"Earlier this week, we kicked
off<http://openpolicynetwork.org/launch-of-the-open-policy-network/>the
Open
Policy Network <http://openpolicynetwork.org/>. We announced that the first
project within the Network is the Institute for Open
Leadership<http://openpolicynetwork.org/iol/>.
The Institute for Open Leadership is a training program to develop new
leaders in education, science, public policy, and other fields on the
values and implementation of openness in licensing, policies, and
practices. The Institute is looking for passionate public- and
private-sector professionals interested in learning more about openness and
wish to develop and implement an open policy in their field.
Interested applicants should review the application
information<http://openpolicynetwork.org/iol/#apply>and submit an
application by *June
30, 2014*. We plan to invite about 15 fellows to participate in the first
round of the Institute for Open Leadership. The in-person portion of the
Institute will be held in the San Francisco bay area in January 2015 (TBD:
either January 12-16 or January 19-23). Applications are open to
individuals anywhere in the world."
More:
http://openpolicynetwork.org/apply-now-to-participate-in-the-institute-for-…
--
Everton Zanella Alvarenga (also Tom)
Open Knowledge Brasil - Rede pelo Conhecimento Livre
http://br.okfn.org
The Wikimedia Foundation 990 for FY 2012 - 2013 has been posted on the
Wikimedia
Foundation Financial Reports
page.<https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Financial_reports>
Please contact me with any questions.
--
Garfield Byrd
Chief of Finance and Administration
Wikimedia Foundation
415.839.6885 ext 6787
415.882.0495 (fax)
www.wikimediafoundation.org
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
*https://donate.wikimedia.org <https://donate.wikimedia.org/>*
Wikimedia UK regrets to have to announce to the community that the
Wikimedia Foundation’s outgoing Executive Director, Sue Gardner, has given
us formal notice of her decision under her mandate from the WMF board not
to renew our fundraising agreement, thereby excluding us from this year’s
fundraiser.
We have written an open letter to Sue about this decision. A copy of our
letter to Sue can be found
here<https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/File:Open_letter_to_Sue_Gardner_regarding_non…>
on
the Wikimedia UK wiki.
Thanks and regards,
Stevie
--
Stevie Benton
Head of External Relations
Wikimedia UK
+44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173
@StevieBenton
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England
and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513.
Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street,
London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a
global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the
Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal
control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
Hi
I realised a while back that I have in the past written to the Wikimedia
Foundation Mailing List and to the Wikimedia Mailing List without een
realising that I was writing to more than one list. I do now vaguely recall
once getting a response saying that what I wanted discusses would best be
discussed on the Foundation List. And I see there is also a Wikipedia
information team. And how do these, if at all, overlap with the Village
Pump? And the Portals?
Where could I find out more about what exactly is the purview of each of
these forums?
Examples of the kind of issues and where to discuss:
1. A simpler (automated) merge proposal template
2. A simpler deletion proposal process
3. Content issues that affect many articles (therefore talkpages are not
efficient)
Some of these I have brought up before on one of the lists.
Right now I would like to make two further suggestions even if after this
it turns out that I must do this on a different forum:
1. A source ranking system - edit summaries are full of "not a reliable
source" justifications. Can we not create a ranking system where editors
rank each source on a scale of 1-10 and a programme automatically
calculates that source a reliability value?
2. a) "Keep me informed on this" - often one issue is discussed on a
multitude of pages (Bushmen/ Khoisan/ Khoi and San, is such an example) and
it is difficult to keep track. Using any of the existing systems that group
pages together - such as categories - could we not create a "theme/ issue
watchlist" similar to the page wattchlist currently available?
2. b) As an add-on to the above, an actual means of communication to
contact all editors working on a specific these - Asian languages, or
prehistoric art, for example.
Best regards,
Rui
--
_________________________
Rui Correia
Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant
Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
_______________
hi,
could wmf please extend the mediawiki software in the following way:
1. it should knows "groups"
2. allow users to store an arbitrary number of groups with their profile
3. allow to select one of the "group"s joined to an edit when saving
4. add a checkbox "COI" to an edit, meaning "potential conflict of interest"
5. display and filter edits marked with COI in a different color in history
views
6. display and filter edits done for a group in a different color in
history views
7. allow members of a group to receive notifications done on the group page,
or when a group is mentioned in an edit/comment/talk page.
reason:
currently it is quite cumbersome to participate as an organisation. it is
quite cumbersome for people as well to detect COI edits. the most prominent
examples are employees of the wikimedia foundation, and GLAMs. users tend
to create multiple accounts, and try to create "company accounts". the main
reason for this behaviour are (examples, but of course valid general):
* have a feedback page / notification page for the swiss federal archive
for other users
* make clear that an edit is done private or as wmf employee
this then would allow the community to create new policies, e.g. the german
community might cease using company accounts, and switch over to this
system. this proposal is purely technical. current policies can still be
applied if people do not need something else, e.g. wmf employees may
continue to use "sue gardner (wmf)" accounts.
what you think?
best regards,
rupert
-------------------
swissGLAMour, http://wikimedia.ch
David Gerard wrote:
>I'll be leaving Commons categorisation until it's tags rather than
>ridiculously specific subcategories.
Commons has tags right now: they're called categories. Or is there a
distinction you're making? :-)
Tim and I discussed this a few weeks ago and I was mostly on your side,
but when he asked what would be different, I had difficulty articulating a
great response. It seems to really come down to a social problem on
Commons. Some Commoners seem to have very specific views of what
categories should be for and how they should be constructed and named. But
this isn't a technical problem, per se. Poor labeling or other interface
design problems (or outright limitations) in MediaWiki may contribute to
this problem, but is there a larger technical issue here? It seems to
primarily be a social issue, from what I've seen, not a technical issue.
I'd be interested in your thoughts on this.
There are specific features we'd like to have (such as built-in
intersections), but is there a fundamental difference between categories
and tags? Or perhaps put another way: what are we waiting for, exactly?
MZMcBride
Hello
This is a reminder that the Language Engineering IRC office hour is
happening later today at 1700UTC on #wikimedia-office. Please see below for
the original announcement and local time.
Thanks
Runa
Monthly IRC Office Hour:
==================
# Date: May 21, 2014 (Wednesday)
# Time: 1700 UTC/1000PDT (Check local time:
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20140521T1700)
# IRC channel: #wikimedia-office
# Agenda:
1. Content Translation project updates
2. Q & A (Questions can be sent to me ahead of the event)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Runa Bhattacharjee <rbhattacharjee(a)wikimedia.org>
Date: Mon, May 19, 2014 at 4:11 PM
Subject: Language Engineering IRC Office Hour on May 21, 2014 (Wednesday)
at 1700 UTC
To: MediaWiki internationalisation <mediawiki-i18n(a)lists.wikimedia.org>,
Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>, Wikimedia
developers <wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>,
wikitech-ambassadors(a)lists.wikimedia.org
[x-posted]
Hello,
The Wikimedia Language Engineering team will be hosting the next
monthly IRC office hour on Wednesday, May 21 2014 at 1700 UTC on
#wikimedia-office. The event is delayed this month as the team was
traveling.
In this office hour we will be discussing about our recent work, which
has mostly been around the upcoming first release of the Content
Translation tool[1]. We will also be taking questions during the
session.
Please see below for event details and local time. See you at the office
hour.
Thanks
Runa
[1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Content_translation
Monthly IRC Office Hour:
==================
# Date: May 21, 2014 (Wednesday)
# Time: 1700 UTC/1000PDT (Check local time:
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20140521T1700)
# IRC channel: #wikimedia-office
# Agenda:
1. Content Translation project updates
2. Q & A (Questions can be sent to me ahead of the event)
--
Language Engineering - Outreach and QA Coordinator
Wikimedia Foundation
--
Language Engineering - Outreach and QA Coordinator
Wikimedia Foundation
> We have written an open letter to Sue about this decision. A copy of our
> letter to Sue can be found here on the Wikimedia UK wiki.
This open letter may have some emotive reason for being produced, but
after reviewing it carefully, I can see no strategic value for WMUK by
publishing it.
It comes as no surprise for anyone with a reasonable understanding of
WMF politics that Sue Gardner has made this decision. The surprise
here is that Jon Davies (WMUK CEO) thought he had invested his time
over the last two years forming a relationship with the right person
within the WMF hierarchy that would take different action, or that he
was following effective tactics by using appeasing politics, in order
to achieve a different outcome in time for 2014/15.
This official letter criticises the outgoing CEO's judgement
(exceedingly pointless), and I read nothing in its content to address
how WMUK is making the significant management changes that would
convince those that think along Sue's lines to make a difference for
coming years. How Jon Davies believes this will impress the new WMF
CEO is beyond me.
Hopefully the superb exemplars of WMFR and WMDE in how they have, and
continue to, radically change their course is something that the
current WMUK board of trustees are taking to heart behind closed
doors. Certainly, *they* have said little in public.
Fae
--
faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae