In a message dated 10/21/2010 6:52:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
me(a)marcusbuck.org writes:
> I think your proposal is a good idea and that that wiki could develop
> into a very useful resource. However it does not fit into Wikimedia.
> Wikimedia is strictly about educational content and "neutral point of
> view" etc. and your how-to is just the opposite of neutral point of
> view. It collects the experience of people from their own point of view. >
> >
>
Personally I think this is wrong. Neutral point of view, does not mean to
discount your own experience. What it means, is to objectively report the
"facts" of the situation. Obviously if I do research, I am using my eyes and
hands and brain, I cannot discount my experience in doing my research.
What I report of my research is based on my judgement of what's important and
what's not, what's interesting, what's mundane, what's silly, what's
someone's unsupported opinion, what's an accurate summary....
If I can objectively describe how to fix your lawnmower engine, my
contention is that that would be a neutral point of view. Someone else might object
that it's too vague or too obtuse, but I don't think they'd object that
it's too politically left or too religiously biased....
W.
In a message dated 10/20/2010 11:30:49 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
op.leonardo(a)gmail.com writes:
> Electrodomestics, Autos, Houses, Clothes and Shoes, Kitchen accesories,
> etc.
>
Can I suggest that "Electrodomestics" doesn't mean anything to U.S. English
speakers ?
I think you are very generous saying “chapter selection process is not very
transparent”, saying "absolutely opaque outside the chapters" perhaps is a
bit more realistic.
I have to say that according to the rules of the call in last election I
presented a candidate to the chapter’s board selected members.
He devoted his time to write the candidacy and answer the questions made by
the chapters.
The process is so opaque that nobody contacted him after the elections.
Officially he doesn’t know yet if he has been elected or not.
Of course nobody has thanked him his effort for participating in the
process.
We don’t know neither who else participated in the process nor the answers
given by the other participants.
I have done my proposals at movement roles page but it seems to me that it
is difficult to understand why this information is not publicly available.
By the way, I have to say thanks to you, Phoebe. You published your
candidacy and your answers which honours you.
Message: 8
> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 14:52:46 -0700
> From: phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: [Foundation-l] chapter board seats (was: Greg Kohs and Peter
> Damian)
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTinKYDzBsOuims+4dW2s9Cd3M1vmxJECSJTAA1Sz(a)mail.gmail.com<AANLkTinKYDzBsOuims%2B4dW2s9Cd3M1vmxJECSJTAA1Sz(a)mail.gmail.com>
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 20 October 2010 16:47, Muhammad Yahia <shipmaster(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > The board defines both "community" and "chapter". I'm not sure that
> the
> >> > board does ultimately answer to the community; there's nothing in the
> >> > bylaws
> >> > to indicate that.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Section (G) states: Board Majority. A majority of the Board Trustee
> >> positions, other than the Community Founder Trustee position, shall be
> >> selected or appointed from the community and the chapters.
> >>
> >> I think this directly says that the board ultimately answers to the
> >> community. Now you may say that the definition of community is not as
> broad
> >> as you may like given that some seats go to the chapters , but that
> still
> >> means that our community -as organized in a certain form given the
> chapters
> >> are all community controlled AFAIK- holds power to elect the board
> >> majority.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Three board positions (30% of the board) are elected by the community at
> > large. They are the only members of the board who have a direct
> > responsibility to the community, and there is no method for the community
> to
> > revoke their representation.
> >
> > Two board members (20% of the board) are elected by a tiny number of
> > representatives of chapters (the chapter representative election process
> is
> > very opaque). I can't find any numbers that confirm exactly how many
> people
> > belong to chapters, and whether or not all of their members would
> otherwise
> > meet the definition of "community member", but it is widely acknowledged
> > that only a small percentage of Wikimedians (i.e., those who would meet
> the
> > definition of "community member") are members of chapters. ?I have a hard
> > time understanding why people think chapters are representative of the
> > community. ?They're representative of people who like to join chapters.
> >
> > Risker/Anne
>
> changing the subject line because I think we've ranged pretty far away
> from the original subject of moderation....
>
> As the person who was selected via this process I feel the need to jump in
> :)
>
> I agree that the chapter selection process is not very transparent, or
> very clear (to the people inside as well as the people outside!) and
> could have been improved. However, this time around was also only the
> second time chapters have selected seats (by contrast, last year was
> our 6th community election) ... so I hope that we will continue to
> improve on that front and the next selection process, year after next,
> will be better. That's something we all want to see.
>
> Others can speak to this better than I can, but part of the rationale
> behind chapter-selected seats was to help even out representation --
> to make sure that the elected seats on the board were not entirely
> dominated by candidates from those communities that have lots of
> voting editors, like the English Wikipedia. If you are from a smaller
> language project, or a smaller chapter, the chances of getting name
> recognition and a seat in the community elections is much harder.
> Additionally, the chapters *are* a part of the greater Wikimedia
> movement, and selecting seats via chapters helps ensure that those
> chapters get a place at the table. In the U.S. there has not been a
> chapter presence until WM-NYC was founded, but that's not true in
> other places -- Wikimedia Deutschland was of course founded before the
> WMF itself was founded, and many of the other chapters are well
> established too.
>
> Now, you could certainly ask, given all that, why in the world the
> chapters would have selected me -- yet another American English
> Wikipedian -- to be on the board. And that's a perfectly valid
> question! It's important to realize however that I am not a
> "representative" of the chapters. On the board itself, I am identified
> as a board member or sometimes as a community board member, but not as
> someone who is there specifically to advance chapter interests or be
> more involved with chapters than anyone else (there are currently
> three board members on the chapcom, for instance: one is
> chapter-selected, one is community-elected, and one is appointed). I
> am honored that the chapters thought that I would be a good board
> member *in general*, to work on all of the issues that the WMF faces
> -- and hopefully that is why they selected me :)
>
> As for community accountability, I certainly feel accountable to the
> community. I also feel accountable to the long-term survival and
> health of the Wikimedia projects, and will do my utmost to help make
> decisions that will both help ensure this survival and that also
> represent community interests and needs. I have been around for long
> enough, and thought hard enough about the community, to realize the
> obvious -- that there is no single "community" for a trustee to
> represent. There are editors of all different types and interests,
> there are chapter members, there are even readers... but I do think
> that we have some important shared values, of openness and freedom and
> knowledge-sharing, and those values underpin my decisions.
>
> As for knowing what it is the board does -- yes by all means if you
> care about this topic go to the movement roles meeting (I have a work
> conflict, sadly). I also hope to start having more open IRC community
> meetings, as I mentioned a month or so ago at the IRC meeting with
> Bishakha -- I just haven't had time to schedule them yet is all. Soon
> :) And please ask questions anytime.
>
> -- phoebe
>
>
> --
> * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers
> <at> gmail.com *
>
>
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 9:26 AM, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> What about situations where a dozen or so people get together and decide to
>> do the "chapter" thing for a geographic region/country, without actively
>> seeking input from the majority of Wikimedians from their region? Once the
>> name is incorporated, it's something of a done deal, whether or not the
>> Board grants them chapter-hood.
>
> Well, not entirely. As I understand it, if a group got together and
> started using the Wikimedia name without permission it would be a
> trademark violation (see
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_Policy). I know these
> questions has been debated over many years; someone from the chapcom
> etc should jump in for a longer answer.
There really isn't much of a longer answer.
Le me, however, try some context and an example.
Wikimedia has limited ressources, which it tries to invest in the best
possible places, with the goal to support free culture, content,
education etc. It so happens that Wikimedia is also hosting one of the
most visited website in the world, which brings us in the spotlight.
That means that there are people who are attracted to the name because
they want some of the light.
This might include people who decide to start an organisation called
"Wikimedia something", which has no purpose close to ours, or which,
as you put it, does not represent Wikimedians at large but rather a
small group of people defending their own interests. We then have the
following potential solutions:
- These people apply for chapter status, and fail to deliver the
prerequisites for being one, and are denied it. This might lead to us
asking them to drop the name, which they might do or not do, in which
case we might consider legal action in a given geography to recover
the name for other people.
- These people don't even ask for chapter status and are just a thorn
in our side or in the side of local Wikimedians who would like to
found their own chapters. Same as above applies (we ask nicely, and we
might go to court).
What I'm trying to show here, is that we cannot be everywhere (there's
much of "cannot" as in "not able to because it's just too much
trouble), so yes, there might be misuse of the name and/or the chapter
thing. However, the trademarks are registered, so if we really have a
case, we should be able to go and get our name back.
Cheers,
Delphine
--
~notafish
NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost.
Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org
Hi Robert / all,
I wonder if perhaps folk on the foundation-l mailing list may be able
to help with this issue I'm hoping to clarify as tangetial, but
related to the Controversial Content study;
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Robertmharris#Tangential.2C_but_im…
In short, I've had conversations with various volunteers previously
which indicate that material likely to be child pornography has, in
the past, been uploaded to WMF sites, and that dev.s have previously
removed it from servers - what I'm not clear on is whether or not such
material is routinely reported to external authorities (we may well be
talking about only 2 or 3 cases, perhaps per year, perhaps ever?) -
and the process by which a WMF volunteer should follow should such
material rear its ugly head at some point in the future.
Depressingly, I think we should prepare for such an eventuality, and
I'll further take the opportunity to encourage whomever is the
decision maker in such instances to permanently remove the photo at
commons of a 16 year old girl masturbating - currently only available
to 'oversighters' here;
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Robertmharris#Tangential.2C_but_im…
I'll heap praise / feedback on the study in general following any
board action / announcement in the coming days / weeks :-)
best,
Peter,
PM.
ps. on re-reading I realise it's sensible to add 'alleged' to the '16
year old girl masturbating' - as ever with this stuff, the intent
could well have been to disrupt all along, and it could well just be a
basic copyvio of online material. We can't know.
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 4:08 AM, R M Harris <rmharris(a)sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Just to let you know that Part 3 of the Study on Controversial content is
> now up on its own Meta page
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Conten….
> Thanks to everyone who has contributed to the discussion so far -- it has
> been expectedly passionate, but very interesting, and illuminating. All
> three parts of the study, combined together, will be presented to the
> Wikimedia Foundation Board on Friday, Oct. 8 at their next meeting. Either
> the Board or we will be following up on that presentation. Thanks again to
> all for allowing us to enter your "house" as a guest; we've been treated
> very civilly, and appreciate it. Robert and Dory Harris
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
>
You are very right, Virgilio. The body of work, of the Project, is quite
salvageable; as well as ultimately sustainable. But it is quite clear that
the present management doesn't have the slightest clue, nor apparently, the
vaguest interest in learning, how to work with people, beyond their own
hubris-driven circle. That's where the change needs to begin if sustainable
is the goal.
Marc
on 10/20/10 2:16 PM, Virgilio A. P. Machado at vam(a)fct.unl.pt wrote:
> Marc,
>
> I agree with you. I would rephrase your statement as the present
> setup is not sustainable. You can only fool some of the people some
> of the time... There are many bells ringing, many whistles blowing,
> lots of lights going on and off. It is foolish not to give them a
> second thought and make amends while there still time and
> opportunity. Sometime down the line it will be too late. We're making
> a sincere and honest effort here. The last thing we want to say is "I
> told you so," but the audience keeps on screaming "Kill! Kill!" Its
> hard to hear anything else over the crowd roar.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Virgilio A. P. Machado
>
>
> At 13:58 20-10-2010, you wrote:
>> Let's see what we've got here:
>>
>> A "Board" that appears answerable only to some god; an "Executive Director"
>> who answers only to this "Board"; a group of "Moderators" who claim (with a
>> straight face) that they are "independent", but whose "moderations" are
>> clearly designed to keep the first two in a favorable light; and, dead last,
>> you have the people who, not so ironically, create the substance of the
>> thing that makes the first three possible. This setup sounds achingly
>> familiar. And, like all similar setups throughout history, is set up to
>> fail.
>>
>> Marc Riddell
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Mike,
Very good. I subscribe to everything you wrote and I'll second any
proposal you or anyone else makes in that direction.
Sincerely,
Virgilio A. P. Machado
At 07:30 20-10-2010, you wrote:
>Hello,
>
> From what I have seen about Greg Kohs is that he does have some
>interesting points to make, but I do see that he is jumping to
>conclusions and does seem to have a biased viewpoint.
>
>People want to make their own decisions and have enough information to
>do that. We don't want to have important information deleted away
>because it is uncomfortable.
>
>Banning him makes it less likely for him to be heard, and these
>interesting points which are worth considering are not heard my many
>people : this is depriving people of critical information, that is not
>fair to the people involved.
>
>Just look at this article for example, it is quite interesting and
>well written, and why should it not be visible to everyone on the
>list.
>
>http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-foundation-directo…
>
>Deleting and banning people who say things that are not comfortable,
>that does make you look balanced and trustworthy.
>
>The Wikimedia foundation should be able to stand up to such
>accusations without resorting to gagging people, it just gives more
>credit to the people being gagged and makes people wonder if there is
>any merit in what they say.
>
>This brings up my favorite subject of unneeded deletions versions needed ones.
>
>Of course there is material that should be deleted that is hateful,
>Spam etc, lets call that evil content.
>
>But the articles that i wrote and my friends wrote that were deleted
>did not fall into that category, they might have been just bad or not
>notable.
>
>We have had a constant struggle to keep our articles from being
>deleted in a manner that we consider unfair. Additionally, the bad
>content is lost and falls into the same category as evil content.
>
>Also there should be more transparency on deleted material on the
>Wikipedia itself, there is a lot of information that is being deleted
>and gone forever without proper process or review.
>
>In my eyes there is a connection between the two topics, the banning
>of people and the deleting of information. Both are depriving people
>from information that they want and need in an unfair manner.
>
>Instead of articles about obscure events, things, and old places in
>Kosovo you have a wikipedia full of the latest information about every
>television show, is that what you really want?
>
>I think there should be room for things in places that are not not
>notable because they are not part of mainstream pop culture, we also
>need to support the underdogs of Wikipedia even if they are not
>mainstream, Mr Kohs definitely has something to say and I would like
>like to hear it. And the Kosovars have something to say even if the
>Serbs don't want to hear it. The Albanians have something to say even
>if the Greeks don't want to hear it, etc. There are many cases of
>people from Kosovo and Albania driven out of Wikipedia and depriving
>the project of important information because they are not able to get
>started and the contributions are so far way from the dominating
>political viewpoint of the opposite side that they don't even get a
>chance to be heard.
>
>We need to make a way for these people to be heard and to moderate the
>conflicts better, that will make Wikipedia stronger and more robust.
>
>thanks,
>mike
Hi guys,
After extensive discussion among the list administrators, we've
enacted, for the first time, a permanent ban of a mailing list member.
Greg Kohs is no longer welcome to participate on Foundation-l.
Peter Damian has also been moderated once again, and will remain on
moderation for the indefinite future.
Austin