Leila Zia wrote:
>... we are not aware of any reader logs being shipped out of the
> WMF servers.
Page 20 of http://infolab.stanford.edu/~west1/pubs/West_Dissertation-2016.pdf
says, "We have access to Wikimedia’s full server logs, containing all
HTTP requests to Wikimedia projects." Page 19 indicates that this
information includes the "IP address, proxy information, and user agent."
At https://youtu.be/jQ0NPhT-fsE&t=25m40s Dr. West says, "we have
the complete ... server logs from Wikipedia ... about 14 terabytes of
raw logs per month."
If this does not imply that the logs are copied from Foundation
servers, that is certainly advantageous over the apparent meaning
of the language used. But I question whether recording the personally
identifying data in the first place is wise.
I understand that there are currently two other university research
laboratories which have similar access. Is that correct?
Would anyone in the Foundation have any way to know whether any
of the researchers with access are subject to National Security
Letters, a subpoena from a US or foreign law enforcement agency,
or blackmail, extortion, or bribery, for that matter?
Is creating the MD5 has described on page 19 of Dr. West's
dissertation after filtering bots from the user agents and discarding
the IP address before ever storing the log files to disk an
appropriate solution to this problem?
Should SHA-512 be used instead of MD5?
Deal all,
We are very happy to announce the top 10 winning photos[1] of Wiki Loves
Monuments Bangladesh 2016. These 10 photos will compete in the
international stage of the competition.
This was the first time Wiki Loves Monuments was organized in Bangladesh. A
total 7532 photographs of 452 archaeological sites and buildings were
uploaded. Congratulations to all the winners. And a big thanks to the
volunteers who were involved in organizing the competition.
[1]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2016_in_Ban…
Thanks and regards,
*Tanweer Morshed*
Member, Organizing Committee
Wiki Loves Monuments Bangladesh 2016
It's great that the CTO position was filled.
The blog announcement's biography omitted these details:
"As Director for Security Initiatives for Intel’s Digital Enterprise
Group [Victoria Coleman] was responsible for defining the company’s
security technology roadmap and translating it to product delivery.
During this time, she was instrumental in bringing Intel’s LaGrande
Technology across the server processor and chipset product line.
Victoria has also had roles as the Director of the Trusted Platform
Laboratory and the Trust and Manageability Laboratory in Intel's
Corporate Technology Group... In 1995 she authored the landmark UK
Ministry of Defence DefStan 00-56 which created the legal framework
for the safety of programmable electronic systems procurement by the
MoD . In 2004, she founded the Cybersecurity Research Center on behalf
of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security."
Source: http://www.potomacinstitute.org/fellows/2138-the-potomac-institute-welcomes…
Is Victoria willing to comment on
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/01/nsa_exploit_of.html
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_20…
please?
Hi everyone,
The second annual Community Wishlist Survey starts today, and you're
invited to post proposals for projects that you'd like WMF's Community Tech
team to work on:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2016_Community_Wishlist_Survey
The Community Tech team builds features and makes changes that active
Wikimedia contributors want, and the Wishlist Survey sets the team's agenda
for the year.
The Wishlist Survey starts with a two-week proposal period, when
contributors from all Wikimedia projects are invited to post, discuss and
improve propsals. After that, there's a two-week voting period, when
everyone can post support-votes on the proposals that they think are
worthwhile. We end up with a ranked list of wishes, measured by the
participants' enthusiasm for each idea.
Community Tech is responsible for addressing the top 10 wishes on the list,
as well as some top wishes from smaller groups and projects that are doing
important work, but don't have the numbers to get their proposal into the
top 10. The Wishlist is also used by volunteer developers and other teams,
who want to find projects to work on that the community really wants.
So I hope that everybody comes and participates; it's an opportunity to set
the agenda for a Wikimedia Foundation product team.
We would also ask that you help us spread the word. Please do post on your
wikis and tell others this is happening, and that if they don't feel
comfortable writing in English, proposals are welcome in any language.
*Nederlands naar onder - français ci-dessous*
Hello all,
In the coming weekend the Dutch Wikipedia will be printed as an art project
in the city of Ghent. The project also has been done in New York and Berlin
with the English and German language Wikipedia. See also the English
article about this project at: Print Wikipedia
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:Print_Wikipedia>.In total exist the
encyclopedia out of 1065 books, including 2 books with the appendix of the
contributors.
- Location: Zebrastraat 32/001 - 9000 Ghent
- Date: 5 November 2016
- Time: 14:00-18:00
- Entrance: frees
- Location info: http://www.zebrastraat.be/contact.html
- Exhibition: http://www.ntaa.be/
Wikimedia Belgium <https://be.wikimedia.org/wiki/> provides together with
the artist for a snack and drink and anyone interested is welcome.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hallo allen,
Komend weekend wordt de Nederlandstalige Wikipedia uitgeprint als onderdeel
van een kunstproject in Gent. Het project is ook al eens onder andere in
New York en Berlijn gedaan met de Engelstalige en Duitstalige Wikipedia.
Zie eventueel ook het Engelstalige Wikipedia-artikel: Print Wikipedia
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:Print_Wikipedia>. In totaal zal de
encyclopedie uit 1065 boeken bestaan, inclusief 2 boeken met de appendix
van de bijdragers.
- Locatie: Zebrastraat 32/001 - 9000 Gent
- Datum: 5 november 2016
- Tijd: 14:00-18:00
- Entree: gratis
- Locatie info: http://www.zebrastraat.be/contact.html
- Tentoonstelling: http://www.ntaa.be/
Wikimedia België <https://be.wikimedia.org/wiki/> zorgt samen met de
kunstenaar voor een hapje en een drankje en iedereen is welkom.
Aanmelden is niet verplicht, maar wel handig om een inschatting te kunnen
maken, en kan op: Wikipedia:Ontmoeten#Wikipedia_uitgeprint
<https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ontmoeten#Wikipedia_uitgeprint>.
Wie foto's wil maken is ook van harte welkom! Dit moet natuurlijk goed
gedocumenteerd worden. Tot dan!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salut à tous,
L’encyclopédie d’internet Wikipédia néerlandaise sera imprimée le weekend
prochain à Gand dans le cadre d’un projet d’art. L'impression de la
Wikipédia a également été faite à New York pour l’edition anglaise et à
Berlin pour l’édition allemande. Vous pouvez trouver plus d’information
dans la page Print Wikipedia
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:Print_Wikipedia>. La Wikipédia imprimée
se composera en total de 1065 livres, dont un annexe de deux livres avec
une liste de contributeurs.
· Lieu de la manifestation: Zebrastraat 32/001 - 9000 Gent
· L’heure: 14:00-18:00 (5 novembre 2016)
· L’entrée est gratuite
· La route: http://www.zebrastraat.be/contact.html
· L’exposition: http://www.ntaa.be/
Wikimedia Belgique <http://be.wikimedia.org> et l'artiste vous invitent
pour des rafraîchissements, vous êtes les bienvenus.
Hi all,
I am forking a discussion on Wikimedia Foundation Board of trustees vacant
appointed seat(s) and turnover at this point.
== The Board members start and end terms (Turnover) ==
I have drafted here three charts indicating the starting and ending of the
terms of the Board members:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_Governa…
The first chart shows how it will go now, if nothing is changed.
As you can see we have a lot of onboarding / offboarding even without
anything extraordinary happening, and it means that the Board has scarcely
any time to work as a team and concentrate on things beyond looking for new
people and onboarding them.
The picture is "darkened" by the fact that the onboarding process is not
formalized enough and I would rather concentrate on working on improving
the onboarding process, so we have it in place when new members join,
rather then rush to appoint new Trustees.
We had a discussion about it in the Board Governanace Committee (BGC), and
it seems that having less on- and off-boardings-points per year (f.ex., at
Wikimania) should be something to plan for. And less people joining per
year.
The second and third charts illustrate this idea: every year three new
trustees join the Board, with the community-, affiliates- and appointed
seats joining in different years (well, one appointed seat join together
with the affiliates).
Of course the transition period will be a challenge. But it should improve
the workflow.
== Continuity ==
The second and third charts also suggests that the terms are extended. WMF
had a really turbulent last two years, this Board (from my perspective)
needs some time to work together as a group, so (again, my perspective) I
would really love if the terms can be extended, so we can concentrate on
improving how we work and creating / formalizing the processes.
But in case this extension is too much to ask from the current trustees,
I'd rather leave the seats vacant.
== Onboarding and Pool of candidates ==
Just so it is clear to everyone, it is a real challenge if a new trustee
joins. It should not be so. We have started collecting things for a new
Board member to have a smoother onboarding process.
There is also an idea about having Advisory Board working: to not lose the
knowledge we had with every trustee who leaves the Board, but maybe we can
also use this group as a pool of excellent possible candidates to "optimize
the hiring process" [1]. And joining the Advisory Board can also be used to
onboard people gently. Without too much time commitment, working rather on
separate tasks, but already being included in the discussions to some level.
== Discussion ==
I hope it is clear from things I said above, but in case it is not, the
discussion is not finalized yet and I plan to have it decided one way or
another at the Board meeting in a week. It should be decided, so the BGC
can move on with hiring new Board members or concentrate on the improvement
of the hiring and onboarding processes; so the Standing Elections committee
can plan the timeline; so the Chair of the Board can plan the dates for the
Board meetings for the next year etc.
As I have mentioned before, please comment / suggest. I have listed the
problems I myself see from the inside. And my thoughts about that. You can
raise questions and concerns from your points of views. The more issues
discussed, the more informed our decision will be.
If you prefer posting on Meta, please comment / suggest on the relevant
talk pages:
- The Board members start and end terms
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_Governa…>
- Appointing someone to the vacant appointed seat
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_Gov…>
- Onboarding for new members
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_Gov…>
And (just in case) please understand that all mentioned above is my
understanding of how things stand and my conclusions on how to move forward
better, based on things I heard from the BGC members and other people I had
talks with. It does not represent the position the BGC is going to
recommend, or the Board will approve. So I would welcome negative and
positive comments equally well.
[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-03-16/Op-ed
Best regards,
antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
*NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal working
hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during weekend. You
should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off. Thank you in
advance!*
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 1:38 AM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> In case my blanket "I disagree" left doubt, let me state very clearly --
> I'm not seeking anybody's resignation here. (Just reread Dan's message and
> realized it's possible the beginning of my response could be read that way,
> though I think I'm pretty clear further down.)
> -Pete
>
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Dan, I disagree. Three points:
> >
> > 1. Rogol explicitly said they *hesitate* to suggest that anybody resign;
> > nobody on this list has asked her to resign. Best not to exaggerate.
> >
> > 2. It is true that there is a higher level of scrutiny of the board than
> > there has been in the past. We should not forget that in the last year,
> the
> > board or its members:
> > * Ousted a community-selected member, for reasons generally regarded as
> > frivolous and insufficient;
> > * Defamed that same person following his ouster
> > * Appointed a new member with insufficient vetting, who subsequently had
> > to resign under pressure
> > * Lost another community-selected member, who cited reasons he had been
> > explicitly aware of during his candidacy
> > * Appointed a member to a community-selected seat who had not, in fact,
> > been selected by the community (I don't think this was actually a bad
> move
> > given the circumstances, but it's worth noting nonetheless)
> > * Lost an executive director (amid scandal) it had hailed as a perfect
> > "unicorn" just two years ago
> >
> > It therefore stands to reason that people will be more critical than
> usual
> > of the board's activities. I would argue this is healthy. The board has a
> > great deal of work to do in regaining the trust it has lost as an
> > institution. (I'll note that I published some suggestions about actions
> the
> > board could take; I have seen no indication that the board even read this
> > op-ed, much less considered implementing its suggestions.
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/
> > 2016-03-16/Op-ed )
> >
> > 3. On the specifics mentioned here: Without suggesting that Ms. Battles
> or
> > anybody has done anything wrong, it is indeed prudent, as Rogol suggests,
> > to consider whether this might constitute a COI that directly impedes
> > important work on Wikimedia's behalf. I'm personally not as worried about
> > it as Rogol; I take it as a good sign that she has proactively announced
> it
> > here, and I trust it will be noted in a more visible location as well. I
> am
> > not sure that her area of specialization (finance) is something that
> would
> > really suffer from this particular COI. But as important as legal vetting
> > may be, it remains important that somebody pay attention to the fit of
> > board members with the general mission of the organization -- and I
> > wouldn't expect WMF staff lawyers to fill that role. Ordinarily, I think
> it
> > would be the board's role to pay attention to that -- but for the reasons
> > stated above, I think it's worthwhile if others in the movement pay
> > attention too.
> >
> > -Pete
> > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Dan Garry <dgarry(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >
> >> The mere potential that a conflict of interest may arise in the future
> is
> >> not necessarily a reason to resign from the board. This is why we have
> >> legal counsel such as Stephen and Michelle to determine whether such
> >> conflicts are serious enough to be inappropriate. We should all be
> >> satisfied with their opinions that this situation is fine in light of
> >> their
> >> reputation, experience, and credentials; I know I am.
> >>
> >> Minor conflicts of interest sometimes arise. That is normal, and as
> Kelly
> >> said, such conflicts can be managed. For example, when it happens, the
> >> relevant party can do things like recusing themselves from that
> discussion
> >> and stepping out of the room until the discussion is complete. This is
> >> standard procedure adopted by boards of other organisations, and also in
> >> parts of our movement such as the Arbitration Committees or Funds
> >> Dissemination Committee.
> >>
> >> Additionally, I am disturbed by the recent trend of seemingly all
> threads
> >> involving members of the Board of Trustees inevitably having someone
> >> asking
> >> a trustee to resign. I hope this absurdity does not continue.
> >>
> >> Dan
> >>
> >> On 2 November 2016 at 22:34, Rogol Domedonfors <domedonfors(a)gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Congratuations to Kelly Battles on her new job at Quora. I believe
> I'm
> >> > correct in saying that this is a company whose business is to make a
> >> profit
> >> > by pursuing its "mission is to share and grow the world’s knowledge".
> >> > Surely that means that in general the more and better the Wikimedia
> >> > projects pursue their mission, the more they will undercut Quora's
> >> > business? In particular, would not the Knowledge Engine, at least as
> >> > originally conceived, be very much in direct competition with Quora's
> >> > question-and-answer model? It seems to me that Kelly's duty to her
> new
> >> > employer is likely to come very clearly into conflict with her duty to
> >> the
> >> > Foundation, and while it is posible that this can be managed, will it
> >> not
> >> > seriously diminish her ability to work with the Board on the strategic
> >> > thinking they are just about to start? I hestiate to suggest that
> >> Kelly's
> >> > best course of action is to step down from the Board but I do believe
> it
> >> > needs serious consideration by herself and her fellow Trustees -- it
> is
> >> not
> >> > clear whether it is better for the Board to have another vacancy, or a
> >> > Trustee who is unable to engage in the strategy-setting which is so
> bady
> >> > needed. Indeed, with two vacancies already, and no clear indication
> of
> >> > when or how they will be filled, I suggest that the Board is in a
> rather
> >> > awkward position now.
> >> >
> >> > "Rogol"
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > 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>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Dan Garry
> >> Lead Product Manager, Discovery
> >> Wikimedia Foundation
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> >> i/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>
> >>
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>
Chris Keating wrote: "Fortunately the Board isn't required to consider
whether hypothetically infuture some other organisation's interests might
conflict with the Foundation's: only whether in practice they do." This is
not correct: one of the functions of the Board is to assess the risks to
the WMF and this necessarily involves assessing whether certain situations
might arise in the future that have not arisen now. This is normal
practice, and it is why the WMF has a risk register which is reviewed
regularly by the Audit Committee (see
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Audit_Committee/2015-03-16 and
discussion at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/Arch…
– it would have been helpful to this discussion if that document had been
made available to the community as proposed).
This was not a case of a hypothetical future event which did not need to be
considered, but a risk that needed to be assesd: indeed, as we have been
clearly told, it was assessed by WMF staff, and their decision was that the
risk could be managed. My point was that the Board should consider whether
the processes required to manage the risk would diminish the effectiveness
of the trustee concerned to an unacceptable degree: "I do believe it needs
serious consideration by herself and her fellow Trustees" is what I wrote.
It appears that the WMF are taking a narrow view of conflict of interest in
terms of financial interest and the fiduciary duty of the Trustees. That
is their position, and they are entitled to hold it, although it is not a
view I have worked with often in my own experience. I believe the Board
could and should consider the wider needs to obtain the best possible range
of strategic advice and input, epsecially as we move into yet another
strategic review: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/2016-2017
"Rogol"
Sam, Thanks you for your views. Referring to the possible conflicts
between Wikimedia and Quora, you say that "there is almost no current
overlap between the organizations' main projects". Whether or not this is
true right now, it is entirely possible that it may not be true in future,
and I gave an example that you did not address (Knowledge Engine). The WMF
is "dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of
free multilingual, educational content, and to providing the full content
of these wiki-based projects to the public free of charge", committed to "a
world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all
knowledge" Quora's business is to "share and grow the world’s knowledge".
It is not at all obvious to me that these can never be in conflict, indeed
they seem quite remarkably similar, with the signficant exception of the
profit element. Is there some demarcation agreement that we have not been
told about?
"Rogol"
Does Guideline 3 of https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:
Guidelines_on_potential_conflicts_of_interest
include questions from the community?
Is it ever appropriate to try to negotiate limits to answers to such
questions in private communications?
"Best solutions to avoid conflict of interests is communicating about them
openly and being transparent."
-- https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2014
/Documentation/12
Reposting in case it didn't make it to the list (and because more
exposure can't hurt an any case.)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Guillaume Paumier <gpaumier(a)wikimedia.org>
Date: Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 11:27 AM
Subject: Opening the 2016 Values discussion
To: Wikimedia-announce <WikimediaAnnounce-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Greetings,
As a community, we've talked a lot about values in the past year. The
core values of the Wikimedia Foundation were first formulated in
2007−2008 and have not really been discussed in depth since then. In
2013, we also developed Guiding principles, a list of more practical
norms and expected behaviors that guide our day-to-day work at the
Foundation. Combined with our vision and mission statements, those
documents represent the core facets of our organizational identity.
Both staff and volunteers have expressed concerns that there isn't
currently a shared understanding (among the staff and other
constituents) of what our core values are, and how we express them in
our work. We've also talked about a need to revisit or reinforce them.
A few months ago, a working group formed to organize a series of new
discussions about the WMF's values. The goal is to reflect on what is
bringing us together, identify the core beliefs that motivate our
vision, refine our list of values, and clarify our organizational
identity.
Discussions about values in nonprofit organizations are usually done
internally. Given the open and collaborative nature of the Wikimedia
movement, such a closed, internal process wouldn't make sense for the
WMF. The Foundation is part of an integrated ecosystem of individuals
and organizations that contribute to defining its identity. Input
should be collected not just from staff and Board members, but also
from volunteers, affiliates, and partners who wish to participate in
this process.
On behalf of the Values working group, I would therefore like to
invite you to this discussion on Meta. There, you will find more
information about the process, as well as a page to share your
perspective on the Wikimedia Foundation's values. The framing that
we're using for this discussion is one that considers values as the
core intrinsic beliefs that drive our participation in the movement.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Values/2016_discussion
The discussion will be open for a month, i.e. until November 20.
Comments added after that date will still be welcome, but may not be
included in the summary process.
I hope many of you take this opportunity to help define (or refine)
the Foundation's organizational identity.
--
Guillaume Paumier
Wikimedia Foundation