Dear all,
Recently the Affiliations Commitee, in order to improve its governance
and in its need for improvement and organizational advise, voted in
favor of appointing Delphine Ménard [1], Lodewijk Gelauff [2] and Bence
Damokos [3] as non-voting advisers . They have provided this committee
during their respective tenures as full members of this committee with
invaluable expertise, governance advise and language and communication
skills. Hence, this committee has decided to appoint them as advisers
for a term ending on Deceber 31, 2016.
Many thanks in advance to Delphine, Lodewijk and Bence for their
contributions and support to the Affiliations Committee. And of course,
congratulations!
Best regards,
Carlos
1:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Resolutions/Appointm…
2:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Resolutions/Appointm…
3:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Resolutions/Appointm…
--
"*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua
junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."
Carlos M. Colina
Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 |
www.wikimedia.org.ve <http://wikimedia.org.ve>
Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
Phone: +972-52-4869915
Twitter: @maor_x
Greetings,
As you may have seen in Tech News, on the Wikimedia blog or at the
latest Metrics meeting, I'm currently leading a File metadata cleanup
drive, whose goal is to to fix file pages and tweak templates across
Wikimedia wikis, to ensure that multimedia files consistently contain
machine-readable metadata [1,2].
This initiative is a critical step in improving reuse and following
best practices for attribution in PDF prints, offline content like
Kiwix and third party tools like WikiWand, among others.
Some of you have already started adding the markers to information and
licensing templates (Thank you!) and I'm going around wikis to do the
same. We're making progress [3], but there's still a lot of work to do
because we have so many wikis.
I'd like to ask for your help in adding markers to the templates on
your wiki, since you probably speak many languages that I have trouble
deciphering. You're also more familiar with your wiki's templates, and
a distributed effort will be more efficient than just a handful of us
going around wikis :)
There's a detailed guide in many languages if you're not sure how to proceed:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/File_metadata_cleanup_dr…
I also recommend that you reach out to other editors on your wiki,
template authors, gadget maintainers, etc. since they may be able to
help, but may not know about this effort.
I'm also happy to help if you have questions. You can ask me off-list,
on the tech ambassadors list, on IRC (I'm guillom in #wikimedia on
freenode) or on my talk page on Meta. (Carrier pigeons are
discouraged.)
If you're helping, please consider adding yourself to the list of
participants, so others can see which wikis are actively fixing files
and templates: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_metadata_cleanup_drive/Participants
And if you're having difficulties, please do let others know on the
talk page so we can try and find a solution, both for your benefit and
for the benefit of others who might have the same problem:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:File_metadata_cleanup_drive .
I hope that you'll be able to help fix files and templates on your
wiki and give a hand in this distributed effort.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_metadata_cleanup_drive
[2] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/11/07/cleaning-up-file-metadata-for-humans-…
[3] https://tools.wmflabs.org/mrmetadata/historical_tallies.svg
--
Guillaume Paumier
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Guillaume_(WMF)
Jens Best writes:
> First it's kind of interesting that net neutrality which is very clear in
> its definition becomes "overly simplistic and unrealistic" and "inadequate"
> the moment it collides with an organisations own interests. Isn't that
> quite an coincidence? ;)
Jens, rather than argue with you point by point, let me outline what
my own views are.
First, I'm a long-standing supporter of the Wikipedia mission to make
the world's information available for free to everyone. Second, I'm a
longstanding supporter of network neutrality. Third, I have no
organizational interest in favoring Wikipedia, although I consider
myself a Wikipedian.
I do not believe the Wikimedia mission--providing the world's
information to everyone for free--has any necessary connection to
network neutrality, even though I favor the latter very much. In
short, I'm entirely willing to modify my secondary goal (net
neutrality) if it advances my primary goal as a Wikipedian (free
knowledge for everyone). Conversely, I'm not willing to modify my
free-knowledge goal at all if it conflicts with an absolutist model of
network neutrality.
Here's what we know about internet access in the developing world
(which Wikipedia Zero is designed to serve): it relies primarily on
mobile platforms, and mobile smartphones typically are saddled with
data caps. Data caps discourage users from using Wikipedia as
extensively as we in the developed world use it. Furthermore, they
certainly discourage contributions from the developing world for the
same reason. Sidestepping those costs for would-be Wikipedians and
Wikipedia users is something very closely aligned with the
long-standing mission of the project.
Does this mean some platform providers will use Wikipedia Zero to
justify their own self-serving economic alliances? Of course it does.
But we don't have to let their propagandists define us. Instead, we
have to communicate why Wikipedia Zero is not like what commercial
interests are doing.
What's more--and this is central--Wikipedia Zero, by encouraging
higher usage of Wikipedia without additional costs to users, actually
increases demand on the mobile infrastructure. Providers will have to
increase capacity to handle the increased demand. In the long run,
this promotes overall increased internet access in the developing
world. That is an unalloyed positive result, in my view.
And the necessary build-out in capacity driven by Wikipedia Zero will
make network neutrality--which I care deeply about--a more tenable
policy in the developing world.
Trying to understand Wikipedia Zero as some kind of self-interested
organizational move is a mistake, in my view. What it is, IMHO, is a
logical development based on the core mission statement of Wikipedia.
And in the long term it's actually helpful to the advancement of
network neutrality without posing the anti-competitive risks that
other zero-rated services may pose.
--Mike Godwin
Dear all,
The next WMF metrics and activities meeting will take place on Thursday,
December 4, 2014 at 7 PM UTC (11 AM PST). The IRC channel is
#wikimedia-office on irc.freenode.net and the meeting will be broadcast as
a live YouTube stream.
The current structure of the meeting is:
* Welcoming recent hires
* Update and Q&A with the Executive Director, if available
* Review of key metrics including the monthly report card, but also
specialized reports and analytic
* Review of financials
* Brief presentations on recent projects, with a focus on highest priority
initiatives
Please review
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings for further
information about how to participate.
We’ll post the video recording publicly after the meeting.
Thank you,
Praveena
--
Praveena Maharaj
Executive Assistant to the VP of Product & Strategy and the VP of
Engineering
Wikimedia Foundation \\ www.wikimediafoundation.org
It is with some degree of sadness that I have to bring this to
wikimedia-l, but it's something that has to be done I am afraid
In December 2011, I dealt with an OTRS complaint by an individual
relating to a photograph of her which was being used in her articles
on Wikipedia. She was not happy with the image.
Inline with the WMF Resolution dealing with images of living
people,[1] I followed: Treat any person who has a complaint about
images of themselves hosted on our projects with patience, kindness,
and respect, and encourage others to do the same.
The image[2] was removed from the article and replaced with another
suitable image. The subject also provided another image via OTRS.[3]
Fast forward to November 2014, and on Dutch Wikipedia an editor known
as "EvilFreD" performed what is known as BTNI reverts over numerous of
my edits going back several years. It's one of the most pathetic
policies on any project, which basically says that with no thought on
how poor an image is, it should never be replaced without two months
of mindless discussion.[4]
EvilFreD has left a message on my talk page and I responded to him
informing him of the complaint about this image.[5] After my revert
noting BLP, another admin, MoiraMoira has left a message on my talk
page.[6] Given the timeframe (2 minutes) it is possible she didn't see
it, so I asked her to please look at the above note to EvilFreD. Her
response: "Hello, I'm very clear here: this is the Dutch wikipedia.
And there is no space to troll or challenge other people. If you
continue this behaviour, a timeout will follow. You should know
better. ~~~~"
My removal, because Moira refused to do so, is met with one of the
most pathetic, trollish comments I have seen;[7] an insistence that I
speak in Dutch, not English. MoiraMoira then immediately protects the
article.
Is this treating people who complaints about themselves with kindness
and respect? Or is there something else going on on Dutch Wikipedia
that I don't care to know about? It's not the first time I have met
such resistance for the removal of problematic images on Dutch
Wikipedia, as was demonstrated here.[8][9]
Given the trollish nature of comments directed towards myself, and the
threats of blocks by MoiraMoira if I dare to challenge them on this
issue, would someone who has the patience to deal with such behaviour
please intervene and deal with this issue. Be mindful, you will need
to speak Dutch, and will also be willing to divulge private
information from OTRS in order to satisfy the people on this project.
Also, please note, that in discussion with the subject she was fine in
having the image kept on Commons, but didn't want it used in her
article in the infobox. I think this is the least we can do for
article subjects on our projects.
Regards
Russavia
[1] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Images_of_identifiable_people
[2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Justine_bateman_7-10-2007.jpg
[3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Justine_Bateman_NYC.jpg
[4] https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BTNI
[5] https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overleg_gebruiker:Russavia#BTNI
[6] https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overleg_gebruiker:Russavia#Bewerkingsoorlog
[7] https://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Justine_Bateman&diff=42577573&ol…
[8] https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overleg_gebruiker:Russavia#Image_on_Prostitut…
[9] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:9.000919_…
Hello rubin16 and all,
I wanted to follow up on Lisa's email. As she said, the decision to limit
fundraising in Russia was not a political decision or a response to
sanctions or US laws on Russia.
We are a diverse, global movement that spans the world, and we exist mostly
online. However, our work takes place in the physical world, and each
country has its own unique operating environment. At the WMF, we are
constantly assessing what this means for the work of the movement.
In that context, we feel that laws in Russia offer a number of possible
interpretations. So, out of an abundance of caution, we are not taking
donations from Russia right now. If we feel the situation changes, we'll
let people know.
As Lisa also said, this does and will not have any impact at all on how the
WMF continues to support the Russian language Wikipedia, and its sister
projects. We pool our funding and make our budget decisions independently
from the geographical source, if any, of the funding.
We hear your point on transparency and advance notice, and it is a fair
one. That said, sometimes we will need to quickly pause fundraising
operations in different places while we gain clarity around how best to
operate. We are making numerous decisions every day to respond to a wide
variety of issues and considerations. I would like to commit to advance
notice, but I don't think that will always be possible given the need for
flexibility and speed at times. Nevertheless, I am reflecting on how to
better address an issue like this in the future.
I appreciate the additional questions, but, as these are matters currently
under consideration, I'm not in a position to share further right now.
Thank you,
Geoff
Dear colleagues,
I need your help.
In a weeks time, I am invited by the Norwegian Science Council to meet them
and lecture and discuss about how they can nurture and contribute to the
Wikipedia.
The Science Council (Forskningsrådet) organizes all the universities,
colleges, and institutes sector as regards research, through funding and
program evalution.
The task is that they will first produce a "do-it-your-self-kit" to
scientists and researchers on how they can fulfill they obligation of
educating the public. Thereafter, they will work more targetedly with
pinpointing and contributing directly to the Wikipedia, probably Commons
too.
Our good partners in the Arts Council Norway have already worked with us
for a long time on their public outreach obligation, and will take part in
the meeting and speak about how they have nurtured the outreach of cultural
heritage through Wikipedia and Commons.
QUESTION:
Where can I find good overviews of:
- Examples of universities or institutions who have "used" Wikipedia to
educate the public
- Examples of professions or individual researchers who have done the same
- Examples of formal co-operations between science and Wikimedia movement,
as reference
- Examples from your chapter of co-operation with science / universities
Thank you all,
Erlend
--
*Erlend Bjørtvedt*
Nestleder, Wikimedia Norge
Vice chairman, Wikimedia Norway
Mob: +47 - 9225 9227
http://no.wikimedia.org <http://no.wikimedia.org/wiki/About_us>
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>Do not be daft. The Wikimedia Foundation centralised its fundraising. It
>said that it would do a better job. Seen from a central periphery model,
>it probably does, However seen from the Netherlands it is rather silly.,
>
>Pooh poohing this away with "you can donate time as well" is fine when you
>are in the centre.
I see a few inter-related questions here that I think must be resolved
during the drafting of the next Strategic Plan:
* who should primarily be responsible for collecting donations?
* how large, in terms of staff and budget, should the Wikimedia Foundation
be?
* how large, in terms of staff and budget, should individual chapters be?
* should the Wikimedia Foundation continue to be headquartered in San
Francisco?
* how do we measure effectiveness/impact of programs by the Wikimedia
Foundation and chapters?
I personally don't think the current model of having so many staff in such
an expensive area of the world is practical or sustainable. The cost of
being in San Francisco, California seems to _far_ outweigh any benefit
it's providing. It's been six years since the Wikimedia Foundation moved
out to San Francisco and what do we have to show for it? Weekly lunches
with Wikia? Ugh. Is $60 million a year really needed? I doubt it, we did
just fine with a fraction of that amount. But these questions and their
answers all need to be thoroughly explored, in my opinion.
> so where should this money come from? the easiest and cheapest is:
> take the money from the website. coupled with a more flexible,
> localised spending scheme. so WMCH or WMUK could pay this without
> headache. but WMF does not want this. out of 60 mio usd income, 52 mio
> or 86% is spent by the wikimedia foundation, yearly increasing. and
> most of it is spent in the united states.
A big theme I see here is that we need to hold the Wikimedia Foundation to
the same standards as the chapters in terms of funds allocation. There's a
process for the Wikimedia Foundation and there's a process for everybody
else, and that is unfair and needs to be fixed. I thought we were getting
closer to resolving this by having the Wikimedia Foundation budget go
through the Funds Dissemination Committee or Annual Plan Grants or similar.
My sense is that currently people are (rightly) deeply offended that the
chapters are being held to a much higher standard than the Wikimedia
Foundation, particularly in terms of discretionary spending, but also in
terms of how programs are measured. The Wikimedia Foundation has made
plenty of costly screw-ups but these errors are seemingly completely
detached from its budget, unlike chapters. That's not right. I'm hoping we
can find concrete and addressable issues to resolve.
MZMcBride
