Greetings,
I got several requests about this, so this mail is mostly to get the
ball rolling. Nothing urgent !
Checkuser ombudsmen have been appointed now a year ago by the board.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Ombudsperson_checkuser
I guess it is time for a renewal and little feedback on this, and more
generally, on checkusers.
So, please reflect on the following points if appropriate
1. is there any change to the checkuser policy that you might wish to
suggest ? If so, please comment here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Checkuser (talk page)
2. are they currently checkusers who still do not comply with the data
access policy ? Perhaps Cary can give a private feedback on this.
3. are they inactive checkusers ? If so, according to policy, they
should be removed. Can someone make a summary of activity, in the same
way that stewards activity perhaps ?
4. is there any change to the privacy policy that you might wish to
suggest ? If so, http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy
(talk page)
5. is there any change to suggest about the ombudsmen committee role ?
Clarifications ? If so, please here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ombudsman_committee (talk page).
6. last year, ombudsmen committee was appointed by the board. Maybe this
year, we can do it differently, and have the community approve/vote
people and Foundation "sanctify" the community choice ? If so, how would
you suggest doing that ? Similar that steward election ? Or is there
another preferred solution ?
Please take the time to give a feedback on this within the next 2-3
weeks, so that we can move on end of august on the topic.
Thanks
Ant
On 7/30/07, Casey Brown <cbrown1023(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> I agree that the Ombudsman committee are supposed to hear all privacy policy
> violations, and that this includes things other than CheckUser. The only
> thing is, most of these disputes arise from a CheckUser, which is the most
> public item on our list of possible privacy policy violations.
Privacy policy violations are fairly difficult to cause without being
checkuser, someone with server access, or a few other things.
While oversight has privacy implications it's a corner case. Has
anyone actually suspected that the use of oversight has *created* a
privacy policy issue? The primary risks of the use of oversight are
not privacy related.
Keep in mind that the privacy policy only covers the foundation's
stewardship of non-public data.
If you leak your IP by accidently editing while logged out and some
unkind regular user maliciously spreads the information around, it
would be a bad thing and, no doubt, a blockable offense on the jerk's
part, as per the standards of our communities.... but it would not be
a violation of the foundation privacy policy.
Hoi,
When it is horrid to state that something is wrong at the bases ie meaning
that this cannot be said, then indeed it is horrid. I doubt also very much
that there is any effective control over the #wikipedia-* channels. If it is
to asserted it in the same way as it was done with the #wikipedia channel it
will not create the same uproar, it will be much worse.
When there is indeed jurisdiction over multiple channels, it is because of
these channels being Wikimedia Foundation related. Not more not less.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 7/30/07, Casey Brown <cbrown1023(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
> First, what a horrid thing to say. Second, by Wikipedia-affiliated he
> meant
> the #wikipedia-* channels on IRC. That is where Mark's jurisdiction is,
> and
> that is what the guidelines are for. I do not see what the problem with
> his
> statement was.
>
> Casey Brown
> Cbrown1023
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: foundation-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of GerardM
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 1:44 PM
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Cc: wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org; English Wikipedia
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] #wikipedia IRC channel guidelines review
>
> Mark,
> There are Wikimedia affiliated IRC channels on Freenode.
> Thanks for getting even the basics wrong.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On 7/30/07, Mark Ryan <ultrablue(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hello everyone.
> >
> > As a few of you may know, about 5 weeks ago some new guidelines were
> > put into place on meta for the IRC channel #wikipedia. At the same
> > time, the operator access list for the channel was emptied and started
> > from scratch.
> >
> > The changes were quite unpopular, to say the least. A discussion
> > thread was started about them on the foundation-l mailing list, but
> > probably should have been started on wikipedia-l.
> >
> > Now that I am back from my holiday, I have opened a review discussion
> > about the guidelines on their talk page on meta, which you can access
> > at the follow URL:
> >
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:IRC_guidelines/wikipedia
> >
> > I would very much appreciate the input there of all people who have an
> > interest in the guidelines, and indeed any users of the
> > Wikipedia-affiliated IRC channels on Freenode.
> >
> > ~Mark Ryan
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
On 7/31/07, Casey Brown <cbrown1023(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> First, what a horrid thing to say. Second, by Wikipedia-affiliated he meant
> the #wikipedia-* channels on IRC.
I think I understand what you would like to mean, but it is still too
much broad.
>That is where Mark's jurisdiction is, and
> that is what the guidelines are for.
Or is it reallly mean other wikipedia-* channel should be ruled by
English speakers? It's more than horrid.
I do not see what the problem with his
> statement was.
>
> Casey Brown
> Cbrown1023
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: foundation-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of GerardM
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 1:44 PM
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Cc: wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org; English Wikipedia
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] #wikipedia IRC channel guidelines review
>
> Mark,
> There are Wikimedia affiliated IRC channels on Freenode.
> Thanks for getting even the basics wrong.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On 7/30/07, Mark Ryan <ultrablue(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hello everyone.
> >
> > As a few of you may know, about 5 weeks ago some new guidelines were
> > put into place on meta for the IRC channel #wikipedia. At the same
> > time, the operator access list for the channel was emptied and started
> > from scratch.
> >
> > The changes were quite unpopular, to say the least. A discussion
> > thread was started about them on the foundation-l mailing list, but
> > probably should have been started on wikipedia-l.
> >
> > Now that I am back from my holiday, I have opened a review discussion
> > about the guidelines on their talk page on meta, which you can access
> > at the follow URL:
> >
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:IRC_guidelines/wikipedia
> >
> > I would very much appreciate the input there of all people who have an
> > interest in the guidelines, and indeed any users of the
> > Wikipedia-affiliated IRC channels on Freenode.
> >
> > ~Mark Ryan
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
--
KIZU Naoko
Wikiquote: http://wikiquote.org
* habent enim emolumentum in labore suo *
Inspired by the creation of Wikimedia Norway (which I attended),
we are now starting to discuss the formation of a Swedish chapter.
I hope and think it can be completed before this year's end. The
recent discussion (in Swedish) can be found on
http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikimedia_Sverige
A similar discussion from a year ago took place on meta, but
didn't lead to anything real. The page mentioned above links to
all such discussions.
Even before the chapter is formed, I think it would be nice to
print t-shirts with the logotype for the Swedish Wikipedia.
However, today this logotype doesn't exist in high resolution.
And the small resolution logotype used on sv.wikipedia.org appears
to use a font which is slightly different from the one used for
the other European languages. What is the name of the proper font?
Is that font available in Gimp? Or can someone help us with this?
WMF already has a t-shirt shop at cafepress.com (in California)
and the German chapter has a shop at spreadshirt.de. Both shops
charge extra for delivery to Sweden, so the Swedish chapter would
probably prefer to set up a similar shop based in Sweden. Is there
any established practice in how to do this? Does every use of the
logotypes need to be cleared with the WMF? Should items be sold at
the price of printing or with a 10% markup, for the benefit of the
national chapter?
I remember at the first Wikimania (in 2005) there was a large flag
with the Wikipedia puzzle globe without (?) any text. Does
anybody already have a stock of such flags? I know they can be
printed in single quantity, but become much cheaper once you can
print five or ten at a time. I'd like to buy one or two, and my
guess is that Wikimedia Norway might also be interested.
--
Lars Aronsson (lars(a)aronsson.se)
Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
Off topic, but why does my email appear to be coming from the bounces
address with "on Behalf of Dan Rosenthal" in the title? Is something
broken on my end?
-Dan
On Jul 28, 2007, at 8:33 PM, Casey Brown wrote:
> How many cases there were...
> What were the accusations... (nothing specific i.e. what sort of
> abuse)
> Where they all solved... (how fast?)
> What were the threats...
>
> There are many other possible questions as well. It is best to see
> what the
> Ombudsman themselves share.
>
> Casey Brown
> Cbrown1023
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: foundation-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Dan
> Rosenthal
> Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 7:47 PM
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] checkuser
>
>
> On Jul 28, 2007, at 7:13 PM, elisabeth bauer wrote:
>
>> 2007/7/29, Florence Devouard <Anthere9(a)yahoo.com>:
>>> Greetings,
>>>
>>> I got several requests about this, so this mail is mostly to get the
>>> ball rolling. Nothing urgent !
>>>
>>> Checkuser ombudsmen have been appointed now a year ago by the board.
>>> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/
>>> Resolution:Ombudsperson_checkuser
>>>
>>> I guess it is time for a renewal and little feedback on this, and
>>> more
>>> generally, on checkusers.
>>>
>>> So, please reflect on the following points if appropriate
>>
>> I'd like to add one point:
>> Could the ombudsmen please provide a report on the mailing list
>> (without going into private details of course) how many cases they
>> have handled, what have been the issues and how they have been
>> resolved?
>>
>> greetings,
>> elian
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
> I can't see why that would be necessary. Considering the ombudsman
> commission is there to investigate breaches of privacy policy,
> including potentionally litigious instances (as taken from the
> resolution), I don't see what's necessary out of that for the public
> to be aware of. I don't see much information would be available to be
> given about the cases individually due to privacy concerns: what
> little information would be left is what...how many cases there are?
>
> -Dan Rosenthal
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
oh, sorry; of course. My mistake.
Ant
Casey Brown wrote:
> Perhaps it may be best to point discussions of the privacy policy itself to
> the *meta* talk page, considering that not all users have accounts on the
> Foundation wiki and that wiki itself isn't the ideal location for
> discussions.
>
> So that would be <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Privacy_policy>.
>
> Casey Brown
> Cbrown1023
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: foundation-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Florence
> Devouard
> Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 6:32 PM
> To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: [Foundation-l] checkuser
>
> Greetings,
>
> I got several requests about this, so this mail is mostly to get the
> ball rolling. Nothing urgent !
>
> Checkuser ombudsmen have been appointed now a year ago by the board.
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Ombudsperson_checkuser
>
> I guess it is time for a renewal and little feedback on this, and more
> generally, on checkusers.
>
> So, please reflect on the following points if appropriate
>
> 1. is there any change to the checkuser policy that you might wish to
> suggest ? If so, please comment here:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Checkuser (talk page)
>
> 2. are they currently checkusers who still do not comply with the data
> access policy ? Perhaps Cary can give a private feedback on this.
>
> 3. are they inactive checkusers ? If so, according to policy, they
> should be removed. Can someone make a summary of activity, in the same
> way that stewards activity perhaps ?
>
> 4. is there any change to the privacy policy that you might wish to
> suggest ? If so, http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy
> (talk page)
>
> 5. is there any change to suggest about the ombudsmen committee role ?
> Clarifications ? If so, please here:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ombudsman_committee (talk page).
>
> 6. last year, ombudsmen committee was appointed by the board. Maybe this
> year, we can do it differently, and have the community approve/vote
> people and Foundation "sanctify" the community choice ? If so, how would
> you suggest doing that ? Similar that steward election ? Or is there
> another preferred solution ?
>
> Please take the time to give a feedback on this within the next 2-3
> weeks, so that we can move on end of august on the topic.
>
> Thanks
>
> Ant
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hello,
mistyping the URL to OTRS top page, I eventually got "wiki does not exist" page.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/
It is quite outdated, for example
- No mention to the projects launched in 2004 or later (missing
Wikinews, Commons etc)
- Klingon Wikipedia is included
- Only Wikipedia and Wiktionary language versions are presented
Supposedly the page was set up in the mid 2004 before Wikiquote and
Wikibooks were divided into language? I think none wants to keep it as
is, but renew it to reflect our current situation.
If you know somewhere this issue is discussed, please gimme the link. Thanks.
Cheers,
--
KIZU Naoko
Wikiquote: http://wikiquote.org
* habent enim emolumentum in labore suo *
Anthony wrote:
> There are differing interpretations of what a transparent format is
> (most of which are pretty obviously incorrect), but distributing more
> than 100 copies on paper without providing any digital copy at all
> pretty clearly violates the requirement to have a machine readable
> copy.
Leaving aside for a moment the current state of GFDL legalism vis-a-vis
technology, I don't see any fundamental reason why a paper copy couldn't
qualify as machine-readable. There are some pretty substantial endeavors
focusing on just that sort of thing.
If you meant that it fails to meet the GFDL's definition of
"transparent" you might have a stronger point. But that's a
legalism-and-technology issue.
Despite the charges some pundits like to raise, there is no
philosophical reason for us to be enemies of the printed word. Let's not
allow our technological inadequacies to lead us into dismissing the
medium that has, over the course of history, spread more free knowledge
to more people than the Wikimedia Foundation has ever managed.
--Michael Snow
Dear all,
Last week, Wikimedia Deutschland announced the second Wikipedia Academy
to be held in Mainz on August 24th and 25th, 2007. This year the
conference will focus on the humanities in Wikipedia, aiming for a
dialogue between researchers and Wikipedians. Wikimedia Deutschland
organizes the conference in cooperation with the Mainz Academy of
Sciences and Literature, one of the seven great German Academies of
Sciences.
For the first time, the Wikipedia Academy will be sponsored by the
German Ministry for Education and Research. Wikimedia Deutschland was
chosen as an official partner of the "Year of the Humanities", an annual
event organized by the ministry that started in 2000 and focuses on a
different discipline each year. The conference will be opened by Doris
Ahnen, Minister of Education, Research, Youth und Culture in
Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany, and Elke Lütjen-Drecoll, President of the
Academy of Sciences and Literature.
One of the conference highlights will be the award ceremony for the
"Johann Heinrich Zedler Medal". Wikimedia Deutschland and the Mainz
Academy of Sciences and Literature award this prize for an outstanding
encyclopedia article in the area of the humanities. The Zedler Medal
comes with 3,000 Euro and is sponsored by the German scientific journal
"Gehirn&Geist". The selection jury consists of seven renowned scientists
(among them Johannes Fried, former president of the Association of
German Historians, and Michael Stolleis, former president of the
Max-Planck-Institute of European Legal History), a journalist of
"Gehirn&Geist" and a German Wikipedian. The award ceremony starts with a
lecture by Professor Ulrich Johannes Schneider, director of the Leipzig
University Library, on "Johann Heinrich Zedler's Universal-Lexicon and
the premature attempt to start Wikipedia in the 18th century".
On Saturday, August 25th, the conference will end with a panel
discussion on "Perspectives to communicate sciences for a large audience
in the New Media".
More information about the second Wikipedia Academy:
http://www.wikipedia-academy.de (official website)
http://www.wikimedia.de/2007/07/wikipedia-trifft-geisteswissenschaftler/
(in German)
More information about the Zedler Medal:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Zedler-Medaille (with photo)
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Heinrich_Zedler (featured article
about Zedler)
Regards,
Frank Schulenburg
Wikimedia Deutschland e. V.