ngements it can sometimes seem that the community is divided
and the board is on one side of that divide. It will be much healthier for
the movement if the board takes a majority decision in scenarios where the
community is divided.
Sometimes it may even be worthwhile to record why the board
nevitably fail.
Alternatively we could significantly increase editing levels in certain
parts of the world where editing or even reading wikmedia sites is a slow
and frustrating experience by we opening more local datacentres such the
one we have in Amsterdam
s edited today
3. Editor first edited more than 7 days ago
4. Editor is not currently blocked
5. Editor has not previously been welcomed
6. Editor's userpage does not have one of the templates declaring them
to be an alternate account
7. Editor is not flagged as a bot
WereSpielC
are some
things such as dealings with regulators where collective responsibility is
necessary for a board such as the WMF. There are other things such as the
development of internal policy, where collective responsibility on the
board is risky and unhealthy for the organisation. Unhealthy because on a
divisive issue you want the minority to feel that they lost in the board
decision, not that the board as a whole is opposed to their ideas.
WereSpielChequers
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hi Brandon, thanks for the explanation, but wouldn't it be easier to just
analyse edit summaries? If you edit by section the edit summary defaults to
start with the section heading...
Were SpielChequers
Message: 7
> Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 14:51:49 -0800
> From: Brandon Harris
> To: foundatio
Hi Phoebe, Often the most interesting thing about an agenda is what it
omits. So the first board meeting after the SOPA blackout is not going to
discuss blackouts, SOPA and lobbying?
WereSpielChequers
Message: 9
> Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:22:56 -0800
> From: phoebe ayers
> To:
Re Tom's suggestion that we have an RFC on meta to discuss what we are and
aren't prepared to do when fundraising; We already have a discussion at
Meta
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Draft_Guiding_principles_with_regards_to_fundraising.
Funny thing is that debate has almost been the mirror of here
s we would be having an even steeper decline in the number
of newbies. But logic and the statistics make me think otherwise.
WereSpielChequers
> --
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 10:58:42 +
> From: Tom Morris
> Subject: Re: [Foundatio
>
> --
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 6:38 AM, Yao Ziyuan wrote:
>
> > Hi Wikipedians,
> >
> > I seem to have found a way to automatically judge which revision of a
> > Wikipedia article has the best quality.
> >
> > It's very simple: look at that article's edit history and
There are two steps that strike me as obvious. Inform the committee of the
community's concerns and go to the press.
Here in the UK when a union gets a majority vote for strike action it
sometimes focuses management's attention and prompts concessions.
Going straight from such a vote to taking ac
Unless I'm missing something, his examples "morphed photos of Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh and Congress president Sonia Gandhi, as well as
pigs running through Islam's holy city of Mecca." sound like things that we
would not be using in Wikipedia articles, except if the morphed image had
gained su
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 1:00 PM, WereSpielChequers
> wrote:
> > I'm pretty sure that the community is against a filter system based on
> our
> > commons categories.
>
> .
> > Thankfully the Foundation seems to have taken tha
I'm pretty sure that the community is against a filter system based on our
commons categories. Those who oppose that type of scheme range from the
idealists who are opposed to censorship in principle to the pragmatists who
are aware of our categorisation backlog and don't want to set us up to fail
pecting there would be an overlap,
then don't be surprised if Indians who are not Wikimedians are similarly
confused. If Wikimedia in India emerges with a structure that only people
who are both Indians and also Wikimedians understand then you risk
confusing the press complicating things for yourselves. If remits are clear
and minimally overlapping then 1, 5 or 50 organisations might be sensible.
If remits substantially overlap and you can't clearly explain the different
roles then its probably best to just have the one organisation.
WereSpielChequers
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 12:58:32 +0100
> From: "Peter Damian"
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia ideology
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
>
> Message-ID:
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
>reply-type=original
>
> > What
-pole-how.htmlI
don't get the impression that the ability to give each other kittens
would make Commons as attractive as Flickr for museums to upload image
collections. Developments to match flickr's "robust tagging and search
tools" would, but what chance
ts. Ultimately this is about whether the community self
manages where that works and uses the Foundation where that doesn't. Or
whether the Foundation manages the community, but allows some limited local
discretion.
WereSpielChequers
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
ortance. A more meaningful
consultation would be to give editors the ability to rate the relative
importance of a bunch of potential enhancements "How much do you want
this?" Should be the second question after "Do you want this?". The least
lovely feature of Wikilove as with the Artic
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 15:31:07 -0700
> From: Brandon Harris
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] On certain shallow, American-centered,
>foolish software initiatives backed by WMF
> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <4eab2d2b.3020...@wikimedia.org>
> Content-Type:
in order of relevant
importance (we also need a quite separate question for whether you think
something is worth doing at all). In your new role as liaison between the
community and the development team please could you initiate something like
that, so that those of us who would give a higher prior
859-1; format=flowed
>
> Am 23.10.2011 15:46, schrieb WereSpielChequers:
> > --
> >
> >> Message: 3
> >> Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 02:57:51 +0200
> >> From: Tobias Oelgarte
> >> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] category free im
-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Am 23.10.2011 01:49, schrieb WereSpielChequers:
> > Hi Tobias,
> >
> > Do youhave any problems with this category free proposal
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:WereSpielChequers/filter
> >
> &g
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 23:51:14 +0200
> From: Tobias Oelgarte
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] News from Germany: White Bags and thinking
>about a fork
> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <4ea33ad2.6070...@googlemail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO
pposed the previous
image filter proposal. As far as I'm concerned one gains trust by listening
to those you disagree with and accepting those of their arguments that you
find convincing. That doesn't mean that it will now be easy to get a
consensus based solution, but in my opinion it will be easier than it was as
a major disagreement is resolved.
WereSpielChequers
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
t;
I don't know what's being said in the Foundation or on the internal mailing
list. But we have a time out for three months before the developers will be
available, and Sue Gardner has accepted that solutions can't be based on
s an additional option,
but that would be an extra not something we could describe as random
article.
WereSpielChequers
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
who consider any
censorship to be out of scope and Foundation money spent on it to be a
misuse of charitable funds. Simply asserting that such people don't exist is
unlikely to get them to agree to any form of censorship, better in my view
to try and design a censorship tool that would give
ke the same
choices on images.
My belief is that many of us would be OK with a filtering system for use by
people with an aversion to images of spiders, penises, gore or whatever
their phobia or cultural aversion is; Provided they don't impose their
concerns on others, or create undue work for others. I think this fails both
tests. Though as the author of a rival option at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:WereSpielChequers/filter I may be a
little biased.
WereSpielChequers
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
the person with vertigo might not
want that publicly known, the pyromaniac who blocked images that might
trigger their pyromania would almost certainly not want their filter to be
public. As for "legitimate editorial reasons", I think it would be quite
contentious if anyone started making edi
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 2:24 PM, WereSpielChequers
> wrote:
>
>
> >> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:55 PM, WereSpielChequers
> >
>
> >> I really read that with a huge deal of thought. I keep coming to the
>
gt;
> Message-ID:
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:55 PM, WereSpielChequers
> wrote:
> > OK in a spirit of compromise I have designed an Image filter which should
> > meet most of the needs that people have expressed
ilter
WereSpielChequers
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
nwise for the board to refuse to
accept someone over something that was disclosed in the election, and
especially if that was a difference of opinion as to the future direction
of the Project rather than a bit of personal history that the candidate had
persuaded most of the community to ignore.
WereSpielChequers
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
55b.5010...@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> WereSpielChequers, 04/10/2011 23:46:
> > If someone tried to use this law
> > to
> > force an editor to publish a rebuttal of something posted before the
> > freeze, then sur
force an editor to publish a rebuttal of something posted before the
freeze, then surely that would be retrospective legislation?
WereSpielChequers
> Message: 7
> Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 18:00:25 +0200
> From: Jalo
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia
> To
clause to
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Art There are already ones in
there for Mexico, Samoa, Côte d'Ivoire and a few others.
WereSpielChequers
>
> --
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2011 08:36:43 -0400
> From: Anthony
> Subject:
was me not knowing
how to do blog replies or something else. But the solution is in our hands,
I've now posted my blog response in
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sue_Gardner#Your_blog_post where
really it should have gone in the first place.
Regards
WereSpielChequers
-
body seems to
be committed to clearing backlogs of articles" but I'm happy to defend your
right to say it.
TTFN
WereSpielChequers
On 22 September 2011 01:31, Phil Nash wrote:
> Carcharoth wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 1:13 AM, Phil Nash
> > wrote:
> >
> >
them.
I'm uncomfortable about a session cookie based system for IP readers, many
of our readers are in Internet Cafes and I'm not sure if PCs in those sorts
of environments get rebooted and the session cookies wiped between
customers.
WereSpielChequers
> --
>
&g
Clearly some editors hate this. on DE 86% oppose it. Though there are also
some "committed core editors" amongst those who think that such a system is
both workable and possible to harmonise with our core values.
One of the objections is that we don't want a Flickr style system which
involves imag
us to implement this the way Flickr has
http://www.flickr.com/help/filters/#258 And not only because I'm not totally
convinced that our community would share their view that Germany is the
country that needs the tightest restrictions.
Hugs
WereSpielChequers
PS My niece absolutely wants th
t to see
again, and categories where they want to first check the caption or alt text
in order to decide whether to view them.
WereSpielChequers
--
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 03:47:07 +0200
> From: Milos Rancic
> Subject: [Foundation-l] Poss
Number of times per project per month that a user chose to block an
image and not see it again
4. Number of times per project per month that a user chose to override
the filter and look at an image anyway
TTFN
WereSpielChequers
On 19 September 2011 06:28, David Levy wrote:
>
> &g
reason to
disclose deleted edits. Or for that matter account passwords. So that drive
would need to be an extract of the material covered in the license.
WereSpielChequers
--
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 10:06:08 -0400
> From: MZMcBride
>
de of a fair and open
process that on the winning side of an unfair one.
WereSpielChequers
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I remember hearing a couple of times that CorenSearchBot was down, but just
assumed that something so important was being rescued, though I did wonder
slightly about the recent net increase in articles on EN wiki. 3,738,826
articles today means we've way overshot the 3 million projection, the 3.5
m
ar, or even by going outside the movement and
asking for volunteers willing to cut code.
Regards
WereSpielChequers
--
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:51:11 -0500 (CDT)
> From: Tempodivalse
> Subject: [Foundation-l] A Wikimedia pr
e way Wikimania chooses presentations. That way
projects and editors could make a pitch for IT investments that their
communities actually had consensus for - currently even EN wiki can get
consensus for change but not get IT resource for it to happen.
Regards
WereSpielChequers
On 13 September 20
f devout Bahais decide to use this
filter to screen out certain images, how likely is it that there will be an
opposing team trying to sneak those images past their filter? Especially if
the filters are personal options that other editors can't see.
WereSpielChequers
Board is filled with a bun
To answer John Vandenberg's question about the image filter survey "Was this
survey approved by the Research Committee?"
RCOM collectively was not consulted, though individual RCOM members may have
been.
WereSpielChequers
--
>
> Message: 5
>
ile:Yakshi_%28sandstone%29.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Parshvanatha_at_V%26A.jpg
WereSpielChequers
> I don't know why people are wigging out so badly about the image filter.
> If
> > people want to use it, great, and if you don't, DON'T. But perhaps I'm
As someone who is neither a WMF or a chapter board member it seems clear to
me that there is some tension between the chapters and the Foundation.
Increasing the mutual overlap of boards is a tried and tested way of
reducing such tension, it doesn't always work, (in wiki speak it isn't magic
pixie
It was interesting to hear from Switzerland, here in the UK things are very
different. One difference between the UK model and the US/Swiss model is
that the tax largely accrues to the charity not to the donor. Another
feature of UK charity giving is that it is heavily skewed towards legacies,
but
te a
while.
It might be easier to persuade whatever the organisation it is that insists
on PD to broaden their stance and become compatible with us.
Regards
WereSpielChequers
> --
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 12:37:08 +0100
> From: Fae
> S
Hi Teofilo,
Chapters are geographic entities, I don't think they have a role in disputes
about Commons templates. As for the controversial content referendum, I
suspect some chapters or proto chapters in Islamic countries will be
strongly for having such filters. But the content filtering thing is
Re "(is anyone really going to say that they don't think it's important to
be culturally neutral?)" That depends on what the referendum means by
culturally neutral.
If it will be interpreted as meaning that the setting of filters will be
neutral between all cultures, so Moslems will be able to use
x27;d want the option of keeping my username on both forks,
though I doubt if I'd be active on the spinoff less open pedia. But I'd be
annoyed if they let someone else activate my account there.
WereSpielChequers
>
___
foundation-l mail
To answer Michael Snow's concerns. Yes there is an efficiency problem
if you have a global audit committee covering organisations in
multiple legal jurisdictions. But that problem is the same whether you
have the existing WMF committee covering the chapters or you replace
that US-centric committee
e that the fundraising team has tried to move away from that.. But
the last figures I've seen show a US based fundraising team that raises most
of their funds in the US.
WereSpielChequers
> Anyway, thanks for raising the importance of decentralization. The Board
> agrees: there&
r treasurers should
serve on it without at least a break of a year since serving as a
treasurer.
WereSpielChequers
>
> Well, let's be clear here: in what sense are the chapters "participating" in
> the fundraiser, rather than merely being its beneficiaries? The underlying
> fundr
If anyone thinks The Kohser is just a maverick who asks awkward
questions, and rather more relevantly did some sockpuppetry and ran a
breaching experiment doing "unhelpful" edits to unwatched articles,
please read the thread at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2010/Questions#Thekoh
Congratulations Liam, you've just made the case for micro stubs.
WSC
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 01:11:35 +
> From: Liam Wyatt
> Subject: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia as seen through 1964 acoustic, 300
> baud modem
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>
> Messa
the under tens or the under 4s.
But I don't think we should be to concerned about literacy by 2050.
Someone is bound to have designed a proper speech based interface by
then.
WereSpielChequers
> Message: 8
> Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 13:14:21 +0200
> From: Thomas Goldammer
> Sub
aid there is no
benefit and considerable disbenefit in running them as separate wikis.
Merging them into meta should be an easy and uncontentious win.
Startegy and Outreach perhaps need their own spaces within Meta in the
same way that Research has, and perhaps for ten we need a "meetup"
space
If merging existing wikis is resource intensive, lets start the
process by not creating new wikis for thins that should be projects
within existing wikis. So wikimania 2012, or if it is too late for
that Wikimania 2013 could be a project within meta.
But my suspicion is that a bit of development a
idual wikiprojects would now
work across what are currently quite separate news, quote and pedia
projects.
WereSpielChequers
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
en spunoff into an even bigger new article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Pass_rare_earth_mine
Who knows how much those small articles will grow in future years and decades.
WereSpielChequers
>
> Indeed, 7 out of 19 articles I created over three weeks are in Great
> Soviet Encyclop
do this where it is easy to do so.
WereSpielChequers
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 14:28:11 +0100
> From: FT2
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>
> Message-ID:
> Content-Type: text/plain; char
r an article
about a Rock group or terrorist incident. In my experience a large
proportion of our BLP violations don't take place in BLPs, but a
policy of informing people whenever we named them on wiki would be
even less practical than one of informing them when we wrote an
article about
that they understand
4 90% of literate people have a version of wikipedia available in
their native language
5 95% of literate people have a version of wikipedia available in
their native language
6 99% of literate people have a version of wikipedia available in
their native language
WereSpielChequer
think we could make it slightly less brusque and more related to
talkpages by changing:
"Dear WereSpielChequers,
The Wikipedia page User talk:WereSpielChequers has been changed on
14 May 2011 by MC10, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WereSpielChequers for the current
revision.
See
16,000,000 out of 3,000,000 articles sounds high to me, it would mean
over 500% of it was copyvio. Could that be individual edits?
Otherwise I suggest:
day mon, 2011
Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org), a non-profit project run by the
Wikimedia Foundation, uses an open licence but with some term
Attribution would be a step in the right direction, but are Baidu
Baike still claiming copyright over material on their site? I'm afraid
I don't read Chinese, but a usually reliable source says they do
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baidu_Baike#Copyright
Lots of people mirror or otherwise use conten
don't need to, instead we should
measure and define ourselves in ways that more closely reflect our
mission.
WereSpielChequers
> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 12:29:49 +0200
> From: "Federico Leva (Nemo)"
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Outdated manual
> To: Wikimedia Foundation
ems that currently seem intractable.
Personally I'm optimistic and think that a measurable minority of the
problems that currently evade a consensus solution will have been
resolved even before the end of our second decade.
8 Scary thoughts aren't they?
No. But thanks for posing them.
Regar
was what it effectively became.
WereSpielChequers
> Message: 8
> Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 00:08:31 -0500
> From: MZMcBride
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board Resolution: Openness
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>
> Message-ID:
> Content-Type: text/plain;
it would be
unfortunate if we underrated the importance of some of our language
versions simply because their readers were more likely to use internet
cafes.
WereSpielChequers
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2011 10:45:57 +0200
> From: "Federico Leva (Nemo)"
> S
few days from requesting a death anomaly
report to receiving and clearing it.
WereSpielChequers
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 19:03:56 +0400
> From: "Yaroslav M. Blanter"
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] interwiki links
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>
nking by showing such links as
redirected, or would we continue to have such anomalies? Or would DE
wiki consider it an error to link these two articles?
WereSpielChequers
> On 21/03/11 09:27, Andre Engels wrote:
>> I guess I'm awfully inadequate at that then... Moving interwikis to
r the foundation thanking
people for their 500th edit and saying that they are now entitled to
vote in trustee elections could be a very good way to build the
community.
You'd need to phrase it carefully though:)
WereSpielChequers
--
>
> Message: 6
> Date:
ing on in early 2010, and the problems with
liquid threads made it very difficult for me to get back in when I
tried to. But looking at the end result and comparing it to my
memories of the project, and also rereading
[[:strategy:Favorites/WereSpielChequers]], I don't think it is fair to
dismiss
switch off
those ads".
WereSpielChequers
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2011 14:12:07 +
> From: Thomas Dalton
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Raising funds without being quite so
> annoying to readers
> On 5 March 2011 14:05, WereSpielChequers wrote:
>> Pick
n pages that are disproportionately viewed by minors
WereSpielChequers
>
> However the main point of mail was to discuss how we're going to raise
> funds without being annoying to readers, and I welcome any input from
> WMF staff, chapters and volunteers :-)
>
> -- Tobias
__
st will be whether the foundation
is able to work out which of those are worth continuing, which merit
expansion and building on, which need tweaking and which need to be
closed down and learned from.
WereSpielChequers
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 15:17:33 +0300
> From: Victor Vasi
d my garden would be somewhat
better tended.
WereSpielChequers
> --
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 15:35:39 -0500
> From: David Goodman
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] breaking English Wikipedia apart
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
&g
85 matches
Mail list logo
