> > > find or navigate to what you need.
> > >
> > > There is no excuse for fundraising team to not use a Free licensed
> > > photograph and message to the community they are suppose to be trying
> to
> > > support and promote either on commons-l or here sayo=ing they need an
> > image
> > > of a cup of coffee from above would have got them even more to choose
> > from,
> > >
> > > On 2 December 2015 at 22:53, Marc A. Pelletier 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 15-12-02 09:46 AM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
> > > > > It wouldnt have been hard to make a free photo of a coffee, or even
> > > > > create a derivative of this lovely CC0 SVG
> > > >
> > > > I don't think I'm concerned about the foundation fundraising staff
> > > > deciding to use a stock photo - expedience and all, but I'm pretty
> sure
> > > > that had they known about that (absolutely gorgeous) SVG, they'd have
> > > > used it.
> > > >
> > > > ... which I guess is my way of saying "OMG commons actually *sucks*
> for
> > > > reuse because it's so hard to find stuff on it that many people no
> > > > longer even try!!1!one!".
> > > >
> > > > -- Marc
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > 
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > GN.
> > > President Wikimedia Australia
> > > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > 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
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> GN.
> President Wikimedia Australia
> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

[Gnangarra]

There is a big difference here between an individual and the Wikimedia
Foundation using Wikimedia Commons

On 3 December 2015 at 07:03, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> There is an excuse. You may know those categories, I do not and I do not
> even try to find images in Commons for my blog. It is too hard to find
> things. The search is neither efficient nor intuitive.
>
> For me Commons and Wikisource could do with an abundant sprinkling of
> improved user interface. It is geared up for people adding data not really
> for people using data. The approach is way too dogmatic as well. So no,
> thank you.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 2 December 2015 at 23:56, Gnangarra  wrote:
>
> > 29 million photos, 30 seconds type category:coffee cups
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Coffee_cups  90 photos
> > subcategory cups of coffee a further 700 images not really difficult to
> > find or navigate to what you need.
> >
> > There is no excuse for fundraising team to not use a Free licensed
> > photograph and message to the community they are suppose to be trying to
> > support and promote either on commons-l or here sayo=ing they need an
> image
> > of a cup of coffee from above would have got them even more to choose
> from,
> >
> > On 2 December 2015 at 22:53, Marc A. Pelletier  wrote:
> >
> > > On 15-12-02 09:46 AM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
> > > > It wouldnt have been hard to make a free photo of a coffee, or even
> > > > create a derivative of this lovely CC0 SVG
> > >
> > > I don't think I'm concerned about the foundation fundraising staff
> > > deciding to use a stock photo - expedience and all, but I'm pretty sure
> > > that had they known about that (absolutely gorgeous) SVG, they'd have
> > > used it.
> > >
> > > ... which I guess is my way of saying "OMG commons actually *sucks* for
> > > reuse because it's so hard to find stuff on it that many people no
> > > longer even try!!1!one!".
> > >
> > > -- Marc
> > >
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > GN.
> > President Wikimedia Australia
> > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > 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
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
There is an excuse. You may know those categories, I do not and I do not
even try to find images in Commons for my blog. It is too hard to find
things. The search is neither efficient nor intuitive.

For me Commons and Wikisource could do with an abundant sprinkling of
improved user interface. It is geared up for people adding data not really
for people using data. The approach is way too dogmatic as well. So no,
thank you.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 2 December 2015 at 23:56, Gnangarra  wrote:

> 29 million photos, 30 seconds type category:coffee cups
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Coffee_cups  90 photos
> subcategory cups of coffee a further 700 images not really difficult to
> find or navigate to what you need.
>
> There is no excuse for fundraising team to not use a Free licensed
> photograph and message to the community they are suppose to be trying to
> support and promote either on commons-l or here sayo=ing they need an image
> of a cup of coffee from above would have got them even more to choose from,
>
> On 2 December 2015 at 22:53, Marc A. Pelletier  wrote:
>
> > On 15-12-02 09:46 AM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
> > > It wouldnt have been hard to make a free photo of a coffee, or even
> > > create a derivative of this lovely CC0 SVG
> >
> > I don't think I'm concerned about the foundation fundraising staff
> > deciding to use a stock photo - expedience and all, but I'm pretty sure
> > that had they known about that (absolutely gorgeous) SVG, they'd have
> > used it.
> >
> > ... which I guess is my way of saying "OMG commons actually *sucks* for
> > reuse because it's so hard to find stuff on it that many people no
> > longer even try!!1!one!".
> >
> > -- Marc
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> GN.
> President Wikimedia Australia
> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

[Gnangarra]

29 million photos, 30 seconds type category:coffee cups
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Coffee_cups  90 photos
subcategory cups of coffee a further 700 images not really difficult to
find or navigate to what you need.

There is no excuse for fundraising team to not use a Free licensed
photograph and message to the community they are suppose to be trying to
support and promote either on commons-l or here sayo=ing they need an image
of a cup of coffee from above would have got them even more to choose from,

On 2 December 2015 at 22:53, Marc A. Pelletier  wrote:

> On 15-12-02 09:46 AM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
> > It wouldnt have been hard to make a free photo of a coffee, or even
> > create a derivative of this lovely CC0 SVG
>
> I don't think I'm concerned about the foundation fundraising staff
> deciding to use a stock photo - expedience and all, but I'm pretty sure
> that had they known about that (absolutely gorgeous) SVG, they'd have
> used it.
>
> ... which I guess is my way of saying "OMG commons actually *sucks* for
> reuse because it's so hard to find stuff on it that many people no
> longer even try!!1!one!".
>
> -- Marc
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

[Marc A. Pelletier]

On 15-12-02 09:46 AM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
> It wouldnt have been hard to make a free photo of a coffee, or even
> create a derivative of this lovely CC0 SVG

I don't think I'm concerned about the foundation fundraising staff
deciding to use a stock photo - expedience and all, but I'm pretty sure
that had they known about that (absolutely gorgeous) SVG, they'd have
used it.

... which I guess is my way of saying "OMG commons actually *sucks* for
reuse because it's so hard to find stuff on it that many people no
longer even try!!1!one!".

-- Marc


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

[Richard Symonds]

Apologies for missing out the subject :-(

Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK
0207 065 0992

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).

*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*

On 8 October 2015 at 16:44, Richard Symonds <
richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:

> All,
>
> The University of Edinburgh has today started advertising for a part time
> Wikimedian in Residence post:
>
>
> http://www.jobs.ac.uk/job/AMB999/wikimedian-in-residence-fixed-term-part-time/
>
>
> To quote from it directly:
>
>
> Do you have an eye for detail and a love of facts? Are you an experienced
> > Wikimedian with experience working with the Wikimedia community? What
> would
> > you do to engage our staff and students in editing, contributing and
> > sharing open knowledge? We are recruiting a Wikimedian in Residence to
> work
> > in Information Services alongside our learning technologists, archivists,
> > librarians and information literacy teams. Following our first successful
> > editathon events we now need your help to establish a network of
> > Wikimedians on campus and to embed digital skills and open knowledge
> > activities in learning and teaching across the University.
> >
>
> I will also send this to the UK list, but I know many Scottish Wikimedians
> don't follow that list as closely as Wikimedia-l :-)
>
> Good luck to those who apply - any questions will have to go to the
> University directly, as they're running the recruitment process themselves.
>
> All the best,
>
>
> Richard Symonds
> Wikimedia UK
> 0207 065 0992
>
> Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
> Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
> Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
> United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
> movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
> operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
>
> *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
> over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

[K. Peachey]

Can't we please kept this to one thread were possible? This is now the
third I believe.

On Tuesday, December 31, 2013, James Salsman wrote:

> > Neither of Calxeda's articles gives a figure for capital cost
>
> I think they went under the moment their first competitor charging typical
> markups (Mitac) started shipping. Get some GFX servers and some of these to
> do your own tests: http://www.mitac.com/Business/7-Star.html
>
> > you can't just plug a fiber cable into an ethernet socket
>
> The RADXA Rock includes SPDIF, and it's open source. Spare fiber isn't more
> expensive than spare Ethernet, but it's far more resistant to
> eavesdropping. http://wiki.radxa.com/Rock/hardware_revision
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>  ?subject=unsubscribe>



-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile on my iPod.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,