Hi folks!
This month one mexican federal court generated an interesting case law
related to use of Wikipedia as source of knowledge on trials, specially in
law resolutions. The tribunal that solved this was the "Tribunal Federal de
Justicia Fiscal y Administrativa". This court is not the supreme court of
Mexico but is the most important tribunal after that one in all the matter
related to tax and administrative law and its precedents are binding for
all mexican administrative authorities and al the judges on administrative
and fiscal law.
The case law is the number VII-J-SS-191 and you can read it in the next
link:
(only in Spanish)
http://sctj.tfjfa.gob.mx/SCJI/assembly/detalleTesis?idTesis=41716
The title is at the same time a brief of the content of the precedent, and
it can be translated in this way:
*"Wikipedia".- The information that is obtained from this website can help
to elucidate some controversial matter, thence the courtrooms of this
tribunal may use it when ruling.*
Inside the text the court makes a fair clarication: "*It must not be the
only source of knowledge in which the resolutions are based on [...] the
judges must care about gathering diversity of sources of information such
as specialized books, encyclopedia, including the electronic ones, [...]
and others*."
Maybe is just a curiosity, but for me is ilustrative of the good reputation
that our work is getting even in some closed circles as the law practice.
At least in Mexico is not common to see a court quoting Wikipedia, but
maybe this first precedent might change the things.
Do you know other similar case laws?
Regards!
[1]
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribunal_Federal_de_Justicia_Fiscal_y_Adminis…
--
*Salvador Alcántar*
*@salvador_alc*
tl:dr; The documentation of the Wikimedia Conference 2015 is published
on https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2015/Documentation
and Follow-Up-----
-----
Dear Wikimedia friends,
one month ago, Wikimedia Deutschland hosted the Wikimedia Conference 2015
in Berlin.[1] As you might remember, my job as the Program and Engagement
Coordinator is to make this conference more sustainable and secure
continuous participation of everyone involved.[2] My primary assignment is
to support the participants and speakers and liaise with the program team
throughout the year. But it’s more than that: My task is to ensure and
monitor that essential conference topics are constantly been worked on and
further developed.
The first step for your further engagement is, of course, the documentation
of the Wikimedia Conference. I’m happy to announce that I just have
published it on Meta:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2015/Documentation and
Follow-Up
I have summarised the conversations and discussions of most of the
sessions, except the workshop sessions. Many sessions have a “How to move
forward” box where you can see the next steps agreed on the conference and
contact persons to reach out to. In the next days, I will sent a further
mail summarising all next steps, to give you a better overview where you
can engage and provide input.
If you have any remarks, comments or feedback, please don’t hesitate to get
in touch with me.
Best regards from Berlin,
Cornelius
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2015
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2015/Program_and_Engag…
--
Cornelius Kibelka
Program and Engagement Coordinator (PEC)
for the Wikimedia Conference
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0
http://wikimedia.de
Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen
Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
http://spenden.wikimedia.de/
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-December/063225.html
I just found back this post by David Gerard from 2010 and was struck by how
dead-on the discussion and analysis was and how far we have actually come
with VE 5 years later, even though we still did not pass the finish line
just yet.
Also interesting is some of the follow up to it, which points out that the
usability of Templates is also a real problem in itself, not easily
solvable with WYSIWYG, but probably just as important.
I think VE is really close now to being usable in production, but I think
that we are FAR from done on this front. Like was stated, templates are a
real problem. A UI problem, and one that VE doesn't really solve. Citoid
sort of does, but just for one small subset of templates.
I think it is important to remember that VE is a framework. The piece that
will open up other possibilities, but that we will need to still do a lot
of work to find what those possibilities are, how they can make page and
article authoring more usable etc...
The post starts with a quote of Fred Bauder: "There has to be a vision
though"
So I'm asking: What is the vision for this next step ?
- What ideas do people have with regard to usability and templates.
- What examples of good editors can we find that also deal with
templates/objects etc.
- What are our unique challenges ?
- What kind of research and development would be needed to deliver this ?
I would love it if we could end up with a discussion and summary as we had
back then. A guide for us towards solving this next problem within another
5 years. We and the WMF can probably not start on this tomorrow, but we can
start thinking about it.
DJ
Dear all
As you all know in the Wikmedia movement nothing really inspiring and
creative can be done without the volunteers. Their ideas, time and energy
are priceless. That is why Wikimedia Poland has created an award to say
"thank you" to great people that inspire and coordinate our projects
(expeditions, workshops, editathons, photo contests etc.) and for the
volunteer of the year.
We invited four people from the outside of the Wikimedia movement - people
representing cultural institutions NGO's and the media - to form a jury
with a task to choose the projects and the volunteer that should be
rewarded. The jury also gave us precious information about how people who
are not Wikimedians see our projects and which they perceive as the most
interesting and inspiring.
The ProWikimedia 2015 award will be given in 4 categories:
1. Free content ambassador - in recognition of a project which had major
impact on promoting openness, knowledge of free licenses, and free culture
outside Wikimedia communities or which resulted in resources that were of
great use to projects, institutions and publications outside of the
WIkimedia movement
2. Efficient content acquisition - in recognition of a project which
exhibited a high ratio of acquired content quality and quantity in the
context of financial outlays
3. Innovation / pioneering character in acquiring free content - in
recognition of a project which showed creativity, innovative approach and
original viewpoint in acquiring free contents for the WIkimedia projects
4. The volunteer of the year
The award ceremony will take place this Saturday in the library of the
European Solidarity Center - an institution with a mission of
maintaining the heritage and message of the Solidarity movement and sharing
the achievements of the peaceful struggle for freedom, justice, democracy
and human rights. And it is a great place to recognize the great effort of
Wikimedia volunteers who change the world by sharing knowledge.
The ProWikimedia project has already (thanks to the outside jury) thought
us a lot about our actions and initiatives and given us precious (and
sometimes surprising) insight. But it's main purpose is to keep our
volunteers inspired, encourage them to start new initiatives and show them
how great job they are doing. I am really excited about this award as I
truly believe that showing gratitude to our volunteers is something really
important. And we need to find new ways to do it.
Natalia Szafran-Kozakowska
[[user:Magalia]]
The Wikimedia Foundation is pleased to announce that we have begun the
transition of the Wikimedia projects and sites to the secure HTTPS
protocol. You may have seen our blog post from this morning; it has also
been posted to relevant Village Pumps (Technical).
This post is available online here:
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/06/12/securing-wikimedia-sites-with-https/
Securing access to Wikimedia sites with HTTPS
BY YANA WELINDER <https://blog.wikimedia.org/author/ywelinder/>, VICTORIA
BARANETSKY <https://blog.wikimedia.org/author/victoria-baranetsky/> AND BRANDON
BLACK <https://blog.wikimedia.org/author/brandon-black/> ON JUNE 12TH
To be truly free, access to knowledge must be secure and uncensored. At the
Wikimedia Foundation, we believe that you should be able to use Wikipedia
and the Wikimedia sites without sacrificing privacy or safety.
Today, we’re happy to announce that we are in the process of implementing
HTTPS <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTPS> to encrypt all Wikimedia
traffic. We will also use HTTP Strict Transport Security
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_Strict_Transport_Security> (HSTS) to
protect against efforts to ‘break’ HTTPS and intercept traffic. With this
change, the nearly half a billion people who rely on Wikipedia and its
sister projects every month will be able to share in the world’s knowledge
more securely.
The HTTPS protocol creates an encrypted connection between your computer
and Wikimedia sites to ensure the security and integrity of data you
transmit. Encryption makes it more difficult for governments and other
third parties to monitor your traffic. It also makes it harder for Internet
Service Providers (ISPs) to censor access to specific Wikipedia articles
and other information.
HTTPS is not new to Wikimedia sites. Since 2011, we have been working on
establishing the infrastructure and technical requirements, and
understanding the policy and community implications of HTTPS for all
Wikimedia traffic, with the ultimate goal of making it available to all
users. In fact, for the past four years
<https://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/10/03/native-https-support-enabled-for-all-…>,
Wikimedia users could access our sites with HTTPS manually, through HTTPS
Everywhere <https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere>, and when directed to our
sites from major search engines. Additionally, all logged in users
<https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/08/28/https-default-logged-in-users-wikimed…>
have been accessing via HTTPS since 2013.
Over the last few years, increasing concerns about government surveillance
prompted members of the Wikimedia community to push
<https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/08/01/future-https-wikimedia-projects/>
for more broad protection through HTTPS. We agreed, and made this
transition a priority for our policy and engineering teams.
We believe encryption makes the web stronger for everyone. In a world where
mass surveillance has become a serious threat to intellectual freedom,
secure connections are essential for protecting users around the world.
Without encryption, governments can more easily surveil sensitive
information, creating a chilling effect, and deterring participation, or in
extreme cases they can isolate or discipline citizens. Accounts may also be
hijacked, pages may be censored, other security flaws could expose
sensitive user information and communications. Because of these
circumstances, we believe that the time for HTTPS for all Wikimedia traffic
is now. We encourage others to join us as we move forward with this
commitment.
The technical challenges of migrating to HTTPS
HTTPS migration for one of the world’s most popular websites can be
complicated. For us, this process began years ago and involved teams from
across the Wikimedia Foundation. Our engineering team has been driving this
transition, working hard to improve our sites’ HTTPS performance, prepare
our infrastructure to handle the transition, and ultimately manage the
implementation.
Our first steps involved improving our infrastructure and code base so we
could support HTTPS. We also significantly expanded and updated our server
hardware. Since we don’t employ third party content delivery systems, we
had to manage this process for our entire infrastructure stack in-house.
HTTPS may also have performance implications for users, particularly our
many users accessing Wikimedia sites from countries or networks with poor
technical infrastructure. We’ve been carefully calibrating our HTTPS
configuration to minimize negative impacts related to latency, page load
times, and user experience. This was an iterative process that relied on
industry standards, a large amount of testing, and our own experience
running the Wikimedia sites.
Throughout this process, we have carefully considered how HTTPS affects all
of our users. People around the world access Wikimedia sites from a
diversity of devices, with varying levels of connectivity and freedom of
information. Although we have optimized the experience as much as possible
with this challenge in mind, this change could affect access for some
Wikimedia traffic in certain parts of the world.
In the last year leading up to this roll-out, we’ve ramped up our testing
and optimization efforts to make sure our sites and infrastructure can
support this migration. Our focus is now on completing the implementation
of HTTPS and HSTS for all Wikimedia sites. We look forward to sharing a
more detailed account of this unique engineering accomplishment once we’re
through the full transition.
Today, we are happy to start the final steps of this transition, and we
expect completion within a couple of weeks.
Yana Welinder <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/User:YWelinder_(WMF)>,
Senior Legal Counsel, Wikimedia Foundation
Victoria Baranetsky
<https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/User:VBaranetsky_(WMF)>, Legal
Counsel, Wikimedia Foundation
Brandon Black <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BBlack_(WMF)>, Operations
Engineer, Wikimedia Foundation
--
*Juliet Barbara*
Senior Communications Manager I Wikimedia Foundation
149 New Montgomery Street I San Francisco, CA 94105
jbarbara(a)wikimedia.org I +1 (512) 750-5677
_______________________________________________
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
_______________________________________________
WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
WikimediaAnnounce-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
Sent from my iPhone
> On May 13, 2014, at 1:09 PM, wikimedia-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
>
> 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: Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature
> a decontextualised stack of corpses. (Kevin Gorman)
> 2. Re: Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature
> a decontextualised stack of corpses. (Nathan)
> 3. Re: Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature
> a decontextualised stack of corpses. (David Gerard)
> 4. Re: Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature
> a decontextualised stack of corpses. (Kevin Gorman)
> 5. Re: Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature
> a decontextualised stack of corpses. (Wil Sinclair)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 12:39:16 -0700
> From: Kevin Gorman <kgorman(a)gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't
> prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
> Message-ID:
> <CAJJA526pwx8BsTP9Pm2VUJ1QvapTR+_72MJhfTZTSQ20enWviw(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Pete: there's not really any point in making this thread a laundry list of
> times that admins and crats on commons fucked up vs times they didn't fuck
> up. There are plenty of historical decisions on Commons that I agree
> wholeheartedly with. There have even been cases where I advanced arguments
> in deletion nominations that I honestly didn't expect to be accepted that
> were, including one instance where someone who initially voted keep took
> the time to go ahead and read the laws of the country the photograph was
> taken in w/r/t identifiable people and changed his vote. Instances like
> that are absolutely commendable, but they're also far from universal.
> Admins and crats on commons have also historically made a large number of
> decisions that fly in the face of WMF board resolutions, often repeatedly.
> Commons doesn't speak with a unified voice, but people with advanced
> userrights on Commons do speak with a louder voice than the rest of the
> community, in that they have the ostensible authority to actually carry out
> their actions. A project where people with advanced userrights fairly
> regularly make decisions that fly in the face of WMF board resolutions and
> are not censured by their peers is a project with problems.
>
> David: I haven't seen anyone assert that the image in question isn't a
> violation of the principle of least astonishment. I've seen several people
> suggest the image was acceptable for other reasons. If you can articulate
> a reasonable (i.e., not full of snark and one that indicates you've read at
> least most of the ongoing discussion) argument that putting the image in
> question on Commons frontpage (and the frontpage of numerous other projects
> in the process,) is not a violation of the principle of least astonishment,
> I'd love to hear it. Especially if you craft your argument to recognize
> the fact that the image was both displayed on projects that didn't speak
> any of the languages it was captioned in, and given that most Wikimedia
> viewers can't actually play our video formats. I guess you could argue
> that the resolution only says that the board "supports" the POLA rather
> than requires it, but that's a rather weak argument for putting a grainy
> black and white stack of dead corpses linking to a video many can't play
> that's only captioned in a handful of langauges on the frontpage of a
> project that serves projects in 287 different languages.
>
> ----
> Kevin Gorman
>
>
>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 12:14 AM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 13 May 2014 05:04, Kevin Gorman <kgorman(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> No, Russavia: I'm not suggesting that Commons' policies should mirror
>> those
>>> of ENWP. I'm suggesting that Commons should have a process in place that
>>> ensures that it follows the clearly established resolutions of the WMF
>>> board, which I would remind you *do* trump local policy. This particular
>>> incident failed to do so, and it's not the first time that such a thing
>> has
>>> occurred on Commons.
>>
>>
>> See, there you're asserting that this is a slam-dunk violation, and
>> it's really clear just from this thread that it really isn't. Your
>> personal feelings are not the determinant of Wikimedia comment, and
>> won't become so through repetition.
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> 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: 2
> Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 15:47:05 -0400
> From: Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't
> prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
> Message-ID:
> <CALKX9dRo1PJnKdP8B6MmCsOZCayBoFYXeHdK9k5Rff5Lx+LinA(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Kevin Gorman <kgorman(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> David: I haven't seen anyone assert that the image in question isn't a
>> violation of the principle of least astonishment. I've seen several people
>> suggest the image was acceptable for other reasons. If you can articulate
>> a reasonable (i.e., not full of snark and one that indicates you've read at
>> least most of the ongoing discussion) argument that putting the image in
>> question on Commons frontpage (and the frontpage of numerous other projects
>> in the process,) is not a violation of the principle of least astonishment,
>> I'd love to hear it. Especially if you craft your argument to recognize
>> the fact that the image was both displayed on projects that didn't speak
>> any of the languages it was captioned in, and given that most Wikimedia
>> viewers can't actually play our video formats. I guess you could argue
>> that the resolution only says that the board "supports" the POLA rather
>> than requires it, but that's a rather weak argument for putting a grainy
>> black and white stack of dead corpses linking to a video many can't play
>> that's only captioned in a handful of langauges on the frontpage of a
>> project that serves projects in 287 different languages.
>
>
>
> I think David was reacting to your bold assertion that the next time you
> determine Commons has violated a Board resolution, drastic action would be
> taken. This suggests some certainty on your part that the Board and
> stewards agree with your judgment. I haven't seen evidence of that. You can
> certainly advocate that action be taken, but dire warnings of certain
> consequences seem a bit beyond your authority to issue.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 20:49:55 +0100
> From: David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't
> prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
> Message-ID:
> <CAJ0tu1Hb11upX-S4BOmFYyjLtycDa7zmxqDguma4Gb5Lqyb7_A(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
>> On 13 May 2014 20:47, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I think David was reacting to your bold assertion that the next time you
>> determine Commons has violated a Board resolution, drastic action would be
>> taken. This suggests some certainty on your part that the Board and
>> stewards agree with your judgment. I haven't seen evidence of that. You can
>> certainly advocate that action be taken, but dire warnings of certain
>> consequences seem a bit beyond your authority to issue.
>
>
> I was more disagreeing with the implicit claim that this was such an
> obvious slam dunk that Kevin could get action on it while explicitly
> refusing to engage with the community in question, literally on the
> grounds that he'd previously been so disruptive they'd spoken of
> banning him. That last bit really doesn't suggest the case is very
> strong.
>
>
> - d.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 13:04:16 -0700
> From: Kevin Gorman <kgorman(a)gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't
> prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
> Message-ID:
> <CAJJA526LpSRtbOW3C7tuQWDftbC0tMC1NauaaEy57aUQfKR+3w(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> David, just out of curiosity, do you actually read most posts on this
> mailing list? Or monitor Commons? I'll be typing up an additional response
> on Commons later today as I have the time but the last time you asked why I
> wasn't engaging on Commons the answer was, quite literally, because I
> hadn't finished typing my post on commons yet, and had it up within five
> minutes of your post (and hadn't seen your post until after I had it up.)
> Could you please point out again where I'm refusing to engage with the
> community in question?
>
> In the meantime, I'd still love to hear the reasonable articulation that
> this wasn't a violation of POLA that you keep seeming to suggest exists.
>
> ----
> Kevin Gorman
>
>
>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 12:49 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 13 May 2014 20:47, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think David was reacting to your bold assertion that the next time you
>>> determine Commons has violated a Board resolution, drastic action would
>> be
>>> taken. This suggests some certainty on your part that the Board and
>>> stewards agree with your judgment. I haven't seen evidence of that. You
>> can
>>> certainly advocate that action be taken, but dire warnings of certain
>>> consequences seem a bit beyond your authority to issue.
>>
>>
>> I was more disagreeing with the implicit claim that this was such an
>> obvious slam dunk that Kevin could get action on it while explicitly
>> refusing to engage with the community in question, literally on the
>> grounds that he'd previously been so disruptive they'd spoken of
>> banning him. That last bit really doesn't suggest the case is very
>> strong.
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> 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: 5
> Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 13:08:42 -0700
> From: Wil Sinclair <wllm(a)wllm.com>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't
> prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
> Message-ID:
> <CAK7yed6vPTTdTfGUhoPVKCTxZxAULapwrxS+D7De4dNETPmWcw(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> I've never heard "Principle of Least Astonishment" used this way. I've
> only heard it used in the context of software design- specifically
> user experience- and never to describe content. WP seems to agree:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_astonishment
> Certain terms seem to have special significance in the WP community;
> is this one of those cases?
>
> FWIW, I'm not taken aback by words like "fuck," but in my experience
> it always undermines serious arguments that it is used in.
>
> ,Wil
>
>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Kevin Gorman <kgorman(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> Pete: there's not really any point in making this thread a laundry list of
>> times that admins and crats on commons fucked up vs times they didn't fuck
>> up. There are plenty of historical decisions on Commons that I agree
>> wholeheartedly with. There have even been cases where I advanced arguments
>> in deletion nominations that I honestly didn't expect to be accepted that
>> were, including one instance where someone who initially voted keep took
>> the time to go ahead and read the laws of the country the photograph was
>> taken in w/r/t identifiable people and changed his vote. Instances like
>> that are absolutely commendable, but they're also far from universal.
>> Admins and crats on commons have also historically made a large number of
>> decisions that fly in the face of WMF board resolutions, often repeatedly.
>> Commons doesn't speak with a unified voice, but people with advanced
>> userrights on Commons do speak with a louder voice than the rest of the
>> community, in that they have the ostensible authority to actually carry out
>> their actions. A project where people with advanced userrights fairly
>> regularly make decisions that fly in the face of WMF board resolutions and
>> are not censured by their peers is a project with problems.
>>
>> David: I haven't seen anyone assert that the image in question isn't a
>> violation of the principle of least astonishment. I've seen several people
>> suggest the image was acceptable for other reasons. If you can articulate
>> a reasonable (i.e., not full of snark and one that indicates you've read at
>> least most of the ongoing discussion) argument that putting the image in
>> question on Commons frontpage (and the frontpage of numerous other projects
>> in the process,) is not a violation of the principle of least astonishment,
>> I'd love to hear it. Especially if you craft your argument to recognize
>> the fact that the image was both displayed on projects that didn't speak
>> any of the languages it was captioned in, and given that most Wikimedia
>> viewers can't actually play our video formats. I guess you could argue
>> that the resolution only says that the board "supports" the POLA rather
>> than requires it, but that's a rather weak argument for putting a grainy
>> black and white stack of dead corpses linking to a video many can't play
>> that's only captioned in a handful of langauges on the frontpage of a
>> project that serves projects in 287 different languages.
>>
>> ----
>> Kevin Gorman
>>
>>
>>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 12:14 AM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 13 May 2014 05:04, Kevin Gorman <kgorman(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> No, Russavia: I'm not suggesting that Commons' policies should mirror
>>> those
>>>> of ENWP. I'm suggesting that Commons should have a process in place that
>>>> ensures that it follows the clearly established resolutions of the WMF
>>>> board, which I would remind you *do* trump local policy. This particular
>>>> incident failed to do so, and it's not the first time that such a thing
>>> has
>>>> occurred on Commons.
>>>
>>>
>>> See, there you're asserting that this is a slam-dunk violation, and
>>> it's really clear just from this thread that it really isn't. Your
>>> personal feelings are not the determinant of Wikimedia comment, and
>>> won't become so through repetition.
>>>
>>>
>>> - d.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
>
> End of Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 122, Issue 44
> ********************************************
>I should also mention that while we try to be as transparent as possible in
>all our work (including holding community consultations around all major
>legal policies and providing frequent updates on our work), there are very
>limited situations where public discussions could actually hurt free access
>to Wikipedia. If you have thoughts about the evolving censorship landscape,
>feel free to email me directly, if possible via encrypted email.
I find the secrecy surrounding the HTTPS rollout to be odd (To put it mildly).
What are we worried about. A censor who follows wikimedia-l, but not
the press release the WMF issued?
All the technical details are public (The git repo is public. Not to
mention the whole fact we're using https is going to be painfully
obvious when you visit the site, and its in https). We aren't doing
anything surprising, we are in the process of simply following what
many people consider best practices. We've publicly stated our
intention to do this for years now. And its pretty obvious what the
next steps of the deployment are going to be. The only thing really
being kept secret is the timetable, and which specific projects are up
next.
--
bawolff
When you get data, at some point of time you start thinking about
quite fringe comparisons. But that could actually give some useful
conclusions, like this time it did [1].
We did the next:
* Used the number of primary speakers from Ethnologue. (Erik Zachte is
using approximate number of primary + secondary speakers; that could
be good for correction of this data.)
* Categorized languages according to the logarithmic number of
speakers: >=10k, >=100k, >=1M, >=10M, >=100M.
* Took the number of articles of Wikipedia in particular language and
created ration (number of articles / number of speakers).
* This list is consisted just of languages with Ethnologue status 1
(national), 2 (provincial) or 3 (wider communication). In fact, we
have a lot of projects (more than 100) with worse language status; a
number of them are actually threatened or even on the edge of
extinction.
Those are the preliminary results and I will definitely have to pass
through all the numbers. I fixed manually some serious errors, like
not having English Wikipedia itself inside of data :D
Putting the languages into the logarithmic categories proved to be
useful, as we are now able to compare the Wikipedias according to
their gross capacity (numbers of speakers). I suppose somebody well
introduced into statistics could even create the function which could
be used to check how good one project stays, no matter of those strict
categories.
It's obvious that as more speakers one language has, it's harder to
the community to follow the ratio.
So, the winners per category are:
1) >= 1k: Hawaiian, ratio 0.96900
2) >= 10k: Mirandese, ratio 0.18073
3) >= 100k: Basque, ratio 0.38061
4) >= 1M: Swedish, ratio 0.21381
5) >= 10M: Dutch, ratio 0.08305
6) >= 100M: English, ratio 0.01447
However, keep in mind that we removed languages not inside categories
1, 2 or 3. That affected >=10k languages, as, for example, Upper
Sorbian stays much better than Mirandese (0.67). (Will fix it while
creating the full report. Obviously, in this case logarithmic
categories of numbers of speakers are much more important than what's
the state of the language.)
It's obvious that we could draw the line between 1:1 for 1-10k
speakers to 10:1 for >=100M speakers. But, again, I would like to get
input of somebody more competent.
One very important category is missing here and it's about the level
of development of the speakers. That could be added: GDP/PPP per
capita for spoken country or countries would be useful as measurement.
And I suppose somebody with statistical knowledge would be able to
give us the number which would have meaning "ability to create
Wikipedia article".
Completed in such way, we'd be able to measure the success of
particular Wikimedia groups and organizations. OK. Articles per
speaker are not the only way to do so, but we could use other
parameters, as well: number of new/active/very active editors etc. And
we could put it into time scale.
I'll make some other results. And to remind: I'd like to have the
formula to count "ability to create Wikipedia article" and then to
produce "level of particular community success in creating Wikipedia
articles". And, of course, to implement it for editors.
[1] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TYyhETevEJ5MhfRheRn-aGc4cs_6k45Gwk_…
I agree that we should welcome a broad range of collaborative communities
to the local Wiknics, especially other free/open projects like
OpenStreetMap.
Start a Wiknic for your city, in your local park!
Thanks,
Pharos
On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Rob Schnautz <bobthewikipedian(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> I am not saying Google shares this goal, but that contributors to its maps
> share our goal. People adding road names and speed limits are working
> toward free and open knowledge just as we do. And like I said, the list is
> by no means comprehensive. I only listed a few I contribute to myself.
>
> Rob
>
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2015, 07:54 Mike Dupont <jamesmikedupont(a)googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi there,
>> I would like express concern about the goals of wikipedia.
>>
>> if you look at the blurb at the top of the wikipedia article about
>> itself : """Wikipedia is a free-access, free-content Internet
>> encyclopedia, supported and hosted by the non-profit Wikimedia
>> Foundation."""
>>
>> Now how many of the sites you mentioned are free-access and
>> free-content. I think many are not free content.
>>
>> Google map maker, sharing a common goal seems strange to me, I always
>> thought that the goal of wikipedia is is create an unburdened source
>> of knowledge, and google's goal is to sell advertising via restrictive
>> licensing of all contributions.
>>
>> Btw, did you forget openstreetmap?
>>
>> So, I agree we might want to try and advertise to other people
>> contributing to non free-content websites and try and sell them on the
>> merits of supporting the freedom of content vs the locking down of
>> content.
>>
>> mike
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/12/15, Rob Schnautz <bobthewikipedian(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hey y'all! Been forever since I've been active on a Wikimedia-based
>> site,
>> > though I have been active in other free and open knowledge movements. I
>> > think it would be neat to try to do joint meetups with editors of other
>> > sites. Here are a few that share our common goals, but this certainly is
>> > only a small spectrum:
>> >
>> > Wikia
>> > iNaturalist
>> > Google Mapmaker
>> > Waze Map Editor
>> > GasBuddy
>> > IMDB
>> >
>> > This could be a great way to cross-pollinate ideas and even editors.
>> >
>> > Rob
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jun 11, 2015, 23:27 Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi all,
>> >>
>> >> Wiknic is Wikipedia's annual community picnic. For those of us who are
>> in
>> >> parts of the world where the current season is summer, we usually
>> >> celebrate
>> >> Wiknic in June or July. Wiknic started in the United States, and I'm
>> told
>> >> that the idea has spread to other countries with diverse languages
>> >> including the Netherlands, Israel, and France. This year's suggested
>> >> Wiknic
>> >> dates are Sunday, July 5th or Saturday, July 25th.
>> >>
>> >> So, organize or join a Wiknic in your area!
>> >>
>> >> You might also consider inviting members of other open source,
>> technology
>> >> enthusiast, and public service communities to join you at Wiknic. We
>> are
>> >> doing this in Cascadia Wikimedians.
>> >>
>> >> More information about Wiknic is available at
>> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiknic
>> >>
>> >> Photos from a few of last year's Wiknics made it to Commons. See
>> >> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wiknic_2014
>> >>
>> >> Have fun,
>> >>
>> >> Pine
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Wikimediaus-l mailing list
>> >> Wikimediaus-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> James Michael DuPont
>> Kansas Linux Fest http://kansaslinuxfest.us
>> Free/Libre Open Source and Open Knowledge Association of Kansas
>> http://openkansas.us
>> Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://www.flossk.org
>> Saving Wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion
>> http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimediaus-l mailing list
>> Wikimediaus-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimediaus-l mailing list
> Wikimediaus-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l
>
>