[Wikimedia-l] Re: Announcing the six candidates for the 2022 Board of Trustees election

I am disturbed to see some community members blithely dismissing the need to protect the well-being of potentially vulnerable community members, especially in a community that usually prides itself on the ability to participate anonymously. That said, perhaps we could publish the names of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Moderation notice

This is all so predictably tiresome. Any attempt to center a discussion forum on its intended purpose is hijacked by people outraged that they are deprived of their own personal soapboxes. I see this matter is spilling over into multiple threads. I propose that objectors start a new thread to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads

I know this might sound crazy, but have you considered logging in? On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 10:56 AM John Erling Blad wrote: > Often I surf Wikipedia without being logged in, and so I did right now. I > got the usual banners, but this time they popped up repeatedly in several > locations. This

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF political activism

FFS who is against Earth Day? Every organization and company probably mentions it or observes it in some way. Get over yourselves. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] SEEKING A WIKIPEDIAN IN RESIDENCE! (U.S.)

As a long time on and off subscriber to this list for many years, I want to say that I do find posts about jobs like this very useful, unlike posts complaining about capitalization and geography. It is informative and exciting to find out where Wikipedia projects are making in-roads, and what

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fresh data on the gender gap in content

How do you get negative one biographies? 149 Mongolian 2 -1 -50.00 148 Punjabi 2 -1 On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 5:15 PM Florence Devouard wrote: > Hello Asaf > > Just making sure that you knew about WHGI : > http://whgi.wmflabs.org/gender-by-language.html > > Do you know if there are differences

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation joins the global climate strike

I think we could drastically lower our carbon footprint by not using community digital resources to beat the same dead horse for a billionth time. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Welcoming Wikimedia Foundation’s new CTO, Grant Ingersoll

Of all the useless pontificating that happens both on this list and on Wikipedia, *this* is the comment that you call out? smh On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 3:57 PM Aron Manning wrote: > > ...without linking to at least one cute pic of Allie ;-) > > > > Well, Wikipedia is not a social networking

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

It isn't magic. People have studied how and why it was successful and other projects were not. Wikipedia 2019 isn't the same as Wikipedia 2001. We've made lots of changes that we thought at the time were radical along the way. On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 6:01 AM Todd Allen wrote: > That "arcane

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

Thankfully the gamut of human nature is far wider than just 4chan and Reddit. On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 7:31 PM Nathan wrote: > > > Yes, the environment is full of toxic people. This has always been true, > and yet it exists. You want a revolution to make Wikipedia a friendlier > place? It isn't

[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia DC Statement on Terms of Use Enforcement

https://wikimediadc.org/wiki/Press:Statement_on_Terms_of_Use_enforcement June 30, 2019 Wikimedia District of Columbia is deeply concerned by recent events that have occurred on the English Wikipedia, including community controversy regarding a ban imposed by the Wikimedia Foundation. Protecting

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

Benjamin Ikuta wrote: > > > > > Do you at least believe him when he says he hasn't contacted anyone offwiki, > and everything he was warned about was onwiki? > > And if he really is lying, why can't they even say so? > > > > On Jun 28, 2019, at 12:14 PM,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

yway. > >>>> The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly had > her > >>>> articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as > >>> "harassment" > >>>> rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Some goodbye to all

on > how flawed the system is. > > Apart from the details of the case described by the OP, the almost total lack > of due process is extremely worrying, especially to those who already > experimented it failing in first hand. > > Best, > Paulo > > > > A sexta, 21 de j

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Some goodbye to all

At some point we have to decide who this movement and community is for. Is it for popular individuals to act out in any way they please and be awarded maximum freedom and lack of accountability? Or is it so we can insure a friendly space for everyone, including those who are not popular, who are

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Some goodbye to all

You do realize that you can email Romaine privately? On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 1:18 AM Gerard Meijssen wrote: > > Hoi, > You do not get it. For me this is about saying goodbye. Saying goodbye to > someone I/we truly value. Saying goodbye to someone who we owe gratitude. > This was not allowed to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

Far better that editors deal with unfairness from secret proceedings by untrained and unqualified volunteers of varying degrees of incompetence elected in a popularity contest. On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 10:32 PM David Goodman wrote: > the probability of unfairness from secret proceeding by >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

Framing it as "competence over politeness" is convenient for the people who do not want the latter and imagine they are the former. It also insults the editors who have managed to do both. I know an en.wp editor who has dozens of FAs and somehow managed the herculean feat of not referring to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done then clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate” On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ wrote: > This misses the point, as others have highlighted already. > > The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

A number of people in our community literally are Gamergaters, including editors with tools. On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 3:15 AM Chris Keating wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:48 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < > paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Going there dismissing the whole issue as a sexist

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

e alleged bad conduct all took place on-wiki, it is already all > public, so there is no privacy to protect (unless it involves suppressed > material). In that case, yes, any procedures should be public and > transparent, and that should be the default. > > Todd > > On Wed,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

sued by them? > > To who /what can we appeal? > > Paulo > > A quarta, 12 de jun de 2019, 17:35, Robert Fernandez > escreveu: >> >> Of course it doesn't belong to the WMF. It belongs to everyone, and >> that includes the victims of harassment who have n

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

veryone", we certainly shouldn't be throwing > people out in secret Star Chamber-style proceedings, where apparently even > the accused is not permitted to know all the evidence against them. That is > utterly antithetical to the open, community-run ethos of the project. > > Tod

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

is not permitted to know all the evidence against them. That is > utterly antithetical to the open, community-run ethos of the project. > > Todd > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:09 AM Robert Fernandez > wrote: >> >> > I am not familiar with your name on enwiki, so I loo

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

> I am not familiar with your name on enwiki, so I looked you up, and find that > you have a grand total of 11 edits on all projects since 2015. This is part of the problem right here. This isn't our project and we shouldn't be trying to exclude people from our community. Wikipedia belongs to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

Because the English Wikipedia community is a garbage fire, and is hellbent on demonstrating that this week. On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 9:16 AM Paulo Santos Perneta wrote: > > And why do you think the WMF would be the proper entity to step in on > community issues related to the English Wikipedia?

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

Through various means I'm aware of the partial or full circumstances of a number of office bans. In all cases, T investigated thoroughly and acted appropriately. I don't know why this case would be any different, or warrants pitchforks and torches from vocal members of the community, but these

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia's sourcing

Interesting metrics and ideas here, but nobody's going to take your research particularly seriously if you choose to post it in an open sewer. I'd suggest a Medium or Wordpress blog. On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:44 AM sashi wrote: > > Hello, > > I thought I would ask if any of the junior or

[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia DC: Knight Prototype Fund support for the Wiki Art Depiction Explorer project

d by three longtime Wikimedia DC volunteers: Andrew Lih, author of The Wikipedia Revolution, Effie Kapsalis, Chief of Content & Communications Strategy at the Smithsonian Institution Archives, and Robert Fernandez, member of the board of directors of Wikimedia DC. Andrew Lih is currently i

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Concerns about WMF's "Manager of Community Development" job posting

On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 2:00 AM, Pine W wrote: > 1. It sounds like WMF intends to centralize the training and leadership > development work that in recent years has largely been done by affiliates and > grantees, meaning that affiliates should probably expect budget cuts, and > individual

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

The whole framing of this question is misguided. There are lots of people whose work is undervalued on Wikipedia for a lot of reasons. If there is an effort to reach out to a particular group of volunteers that is underrepresented then that should be celebrated as a positive contribution to our

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

osama...@hotmail.com>: > >> Not just English Wikipedia. All of the projects are hostile to "outsiders" >> Those not in English might even be worse for several reasons >> >> Enviado desde mi LG de Telcel >> >> -- Original message-- >> From:

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

Considering the barriers to entry, growing thicket of policies, organized group harassment, and open hostility on the English Wikipedia, I'm not sure we can even call it "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" anymore. So I'd say fact-checked is a more accurate and relevant claim these days. On Sun,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcing the Wikimedia Technical Conference

Thanks for pointing that out Pine. I believe WikiConference North America will be on October 18 to 22 in Columbus, Ohio. On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 10:41 AM, Pine W wrote: > Hi Victoria, > I hope that you are OK with discussing this announcement on Wikimedia-l, > which seems

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The Wikimedia Foundation's FY18-19 Annual Plan is on Meta-wiki

Could we not conflate the US with the WMF? There are a large number Wikimedia volunteers in the US who fuel a robust group of chapters, user groups, conferences, and individual outreach efforts who act independently of the WMF just like affiliates in the Global South. On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia mocks expert contributor

You're right, my mistake. Sorry I did not get your allusion, just as you didn't get the entire point of the Signpost piece. These things happen. On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Renée Bagslint <reneebagsl...@gmail.com> wrote: > Robert Fernandez thinks it is "remarkably inappo

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia mocks expert contributor

On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Renée Bagslint wrote: > > So there we have it. A Wikpedian-in-Residence makes it clear that "experts > are scum". It is remarkably inappropriate for you to put this phrase in quotation marks giving them impression that it is an exact

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Women in red

uot;Is it wise to offer money in > >> exchange for creating large numbers of articles without consideration of > >> quality?" or "Will this effort have the intended result?" is sexist. The > >> same question would apply if the proposed articles were about R

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Women in red

So those who call out sexism are the real sexists, amirite? I am fed up with this double standard in the way we talk about these issues. Some people are allowed to make broad, unsupported, sweeping generalizations about the motives and actions of others and that's considered just fine, but if

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RFC on wikimedia-l posting limits

Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 8:52 PM, James Salsman <jsals...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Why are we having this RFC prior to the survey which was discussed at >> length less than a year ago? >> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:James_Salsman#Peri >> odic_sur

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RFC on wikimedia-l posting limits

Since Rogol has followed through on his threat he should be banned from the list, or we should have a public statement from the moderators regarding why they will not do so. I can't imagine many actions that would have a more chilling effect on participation here than one of this list's most

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New style banner - A heads up

Is anyone actually confusing the banner with article content, or are they just assuming others will do so? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RFC on wikimedia-l posting limits

Agreed. This sort of thinly veiled threat towards someone, whether the Foundation is their employer or not, should be grounds for moderation or banning. On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Dan Rosenthal wrote: > Hey Rogol: > > "Alternatively, > perhaps you would prefer me to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RFC on wikimedia-l posting limits

It is a mistake to frame the use of a community resource in terms of a legal or justice system, or an individual's rights or punishment. This is an issue of the management of a community resource, and a community resource must be managed in a way that works for the community as a whole, not just

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement of the Scoring Platform team

Come on, Aaron. You can't expect people to read the entire blog post. On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Aaron Halfaker wrote: > Hi Rogol, > > In the blog post, I include a major section titled "Where we plan to go > next" which gives a high level overview of our plans

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

>By not explaining clearly to the community what was happening initially, Please don't speak for the entire community. Plenty of us thought that their response was quite clear. On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 1:26 AM, Rogol Domedonfors wrote: > Greg and Anna > > This is a most

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

perhaps > it is unfair to place too much weight on a passing comment. > > "Rogol" > > On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 10:53 PM, Robert Fernandez <wikigamal...@gmail.com > > wrote: > >> What kind of answer are you expecting here? Do you have any reason to >> believe

[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia District of Columbia: New Institutional Partnerships Manager

Wikimedia District of Columbia is pleased to announce the hiring of our first employee. Ariel Cetrone has joined WMDC as our Institutional Partnerships Manager, where she will plan and facilitate events with our many institutional partners, including cultural, academic, and professional

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

>Personally I'm much more grateful for the people who did not >spend their energy on this code of conduct to "accidentally" >exercise power over others If the organizers of this proposal responded in kind with even a fraction of the bad faith accusations that have been leveled at them, the howls

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees

There is actually quite a bit of community involvement in the process. They repeatedly respond to community requests for information about processes and are open to community feedback regarding them. What they won't do is give you specific information about specific cases, and so the demands for

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees

derstandably) WMF refuses to elaborate what was the > motivation for a global ban this impression gets even stronger. > > Cheers > Yaroslav > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Robert Fernandez <wikigamal...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > I don't see the point of paying

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees

I don't see the point of paying for legal and community safety experts if we aren't going to allow them to engage in their area of professional expertise. Transparency, due process, and community governance are important values, but they are not the skills you need to bring to bear when it comes

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

>The world is not San Francisco. That's rather dismissive of those of us who have nothing to do with San Francisco. You complain about the WMF not listening to voices in the community but you ignore a large part of that community who disagrees with you. On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 7:49 AM, Leigh

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

The same way I would respond any time they do something non-political I strongly disagree with. On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 7:00 PM, MZMcBride wrote: > > You somewhat conveniently avoided addressing Nathan's point. If the > Wikimedia Foundation issued a political statement with a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

That is an obvious false equivalence. The issue isn't people rooting for the WMF to take political stances that mirror their own. The issue is whether or not that the WMF should recognize that its mission can intersect with or conflict with political stances and then act appropriately. The free

Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Delegation of policy-making authority" resolution

"My perspective is that the 2015 board was not particularly responsive to community (or WMF employees') questions or input, including questions and input regarding human resources and governance matters. (For example, I still haven't seen a good explanation of why WMF shouldn't undergo a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [discovery] Fwd: Improving search (sort of)

> If I can get a few hundred people to click on a link like this , I can get any message I want on that list. (Curious? Did you click?) The message could be less anonymous and much more obnoxious,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Improving search (sort of)

Excellent idea. Librarians use patron catalog searches to gauge what their patrons are looking for and supplement their collections accordingly, there's no reason we can't adopt this practice as well. On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 9:32 AM, James Heilman wrote: > A while ago I

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

"No, WMF shouldn't morally support Elsevier by having any relation with them." This was debated extensively last September. The opinion of many, including myself, was that the WMF's primary commitment should be to the encyclopedia and providing editors and readers the resources to improve the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

The Wikimedia Library distributes donated accounts from Elsevier to Wikipedia editors. This was the subject of some debate last September. (Here's my take on that debate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-09-16/Editorial). I cannot speak for them, but I do not

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

ned and moderated the panel) > > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Robert Fernandez <wikigamal...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > The Wikimedia Library distributes donated accounts from Elsevier to > > Wikipedia editors. This was the subject of some debate last September. &g

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

Actually, you are complaining. I am against relentless negativity of the kind you see from many self-styled and self-important Wikipedia critics. I'd hardly put Pine in that group. The idea that Pine's measured and reasonable post could be described as "baying for blood" is ridiculous. On Fri,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reducing the net cost of Wikimania

The US may be too geographically spread out to develop a robust chapter system. We have vibrant chapters in a few dense population areas. Wikimedia District of Columbia is particularly awesome. But for most US editors there isn't a critical mass of editors in some areas. Often we work with with

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reducing the net cost of Wikimania

I just want to clarify something. I apologize in advance for being pedantic. In the US the term Latino is also applied to those of us who live in the United States who have cultural and ethnic ties to Latin America. Based on my reading of the selection process those Latinos would not be

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

I understand the situation that Denny, Dariusz, Patricio, et al are in and I appreciate their attempts to address this issue. As a new member of the Arbitration Committee on the English Wikipedia, I've discovered that there is a great deal of anger about some of our decisions, and it is