Hi everyone!
I'm very happy to announce that the Affiliations Committee has recognized
the Wikimedians of North American Indigenous Languages User Group [1] as a
Wikimedia User Group. The group aims to support the creation and
development of Wikimedia projects and other language-related free knowledge
initiatives in the indigenous languages of North America.
Please join me in congratulating the members of this new user group!
Regards,
Kirill Lokshin
Chair, Affiliations Committee
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_of_North_American_Indigenous_La…
Hi Everyone,
The next Research Showcase will be live-streamed this Wednesday, February
21, 2018 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC.
YouTube stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpmRWCE7F_I
As usual, you can join the conversation on IRC at #wikimedia-research. And,
you can watch our past research showcases here
<https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/Showcase>.
This month's presentation:
*Visual enrichment of collaborative knowledge bases*
By Miriam Redi, Wikimedia Foundation
Images allow us to explain, enrich and complement knowledge without
language barriers [1]. They can help illustrate the content of an item in a
language-agnostic way to external data consumers. Images can be extremely
helpful in multilingual collaborative knowledge bases such as Wikidata.
However, a large proportion of Wikidata items lack images. More than 3.6M
Wikidata items are about humans (Q5), but only 17% of them have an image
associated with them. Only 2.2M of 40 Million Wikidata items have an image.
A wider presence of images in such a rich, cross-lingual repository could
enable a more complete representation of human knowledge.
In this talk, we will discuss challenges and opportunities faced when using
machine learning and computer vision tools for the visual enrichment of
collaborative knowledge bases. We will share research to help Wikidata
contributors make Wikidata more “visual” by recommending high-quality
Commons images to Wikidata items. We will show the first results on
free-licence image quality scoring and recommendation and discuss future
work in this direction.
[1] Van Hook, Steven R. "Modes and models for transcending cultural
differences in international classrooms." Journal of Research in
International Education 10.1 (2011): 5-27.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1475240910395788
*Backlogs—backlogs everywhere: Using machine classification to clean up the
new page backlog*
By Aaron Halfaker, Wikimedia Foundation
If there's one insight that I've had about the functioning of Wikipedia and
other wiki-based online communities, it's that eventually self-directed
work breaks down and some form of organization becomes important for task
routing. In Wikipedia specifically, the notion of "backlogs" has become
dominant. There's backlogs of articles to create, articles to clean up,
articles to assess, new editor contributions to review, manual of style
rules to apply, etc. To a community of people working on a backlog, the
state of that backlog has deep effects on their emotional well being. A
backlog that only grows is frustrating and exhausting.
Backlogs aren't inevitable though and there are many shapes that backlogs
can take. In my presentation, I'll tell a story about where English
Wikipedia editors defined a process and set of roles that formed a backlog
around new page creations. I'll make the argument that this formalization
of quality control practices has created a choke point and that
alternatives exist. Finally I'll present a vision for such an alternative
using models that we have developed for ORES, the open machine prediction
service my team maintains.
--
Sarah R. Rodlund
Senior Project Coordinator-Product & Technology, Wikimedia Foundation
srodlund(a)wikimedia.org
*Hi Everyone, On Thursday, we released an extensive research report [1]
about Wikimedia’s role in shaping the future of the information commons.
The report was created as part of the Wikimedia 2030 strategy process, as
the Foundation engaged research teams to examine awareness and usage of
Wikimedia projects and evolving information consumption habits. The
consulting teams conducted desk research and spoke both with people
familiar with and involved in the Wikimedia movement and expert observers
who could inform the strategy process but who are not directly involved
today. In one-on-one interviews, experts in geographic areas where the
projects are most heavily used were asked to think about future trends in
their fields and how the trends might apply to the Wikimedia movement’s
strategy. This particular research focused on six broad topics that seemed
most likely to further or frustrate the vision for growth that the
Foundation embraces. In this report, the Foundation’s staff and its
consulting teams present top-level insights from this global process.
Perspectives from interviewees around the world are also provided with
context about their region and area of expertise. The report draws from six
comprehensive research briefs,[2] published on Wikimedia’s strategy
website, which address these topics: - Demographics: Who is in the world in
2030? The report outlines global population trends, which project the
highest population growth in places where Wikimedia has significant room to
expand.- Emerging platforms: How will people around the world be using
communications technologies to find, create, and share information? The
report considers future technologies, from the imminent to the speculative,
and examines what range of new hardware, software, and content production
capabilities might mean for content creation and user access.-
Misinformation: How will people find trustworthy sources of knowledge and
information? The report explores how content creators and technologists can
ensure that knowledge is trustworthy and also identifies threats to these
efforts.- Literacy: How will the world learn in the future? The report
forecasts that technology will transform learning and educational settings
as well as expand the requirements for literacy beyond text and images.-
Open knowledge: How will we share culture, ideas, and information? The
report documents the global trend toward opening collections and archives
to the public and making them freely available online, and explores ways
the Wikimedia movement might partner with people and organizations to
accelerate this sharing.- Expect the unexpected: How can we know what the
world will look like in 2030 — and what the Wikimedia movement’s role will
be in it?The report proposes that a study of trends can never be truly
predictive and introduces alternative visionary tools such as scenario
planning and speculative social science fiction.The consulting team
published an additional research brief on the future of the digital
commons,[3] examining the political and commercial forces that could lead
to the contraction or expansion of the open web. Looking at the
constellation of issues most important to the Wikimedia community, this
brief identifies access, censorship, privacy, copyright, and intermediary
liability as active battlefronts.The fate of the digital commons is the
single subject that rises above and intersects with each of the other areas
of research. The commons of the future will shape the environment that
ultimately fosters or blocks all of the Wikimedia projects’ work. Thus,
this report weaves research findings about the future of the commons
throughout.Specifically, the report highlights growing concerns across
civil society about the quality of and access to open knowledge online, as
well as compounding threats to the Wikimedia movement and its open
knowledge allies. Between now and 2030, open knowledge advocates face
headwinds that include censorship by governments and corporations, internet
shutdowns, surveillance of users, information monopolies, and troubling
developments such as the arrests of scholars and journalists operating in
closed societies.The Wikimedia movement is positioned to work toward
potential solutions to these threats. Despite the trend toward a “darkening
globe,” some leaders see the Wikimedia movement as among the brightest
hopes and most inspiring exemplars of the global digital commons.The
Wikimedia movement has immediate internal challenges to address, including
adapting to an increasingly mobile internet, recruiting a new generation of
volunteers, and expanding its partnerships with schools and “GLAM”
organizations (i.e. galleries, libraries, archives, museums, and other
cultural institutions that have access to knowledge as their mission). But
Wikimedia and its open knowledge allies, working together, can lift up
people everywhere, empowering communities through access and participation
in knowledge creation and sharing. Across the interviews and salons, there
was a clarion call for the building of this larger, more active, and
multi-partner open knowledge movement.For extended narratives, many more
citations, and community discussion of the research, visit the Wikimedia
strategy page that aggregates into a single web directory not only this
work but also the totality of the Foundation’s strategy process:
2030.wikimedia.org <https://2030.wikimedia.org/>.The report concludes with
an analysis of cross-cutting themes that arose from the research, as well
as a set of recommendations and discussion questions for the movement and
its partners. The goal of these final sections is not to close the
discussion. Instead, it is to set the stage for the next phase of work for
the Foundation and the movement: to move from strategies to actions that
not only will preserve what has already been built, but also make the
projects useful and vital for billions of future Wikimedia users.We're
grateful to the Wikimedia staff, volunteers, consultants, and interviewees
who made this report possible. Best,Caitlin Virtue[1] You can read this on
Wikimedia Commons (PDF):
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Strategy_2030_Wikipedia%27s_role_in…
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Strategy_2030_Wikipedia%27s_role_in…>Or
Medium:
https://medium.com/freely-sharing-the-sum-of-all-knowledge/wikimedia-2030-f…
<https://medium.com/freely-sharing-the-sum-of-all-knowledge/wikimedia-2030-f…>[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Sources/St…
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Sources/St…>[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Sources/St…
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Sources/St…>*
--
Caitlin Virtue
Director of Development
Wikimedia Foundation
(415) 839-6885 x6733
cvirtue(a)wikimedia.org
www.wikimediafoundation.org
*Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment. Donate.
<https://donate.wikimedia.org>*
*We've moved! *
*Wikimedia Foundation*
*1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600 *
*San Francisco, CA 94104*
I'm liaising with Charity Navigator, to import data about US charities
into Wikidata.
As an example, I've been looking at their page about the WMF
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=11212
and note that their otherwise excellent rating of the foundation is
reduced by four points (the maximum is 100) due the apparent absence
of a Records Retention and Destruction Policy, "as reported by the
charity on its Form 990".
However,
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Data_retention_guidelines
suggests that this is an error. Is the policy really missing from the 990?
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Dear friends,
Wikimedia Eesti is happy to announce the election of a new board at our
yesterday's general assembly. The new board sees the return of
long-standing board member Eva Lepik. Other members of the new board
include Märt Põder, Käbi Suvi and Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren.
On my part, I would like to thank Wikimedia Eesti for their trust and
support over the last four years, and wish the new board the best of luck.
Tanel Pern,
(soon to be) ex-WMEE board
Hi all,
I’d like to share an update and next steps in our lawsuit against the U.S.
National Security Agency (NSA), Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA.[1] As you’ll
recall, in March 2015, the Wikimedia Foundation joined eight other
plaintiffs in filing a suit in United States Federal District Court against
the NSA[2] and the Department of Justice,[3] among others. We have been
represented pro bono[4] by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)[5] and
the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.[6] The law
firm Cooley LLP[7] has also been serving as pro bono co-counsel for the
Foundation.
Since we’re coming on the three-year anniversary, I wanted to offer a
reminder of why we filed this suit. Our challenge supports the foundational
values of our movement: the right to freedom of expression and access to
information. Free knowledge requires freedom of inquiry, particularly in
the case of challenging and unpopular truths. Each day people around the
world engage with difficult and controversial subjects on Wikipedia and
other Wikimedia projects. Pervasive mass surveillance brings the threat of
reprisal, creates a chilling effect, and undermines the freedoms upon which
our projects and communities are founded. In bringing this suit, we joined
a tradition of knowledge stewards who have fought to preserve the integrity
of intellectual inquiry.
Our lawsuit challenges dragnet surveillance by the NSA, specifically the
large-scale seizing and searching of Internet communications frequently
referred to as “Upstream” surveillance.[8] The U.S. government is tapping
directly into the internet’s “backbone”[9]—the network of high-capacity
cables, switches, and routers that carry domestic and international
communications—and seizing and searching virtually all text-based internet
communications flowing into and out of the United States. It’s this
backbone that connects the global Wikimedia community to our projects.
These communications are being seized and searched without any requirement
that there be suspicion, for example, that the communications have a
connection to terrorism or national security threats.
Last May, we reached an important milestone: a Federal Court of Appeals[10]
in the United States ruled[11] that the Foundation alone had plausibly
alleged “standing”[12] to proceed with our claims that Upstream mass
surveillance seizes and searches of the online communications of Wikimedia
users, contributors and Foundation staff in violation of the U.S.
Constitution and other laws. The Court of Appeals’ ruling means that we are
the sole remaining plaintiff among the nine original co-plaintiffs. There
is still a long road ahead, but this intermediate victory makes this case
one of the most important vehicles for challenging the legality of this
particular NSA surveillance practice.
As a result of our win in the appellate court, we are now proceeding to the
next stage of the case: discovery.[13] In the U.S. court system, parties
use the discovery stage to exchange evidence and ask each other questions
about their claims. We have requested information and documents from the
government, and they have made similar requests from us. The entire phase,
which will also involve research and reports from experts, is expected to
last the next few months.
As part of our commitment to privacy, I want you to know about what this
stage of the case means for our data retention practices. Our goal in
bringing this lawsuit was to protect user information. In this case, like
other litigation in which we engage, we may sometimes be legally required
to preserve some information longer than the standard 90-day period in our
data retention guidelines. These special cases are acknowledged and
permitted by our privacy and data retention policies.[14]
As always, however, we remain committed to keeping user data no longer than
legally necessary. We never publish the exact details of litigation-related
data retention, as part of our legal strategy to keep personal data safe.
And we defend any personal data from disclosure to the maximum extent,
taking both legal and technical measures to do so. We are keeping sensitive
material encrypted and offline, and we have the support of the experienced
legal teams at the ACLU and Cooley in ensuring its safety and integrity.
Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA is currently one of the only freedom of
expression and access to knowledge cases being prosecuted against
government surveillance overreach. Unfortunately, the recent extension of
these surveillance practices by the U.S. Congress[15] demonstrates that the
courts may well be the only venue to stop or restrict these practices.
The nature of litigation means that we will not always be able to discuss
certain details of any case in public. For example, deliberations about
tactical or strategic decisions will need to remain confidential in order
to preserve the attorney-client privilege.[16] In such situations,
particularly in a sensitive and important case like this, we are always
balancing the need for confidentiality with our commitment to transparency.
So while some information will not be public, we want to be available to
address your questions, should you have any. Please direct them to Greg
Varnum gvarnum(a)wikimedia.org, who can help provide answers.
We will continue keeping you updated on our progress and anything that
might affect our communities and visitors to the Wikimedia sites.[17]
I would like to thank Tilman Bayer, Nuria Ruiz, Faidon Liambotis, Andrew
Otto, James Alexander, Brandon Black, Byron Bogaert, Dan Foy, Grace
Gellerman, Aeryn Palmer and Jim Buatti for their extensive dedication to
this case. And thanks to the C-levels supporting this work, Eileen
Hershenov, Victoria Coleman, and Toby Negrin.
Yours,
Katherine
[1] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/06/23/wikimedia-v-nsa-present-future/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Justice
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_bono
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union
[6] https://knightcolumbia.org/
[7] https://www.cooley.com/
[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upstream_collection
[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_backbone
[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_courts_of_appeals
[11] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/05/23/wikimedia-nsa-appeal-standing/
[12] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)
[13] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_(law)
[14] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Data_retention_guidelines
[15]
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-cyber-surveillance/trump-signs…
[16] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney%E2%80%93client_privilege
[17] https://policy.wikimedia.org/stopsurveillance/
*Previous updates for your review:*
June 23 2017
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/06/23/wikimedia-v-nsa-present-future/
June 16 2017
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/06/16/fake-news-nsa-lawsuit-yale/
May 23 2017
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/05/23/wikimedia-nsa-appeal-standing/
December 9 2016
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/12/09/wikimedia-v-nsa-hearing-fourth-circui…
October 17 2016
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/10/17/wikimedia-v-nsa-appeal-hearing/
May 9 2016 https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/05/09/wikimedia-nsa-appeal/
April 11 2016
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/04/11/new-resource-wikimedia-nsa/
February 17 2016
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/02/17/wikimedia-nsa-appeal-filed/
December 15 2015
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/12/15/wikimedia-nsa-notice-of-appeal/
October 23 2015
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/10/23/wikimedia-v-nsa-lawsuit-dismissal/
September 28 2015
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/09/28/wikimedia-nsa-first-hearing/
September 4 2015
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/09/04/motion-to-dismiss-wikimedia-v-nsa/
March 10 2015 https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/03/10/wikimedia-v-nsa/
--
Katherine Maher
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation
1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
San Francisco, CA 94104
+1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635
+1 (415) 712 4873
kmaher(a)wikimedia.org
https://annual.wikimedia.org
Hey Fae,
Let me make sure I understand.
*You believe suggesting posting limits resulted in less posts because
people were afraid of the post limits
*This makes you feel doubt about the health of the mailing list
*The count of posts is low year-over-year for the last few years
*This is indicative of community health
*You feel the content of the list is low on substantive conversation
*You would like feedback on these ideas.
Correlation does not equal causation, so I think it’s not as clear (or
black and white) as I interpret your writing on why we've seen less
participation. Nor do I find any lack of quality in the conversations
that do happen here.
Of course, who's to say that those past years and corresponding
numbers are indicative of a healthy community? :) I remember this
mailing list to have a great number more posts in early 2016, but many
remember that period of time as not such a healthy time for the
movement. If the goal is more posts at the cost of more drama - I'll
take a hard pass.
Do you feel that the mailing list content is less healthy or perhaps
just less noisy? Noisy in the sense of distractions. You mention
criticism and thoughtful conversation. Is it possible that is
happening in other more friendly (technologically accessible and
civil) venues? Perhaps one where familiar usernames are not given such
court to create more distraction?
As for the usefulness of this mailing list I can only speak for
myself. I work remotely. I have conditioned into me from previous
experiences not to send frivolous single-sentence replies. However in
my experience within the movement, these sort of of “hey I acknowledge
you exist, saw your message, but have nothing to add” messages are
helpful for remaining connected to colleagues who are physically
distant, but frequently encountered (and sometimes sadly not) in
online spaces. It’s part of the reason I find the Thanks extension
helpful on-wiki. So that is to say, this is a hearty +1 to the current
state of things. In my opinion, I'm fine. We're fine.
I hope this is a somewhat thoughtful observation and not too spammy. :)
Thanks,
Chris K.