Dear Wikimedia colleagues:
In response to feedback about the grants process
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Reimagining_WMF_grants/Outcom…>
that identified a gap in support for organizations and groups with annual
plans that are not part of the FDC process
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG>, we on the WMF's Community
Resources Team created a new pilot process for Simple Annual Plan Grants
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Simple>. These grants are for
groups and organizations that need funds for operating and program expenses
up to US$100K (or its equivalent in another currency).
This process has been developed in partnership with a committee of eight
volunteers <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Simple/Committee>,
who make recommendations about each grant application, which are then
approved by WMF staff. I would like to recognize the outstanding work of
our inaugural committee: Addis Wang, Anders Wennersten, Kiril Simeonovski,
Kirill Lokshin, Ido Ivri, Nataliia Tymkiv, Pete Ekman, and Sydney Poore.
Besides producing four quality recommendations this month (found on the
discussion pages of the four applications
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Simple/About#applications>),
they've done invaluable work to define how this new funding option will
work, and offered constructive and supportive feedback to the applicants.
I also want to recognize and congratulate our first four grantees:
Wikimedia Czech Republic, Wikimedia Eesti, Wikimedia Espana, and Shared
Knowledge (user group in Macedonia). Each grantee did an outstanding job
engaging during every phase of the grants process, and we are confident
that each is preparing for an amazing year in 2016. Many thanks to all of
the dedicated volunteers and staff at each organization that made these
quality applications happen, including Bojan Jankuloski, Jan Loužek, Kiril
Simeonevski, Kaarel Vaidla, Luis Ulzurrun, Santiago Navarro, Vojtěch Dostál
and the volunteer boards and supportive community members at each of these
organizations.
Finally, thank you to our colleagues Janice Tud, Siko Bouterse, Stephen
LaPorte, and the WMF finance team, for supporting these grantees behind the
scenes. Thanks to Katy Love, Kacie Harold, and the entire Community
Resources Team, past and current Funds Dissemination Committee members,
current and past APG applicants, and particularly Ravishankar
Ayyakkannu, for sharing their ideas and experiences leading up to this
idea. Special thanks also to Tony Souter and Bence Damokos for their
substantial feedback during the early phases of the pilot's development.
Are you interested in learning more about how the new funding option could
work for your group or organization? Please Email me to start a discussion
about your organization's application, and read more about how to apply
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Simple/Eligibility>.
Applications will be accepted throughout 2016.
Best wishes and congratulations to all our colleagues who received grants
in 2015, or helped to improve the grants process!
Winifred
Helpful links for Simple Annual Plan Grants:
*Apply here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Simple/Eligibility
*About the program: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Simple/About
*Committee: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Simple/Committee
--
Winifred Olliff
Program Officer
Wikimedia Foundation
Hello,
this is my first post to this list. I think Wikipedia is a great project
and am impressed by how well it works. It seems the (lack of) funding of
the project is one of the more severe threats to its continued success.
Since (I assume) the biggest cost is the maintenance of servers, I wonder
if there are there any plans of making Wikipedia decentralised.
Let me elaborate. I'm thinking of a system where many users each would
store a small part of the encyclopedia. A user wanting to look up or edit
an article connects to another user who has a copy of that article. When an
article is updated the update is sent to all other users (that are online)
responsible for storing that article.
Are there any efforts to accomplish this? Would it be feasible?
Best,
Erik
On Sunday, December 20, 2015, Brian Wolff <bawolff(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> If you want to get Dispenser his hard disk space, you should take it
> up with the labs people, or at the very least some thread where it
> would be on-topic.
>
The labs people are so understaffed that two extremely important anti-spam
bots recently had to be taken offline for much longer than in recent years.
I propose Foundation management allocate the necessary resources and
recommend the hiring of sufficient personnel and purchasing of sufficient,
non NSA-compatible (i.e., discount and homebrew style) equipment
to properly support both existing infrastructural bots and similar projects
such as Dispenser's reflinks cache.
I would also like to propose that the Foundation oppose the TPP provisions
deleterious to our interests, and that this position be endorsed on the
Public Policy list.
> Then by definition it wouldn't be a third-party spam framework if WMF
> was running it.
I am not proposing that the WMF take the bots over, just meet their
necessary service level requirements.
Sincerely,
Jim
I'm very disappointed to know that the board meeting was still ongoing as at the time James revealed that he was ejected from the board. It is a silly idea! Perhaps he felt the community can stop the meeting or override the decision of the board of trustee. The WMF BoT is not a parliament where the house do not have the veto power to remove an elected member.
Section 7 (remover) of the WMF's bylaws clearly stipulated that
“Any Trustee may be removed, with or without cause, by a majority vote of the Trustees then in office in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 617.0808(1), or other relevant provisions of the Act”. Based on this bylaw, James remover is justified!
I understand that majority of the community members who elected James are likely not to be aware of this provisions but James is aware of it and will probably have an answer to (1) the reason for his remover (2) why his remover was supported by eight members and (3) why the third community-elected trustee, Denny Vrandečić, lost confidence supported his removal.
The fact that James never stated the reasons why he was ejected from the board as at the time he disclosed his remover is worrisome.
James, I'm sorry if I'm too factual here.
Best,
Olatunde Isaac.
Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN
-----Original Message-----
From: wikimedia-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Sender: "Wikimedia-l" <wikimedia-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org>Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:10:11
To: <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Reply-To: wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 141, Issue 104
Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
wikimedia-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
wikimedia-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Nathan)
2. Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Fæ)
3. Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Thomas Goldammer)
4. Wikimedia Argentina Memorial 2015 (Anna Torres)
5. Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Pine W)
6. Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Lodewijk)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 09:44:38 -0500
From: Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board
Message-ID:
<CALKX9dQc9PDXSWOixWPYMZBOjgagTEiB0hwTZ=HVWPys6NU=YQ(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
"Well, tell that to James. He's the one who went public without warning in
the middle of the meeting. You are 100% wrong that this is a decision
*against* the community. I know why I voted the way I did - and it has to
do with my strong belief in the values of this community and the
responsibilities of board members to uphold those values. If a board member
fails the community in such a serious way, tough decisions have to be made
about what to do.--Jimbo Wales
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales> (talk
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#top>) 20:57, 29
December 2015 (UTC)"
Comment from Jimmy, both implicitly criticizing James Heilman for revealing
that he was ejected from the board and suggesting that James failed to
uphold the values of the community in a serious way. Later on Jimmy tries
to walk back the criticism as "merely stating a fact."
James responded by pointing out that he was removed from the board and then
told to leave the room, at which point he posted to the mailing list. The
complaint that he published the decision while the meeting was ongoing is
silly, although I can certainly see why the remaining members would have
preferred to control the narrative themselves.
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 15:10:33 +0000
From: Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board
Message-ID:
<CAH7nnD1W3NzvgPkVm=VWU9Gvb+_SvH=E0fcj95mmAOhCeRNhcQ(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
I'm sure that board members would have preferred for the WMF Chairperson to
make a statement, rather Jimmy publishing personal opinions as "facts".
The comments about James are disappointing for many reasons, but should be
given appropriate weight... probably a lot less weight than James' own
comments, in the light of how several past WMF political non-successes
played out.
Fae
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 16:47:29 +0100
From: Thomas Goldammer <thogol(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board
Message-ID:
<CAL0e-KWJ6L=L4BF4Fhp9OogppEQCBFp_+SXeuOEQtJPnp1jgTA(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
@Jimmy Wales: The problem is not that James was too fast to publish the
fact that he was ejected. I'm pretty sure if the Board decided to boot you
out, you would have posted something, too. And that's absolutely natural.
The problem is merely that the Board is too slow to publish the reasons for
the decision. If you make such a sweeping decision, even if not planned
ahead at all, you do have the obligation to sit down together immediately
and write that statement - you know that there is that community out there,
and you knew very well what would happen on this mailing list. And it's
really not as if you were a magician who was asked to explain his trick.
Th.
2015-12-30 15:44 GMT+01:00 Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com>:
> "Well, tell that to James. He's the one who went public without warning in
> the middle of the meeting. You are 100% wrong that this is a decision
> *against* the community. I know why I voted the way I did - and it has to
> do with my strong belief in the values of this community and the
> responsibilities of board members to uphold those values. If a board member
> fails the community in such a serious way, tough decisions have to be made
> about what to do.--Jimbo Wales
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales> (talk
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#top>) 20:57, 29
> December 2015 (UTC)"
>
> Comment from Jimmy, both implicitly criticizing James Heilman for revealing
> that he was ejected from the board and suggesting that James failed to
> uphold the values of the community in a serious way. Later on Jimmy tries
> to walk back the criticism as "merely stating a fact."
>
> James responded by pointing out that he was removed from the board and then
> told to leave the room, at which point he posted to the mailing list. The
> complaint that he published the decision while the meeting was ongoing is
> silly, although I can certainly see why the remaining members would have
> preferred to control the narrative themselves.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 14:02:24 -0300
From: Anna Torres <de(a)wikimedia.org.ar>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Argentina Memorial 2015
Message-ID:
<CAGOz6s2zsonRp3=-BGfVmWEc08CdE1t75M=at5EkL3mv2U_x3A(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Dear all,
Even though is in spanish, please find in the following link the Anual
Memorial 2015 <http://wikimedia.org.ar/memorial2015/> regarding WMAR
programs and activities.
In there, you can find activities' descripctions and results for our main
programs and actions taken during 2015.
Hope you all enjoy it!
Hugs and happy new year!
--
Anna Torres Adell
Directora Ejecutiva
*A.C. Wikimedia Argentina*
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 09:51:13 -0800
From: Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board
Message-ID:
<CAF=dyJjegoDF4nrUizCSs+RhfQ_HWM54V=23zVZWdvA2mzjvKg(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Depending on what all we learn as this goes forward, some action items that
may emerge from this situation as it seems to be evolving so far:
(1) the board may need to work on its communication strategies
(2) this may be an opportunity for another discussion about Board
composition and structure, including the role of Jimmy
(3) this situation may inform a review of the bylaws concerning how board
members are appointed and removed, particularly community-elected members
(4) this situation is an opportunity for a significant increase in the
transparency of WMF Board activities. I still am of the view that far more
of what happens at the WMF Board should be public and transparent. This
includes how they handle allegations against one of their own. If
government entities like city councils and national legislatures can do
this, I think that the WMF Board should hold itself to at least that level
of transparency. Yes these are uncomfortable discussions to have in public,
but as we can see from how this situation is developing, handling them in
private has its own downsides. I don't know how other affiliates work, but
here in Cascadia Wikimedians there is very little that the Board does that
can't be made public. I would hope that the WMF Board would hold itself to
similarly high expectations for openness and transparency, even when it's
uncomfortable. The controversial nature of information, by itself, is not a
sufficient reason for keeping information private. So I hope that the WMF
Board will consider new levels of openness about its deliberations.
Something that I suggested awhile ago was live broadcasts of Board meetings
(with a limited exception for executive sessions) and I still think that
level of openness is appropriate for the Board of an open-source
organization.
It will be interesting to see what more we learn as this situation evolves.
Pine
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 20:09:49 +0100
From: Lodewijk <lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board
Message-ID:
<CACf6BesausXMnn40D8OTP+kiaZvDE01MS3i+synN=1WVUMtQnQ(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
I think that your 'lessons' are quite premature. We still don't know the
what, the why and the how. We don't know the context of everything that
happened. It may very well be that the process as it is, worked perfectly.
It may also be that it was disastrous.
transparency and good communication don't necessarily go hand in hand with
'quick', as was pointed out by some.
Some other points that you touch, may very well be good material for
discussion, but not necessarily relevant to this specific event. The
transparency of board deliberations and the role of board members in the
board (not limited to jimmy) is /always/ good to reconsider, and keep an
open mind for. A more fundamental reconsideration may be the (formal)
membership of the Wikimedia Foundation. But, while this would have
influenced the current situation, it is not necessarily related. They often
say that incidents make bad policy.
At the same time, please keep in mind that Cascadia Wikimedians are not
quite comparable with the Wikimedia Foundation. The budget if three (if not
more) orders of magnitude higher, and the involvement of staff this large
also makes a different organisational structure.
Lodewijk
On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 6:51 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Depending on what all we learn as this goes forward, some action items that
> may emerge from this situation as it seems to be evolving so far:
>
> (1) the board may need to work on its communication strategies
> (2) this may be an opportunity for another discussion about Board
> composition and structure, including the role of Jimmy
> (3) this situation may inform a review of the bylaws concerning how board
> members are appointed and removed, particularly community-elected members
> (4) this situation is an opportunity for a significant increase in the
> transparency of WMF Board activities. I still am of the view that far more
> of what happens at the WMF Board should be public and transparent. This
> includes how they handle allegations against one of their own. If
> government entities like city councils and national legislatures can do
> this, I think that the WMF Board should hold itself to at least that level
> of transparency. Yes these are uncomfortable discussions to have in public,
> but as we can see from how this situation is developing, handling them in
> private has its own downsides. I don't know how other affiliates work, but
> here in Cascadia Wikimedians there is very little that the Board does that
> can't be made public. I would hope that the WMF Board would hold itself to
> similarly high expectations for openness and transparency, even when it's
> uncomfortable. The controversial nature of information, by itself, is not a
> sufficient reason for keeping information private. So I hope that the WMF
> Board will consider new levels of openness about its deliberations.
> Something that I suggested awhile ago was live broadcasts of Board meetings
> (with a limited exception for executive sessions) and I still think that
> level of openness is appropriate for the Board of an open-source
> organization.
>
> It will be interesting to see what more we learn as this situation evolves.
>
> Pine
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
------------------------------
End of Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 141, Issue 104
*********************************************
Just now I was talking to User:Pine on-wiki and I informed him that I
thoroughly enjoyed some of his posts on this mailing list. I also thought
to give him a barnstar for this. But, we do not have any "Wikimedia Mailing
list barnstar"
Should we create one? What do you think? If it sounds okay, someone of us
can go ahead and create Template:Wikimedia Mailing List Barnstar on En WP
(and preferably on Meta also).
Hi all,
This discussion is somewhat inspired by what recently happened with
WMF Board of Trustees[1]. Please note that I was to respect the
request from the board (and James himself) to have some more time to
review the situation before providing more details about the recent
resolution.
In some sense, I am following what James said in an email[2]:
---
I have done what I believe is in the best interest of our movement.
---
The Wikimedia Foundation requires every board member to sign a "Pledge
of personal commitment"[3], in one passage it says:
«In every instance in which I represent the Wikimedia Foundation, I
will conduct my activities in a manner to best promote the interests
of Wikimedia Foundation.»
Compare this with the "FDC Pledge of Personal Commitment" signed by
FDC members[4]:
«I, [name], pledge to faithfully pursue the mission and goals of the
Wikimedia movement, namely to empower and engage people around the
world to collect and develop educational content under a free license
or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and
globally. The FDC makes recommendations to the Board of Trustees
regarding the allocation of funds to support the mission goals of the
Wikimedia movement, and I therefore recognize my responsibility to
maintain the highest level of public confidence and trust.»
As a former FDC member I very much prefer the formulation adopted in
the FDC pledge rather than in the BoT pledge.
I think (and I have been thinking this for a while) that the Pledge of
commitment for trustees of WMF should mention the movement as well. In
some sense I am stating the obvious, but I would like the idea that
what constitutes "the best choice for the movement" takes priority
over "the best choice for the WMF", and this is board members pledge
to do.
I know that "doing what is best for the WMF" may be a legal
requirements for WMF board members, but I honestly do not think that
what is the best interest for the movement and what is the best
interest for WMF would ever be actually in conflict. In other words, I
would take the discussion of what constitutes a decision made with the
best interest of the movement in mind to be a debatable choice over
difference of views rather than a case of breaching the pledge because
some action may produce short term harm to the WMF (and thus be
breaching the pledge of commitment for BoT as it is written now) but
greater good in the middle/long term.
Thank you,
Cristian
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-12-30/News_…
[2] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-December/080502.html
[3] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Pledge_of_personal_commitment
[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Pl…
And he is well under the soft limit!
https://stats.wikimedia.org/mail-lists/wikimedia-l.html
Happy New Year, Richard.
On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Tito Dutta <trulytito(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Just now I was talking to User:Pine on-wiki and I informed him that I
> thoroughly enjoyed some of his posts on this mailing list.
Dear all,
Even though is in spanish, please find in the following link the Anual
Memorial 2015 <http://wikimedia.org.ar/memorial2015/> regarding WMAR
programs and activities.
In there, you can find activities' descripctions and results for our main
programs and actions taken during 2015.
Hope you all enjoy it!
Hugs and happy new year!
--
Anna Torres Adell
Directora Ejecutiva
*A.C. Wikimedia Argentina*
Hoi,
At Wikidata we often find issues with data imported from a Wikipedia. Lists
have been produced with these issues on the Wikipedia involved and arguably
they do present issues with the quality of Wikipedia or Wikidata for that
matter. So far hardly anything resulted from such outreach.
When Wikipedia is a black box, not communicating about with the outside
world, at some stage the situation becomes toxic. At this moment there are
already those at Wikidata that argue not to bother about Wikipedia quality
because in their view, Wikipedians do not care about its own quality.
Arguably known issues with quality are the easiest to solve.
There are many ways to approach this subject. It is indeed a quality issue
both for Wikidata and Wikipedia. It can be seen as a research issue; how to
deal with quality and how do such mechanisms function if at all.
I blogged about it..
Thanks,
GerardM
http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2015/11/what-kind-of-box-is-wikipedia.ht…