Hello all,
The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees believes that Wikimedia
affiliates are a key and integral part of the Wikimedia movement, and
affiliates’ success is vital to the Wikimedia movement’s success. To that
end, it is crucial to develop a clear vision regarding the affiliates,
making it possible to assess whether the Foundation’s investment in,
collaboration with, and policy towards affiliates is promoting the right
goals. The Board will be embarking on building a Wikimedia Foundation
Affiliates Strategy in collaboration with the Affiliations Committee (AffCom),
the affiliates, and the broader communities. This strategy will help guide
the Foundation’s immediate work in supporting affiliates for the next few
years.
In order to ensure that there is continuity and institutional memory during
this process, there will be a delay of the elections for AffCom until after
the strategy is complete, and the terms of the current AffCom members will
be prolonged (in a separate resolution) to December 31, 2023. While the
strategy is under development, AffCom will continue its current
responsibilities, in addition to collaborating on the Wikimedia Foundation
Affiliates Strategy.
Once the Wikimedia Foundation Affiliates Strategy is ready, there would be
clarity on what is expected from the Wikimedia Foundation for supporting
affiliates, and what is expected from affiliates.
As the weeks progress in the new calendar year, a plan of the process will
be released, including opportunities for communities and affiliates to
engage. You can find some FAQs below to assist further understanding of the
Wikimedia Foundation Affiliates Strategy.
Best regards,
Nat & Shani
Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Liaisons to the Affiliations
Committee
== FAQs ==
1. What are Wikimedia movement affiliates? What is AffCom?
Wikimedia movement affiliates are "independent and formally recognised"
groups of people intended to organise and engage in activities to support
and contribute to the Wikimedia movement [1]. Currently there are three
active models for affiliates: chapters, thematic organisations, and user
groups. The Affiliations Committee (AffCom) advises and makes
recommendations regarding the recognition and existence of Wikimedia
movement affiliates.
2. How is the work with affiliates at the Wikimedia Foundation organised
now?
As of now, processes are fragmented across different teams at the Wikimedia
Foundation, and some decision making regarding affiliates is happening at
different levels. A unified and consistent process is beneficial to all
parties, hence the start of the work on the Wikimedia Foundation Affiliates
Strategy.
3. What is the Wikimedia Foundation Affiliates Strategy? Is this an update
of some existing document or something brand new?
Until now there has not been any unified vision regarding how the work
around affiliates should happen, as there was no affiliate-specific
strategy developed before. The Wikimedia Foundation Affiliates Strategy is
to be a blueprint that will guide the Foundation’s immediate work with
affiliates. This strategy will be in place to inform and guide the
Wikimedia Foundation budget and support to affiliates, until some kind of
Movement-wide Affiliates Strategy is developed.
4. Why do we need a Wikimedia Foundation Affiliates Strategy?
The Affiliates are a key part of the Wikimedia movement as mentioned in the
Wikimedia Foundation mission, and their success is integral to the success
of the whole Wikimedia Movement. As the affiliate ecosystem has grown in
size and complexity, it is increasingly important to review existing
approaches and ensure that the focus is on the right areas. The Wikimedia
Foundation Affiliates Strategy will help to strengthen and advance the work
of the affiliates.The Wikimedia Foundation Affiliates Strategy will take
into account Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy recommendations
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Recommendations>.
The Strategy will direct Foundation attention to the needs of affiliates
and focus resources on those needs towards impact by affiliates.
5. Does the decision of developing the Wikimedia Foundation Affiliates
Strategy change the role of AffCom?
There are no immediate changes in the role of AffCom, which is continuing
doing its job. However, the Wikimedia Foundation Affiliates Strategy will
direct the future work of the Wikimedia Foundation in support of the
affiliates, which could result in revising the role and scope of AffCom.
6. Why are the AffCom Elections delayed?
Traditionally, AffCom had elections at least once every year to select (not
elect) and appoint members who will serve in AffCom for a period of two
years. This year AffCom elections will not be held. Instead, the elections
will be delayed as AffCom is a key input for the Board in developing the
Wikimedia Foundation Affiliates Strategy, and adding the burden of
selecting and on-boarding new members will encumber the committee and make
it difficult for it to discharge its regular duties as well as collaborate
on the strategy. If the number of voting members falls below five (per
the AffCom
Charter <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee_Charter>),
elections will nonetheless be held.
7. Will the Movement Charter also have an "Affiliates Strategy" and/or
define affiliate roles?
While it is reasonable to expect that the Movement Charter will have
prescriptions on affiliates and their recognition, and some of these
responsibilities might shift to the Global Council once it is formed, it is
currently unknown how this will unfold, and it will bear consequences only
in years to come. Accordingly, this work is worth doing now so that the
available resources are having the impact needed and are best serving the
current Wikimedia movement and the affiliate ecosystem in the interim.
8. Is AffCom being asked to propose a Wikimedia Foundation Affiliates
Strategy?
No, AffCom is not expected to propose a Wikimedia Foundation Affiliates
Strategy. AffCom has been invited by the Board to collaborate and give an
expert opinion. While the Affiliations Committee is an advising committee
to the Board, the Board is responsible for this strategy and will lead the
community and affiliate conversations around it.
9. What is the timeline for this project?
The target is to have a draft of the Wikimedia Foundation Affiliates
Strategy for the Board’s approval at Wikimania 2023 (August 2023).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#Affiliates
FYI, I asked WMF Communication Team about any plans of using Mastodon in future.
Here is their response [1] "The Digital Communications team has been researching Mastodon and considering our potential involvement with the platform in the future. At this time, we have no plans to create an account for the Foundation or Wikipedia. This is mainly because our observations show us that Mastodon is not yet reaching a large audience, which is one of the key objectives of our communications activity on social media. We will continue to monitor the situation and adjust our recommendations and practices to keep within our objectives."
[1]: https://meta.wikimedia.org/?diff=24262780
Regards,
SCP-2000
https://w.wiki/_zgcU
Dear all,
The WMF appears to have made contradictory statements about the Wikimedia
Endowment. Earlier this week, Rai 3, a channel of the Italian national
broadcaster, aired a program about Wikimedia and Wikipedia.[1] On their
website, they also link to responses the WMF gave to various questions the
programme makers asked.[2]
One of these questions concerned the Endowment. I quote:
*Q: The Endowment has reached $33 million and passed them reaching $100
million today. Why the Wikimedia Foundation didn’t move it to a separate
501e3 entity? Being entrusted into the Tides Foundation is not available to
the public any financial report about Wikipedia Endowment. Don't you think
there is a lack of information and transparency about a fund that is
created through worldwide donations? *
*A: Your information is incorrect. The Wikimedia Endowment was established
as a separate entity and received its 501(c)(3) nonprofit status in 2022
following a 2021 board resolution. *
This answer was given to Rai in November 2022. Now I do recall an October
2022 blog post from the WMF reporting that the WMF's application for a
501(c)(3) non-profit had received approval and that the WMF was "in the
process of setting up the Endowment's strategic and operational policies
and systems".[3]
Has the money actually been moved from the Tides Foundation to this new
501(c)(3)?
At the time of writing, the Endowment website continues to tell its readers
that the funds are held and administered by the Tides Foundation.[4]
Is the information on the Endowment website obsolete?[5] If it isn't, and
the money is still with Tides, wasn't the answer given to Rai last November
substantially misleading?
Andreas
[1]
https://www.rai.it/programmi/report/inchieste/La-community-8bb003fb-d8cd-42…
[2]
http://www.rai.it/dl/doc/2023/01/16/1673895524547_RISPOSTE%20WIKI%20MAIL%20…
and
http://www.rai.it/dl/doc/2023/01/16/1673895525034_TRADUZIONE%20RISPOSTE%20W…
[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-10-31/News_…
[4] https://archive.ph/S8iI0#selection-2949.0-2949.1007
[5]
https://diff.wikimedia.org/2023/01/11/adding-expertise-to-the-wikimedia-end…
refers to the "fact that we met – and even surpassed – our expected
timeline for the Endowment’s maturation into a 501(c)(3)."
Dear everyone,
As presented at last year's WikidataCon
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_VxTlBNkyk>, Wikimedia Deutschland has
set out to find new ways for collaboration around Wikidata software
development to enhance the diversity of our movement, increase Wikibase’s
scalability and robustness and breathe life into our movement principles of
knowledge equity. With a grant from Arcadia
<https://www.arcadiafund.org.uk/>, a charitable fund administered by Lisbet
Rausing and Peter Baldwin, we will be able to implement such a
collaboration in the next two years.
Today, we are happy to share an exciting update on the progress of this
project with all of you. After spending the last few months with
conversations with the movement groups who were interested in joining such
a partnership, we have now reached a point where we can spread the news
about the future partners and projects that will shape this Wikidata
software collaboration.
Wikimedia Indonesia, the Igbo Wikimedians User Group and Wikimedia
Deutschland will be joining forces to advance the technical capacities of
the movement around Wikidata development and with this, make the software
and tools more usable by cultures underrepresented in technology, people of
the Global South and speakers of minority languages.
Wikimedia Indonesia, a non-profit organization based in Jakarta, Indonesia
and established in 2008, is dedicated to encouraging the growth,
development & dissemination of knowledge in Indonesian and other languages
spoken in Indonesia. Since then, Wikimedia Indonesia has supported the
development of 14 Wikipedias in the languages spoken in Indonesia, 12
regional Wikimedian communities spread across the country, and two
Wikimedia project-based communities.
For this project, in collaboration with Wikimedia Deutschland, Wikimedia
Indonesia wants to build up a software team of their own in the course of
the next 2 years. The tools will hopefully help under-resourced language
communities contributing to the flourishing of their languages online
through lexicographical data, and also involving the local language
communities in contributing to lexemes in Wikidata.
Igbo Wikimedians is a group of Wikimedians that are committed to working on
various wiki projects related to Igbo language
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igbo_language> and culture. The user group
is organizing projects around community building in the Igbo community,
content improvement for Wikipedia and its sister project and has
established its own Wikidata hub in 2021.
The Igbo Wikimedia User Group and their program of the Wiki Mentor Africa
<https://m.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiki_Mentor_Africa> is aiming at
building up technical capacity in African Wikimedia communities by
mentoring African developers for Wikidata Tool Development. Wikimedia
Deutschland will support the user group in the implementation of their
project and mentoring program.
Wikimedia Deutschland has been founded in 2004 as a member’s association
and is located in Berlin, Germany. Wikimedia Deutschland support
communities like the Wikipedia community, develop software for Wikimedia
projects and the ecosystem of Free Knowledge, and wants to improve the
political and legal framework for Wikipedia and for Free Knowledge in
general.
Specifically, Wikimedia Deutschland has been working on the development of
Wikidata since 2012. Since then, an active and vibrant community of
volunteer editors and programmers, re-users, data donors, affiliates and
more has formed around Wikidata.
Wikimedia Deutschland will be responsible for the administrative setup of
those collaborations and the communication with Arcadia. We are also happy
to share our experiences and knowledge about establishing software teams,
software development in the Wikidata/Wikibase environment, the Wikidata
community and providing support for emerging tech communities.
If you want to find out more about the partnership, you can read up on this
on our project page on Meta
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Software_Collaboration_for_Wikidata>,
where we will keep updating the community on the progress of this
collaboration. If you have any comments, suggestions or questions please
use the talk page there to get in contact with us.
We are all excited to see those collaborations coming to life!
With kind regards,
Igbo Wikimedians User Group
Wikimedia Indonesia
Wikimedia Deutschland
--
Maria Heuschkel
Projektmanagerin
Softwareentwicklung
Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0
https://wikimedia.de
Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der Menschheit
teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
https://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 27/029/42207.
Some months have gone since I started this topic in this list, and still, we can't know how much engagement we have at Wikipedia, because data is not available. Twitter is now owned by Elon Musk, things are changing, there are more accounts in Mastodon daily, but still Twitter matters. I have been looking at the Twitter activity in the last days for @Wikipedia and I'm still very worried about the (lack of) strategy followed here. A full team, with staff members, which only produces one tweet per day, a lonely message in the vastness of the ocean, and gets really poor engagement numbers.
A couple of weeks ago Pelé, one of the greatest football players of all time, died. (English) Wikipedia Twitter account needed 7 days to tweet about it, even if the article was changed in a few minutes after the death (https://twitter.com/Wikipedia/status/1611363972174778368). The tweet had 13.729 impressions (now we can know the number of impressions), 14 RTs and 129 likes. Wikipedia account has nearly 644.000 followers. If we divide these two numbers, we get a rate of 2,13% of impressions per follower.
The same day Pelé died, Basque Wikipedia made a tweet. Not a week after, just when it was news (https://twitter.com/euwikipedia/status/1608541274491211776). The tweet had 964 impressions, 3 RTs and 2 likes. Basque Wikipedia account has 7,956 followers. This is a rate of 12,11% of impressions per follower. x5.68 times larger, relatively than (English) Wikipedia Twitter account.
(English) Wikipedia Twitter account has nearly 81 times more followers than the Basque one. English Wikipedia is more visible, because it has a (now golden) verified account symbol, so tweets are more often promoted. English has 1.500 million speakers around the world. Basque has fewer than one million. English Wikipedia should have around 1.000 more followers than Basque Wikipedia. English Wikipedia article about Pelé had 2,5 million pageviews in the two days after his death. Basque had 250 pageviews. This is 10.000 times more pageviews.
@Wikipedia has 644.000 followers, and @euwikipedia has nearly 8.000. Audience of English Wikipedia is 10.000 times larger for the same event. Why Wikipedia is not 10.000 times larger? Why doesn't Wikipedia account have 80 million followers? YouTube's Twitter account has 78 million followers. "By 2030, Wikimedia is to become the central infrastructure for Free Knowledge on the Internet.". How could we if Youtube's account has 100x more followers than we have? How can think that we are in a good shape if our tweets are only seen by less than 2% of our followers?
I hope that 2023 comes with a change. A change to open these accounts, have a fresh way of thinking on social media ,and building engagement, both with momentum, not losing opportunities, and promoting good content.
Sincerely
Galder
________________________________
From: Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <galder158(a)hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2022 3:21 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter
Dear all,
Some weeks ago, we had a discussion here about the different approaches we have for the @wikipedia account at Twitter. We don't know yet how many interactions does the account has, but as I said in the discussion, we try to find ways to measure our work at @euwikipedia. Today I want to share with you that this account was ranked last week as the most influential social-movements account in Basque language (https://umap.eus/ranking/gizartea) and the 10th most influential account in all categories (https://umap.eus/ranking/orokorra). This is a good metric we use to know if we are doing fine or not.
Sincerely,
Galder
________________________________
From: Andy Mabbett <andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk>
Sent: Friday, August 5, 2022 8:50 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter
On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 at 18:48, Lauren Dickinson <ldickinson(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Also, Andy, we will follow up this week regarding your questions
> about the @WiktionaryUsers and @Wiktionary accounts.
Three working weeks have passed since the above was written; I've seen
no such follow-up. Have I missed something?
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
https://pigsonthewing.org.uk
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Hello,
The Community Affairs Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
Trustees would like to thank everyone who participated in the recently
concluded community vote on the Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal
Code of Conduct (UCoC)
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduc…>
.
The volunteer scrutinizing group has completed the review of the accuracy
of the vote and has reported the total number of votes received as 2,283.
Out of the 2,283 votes received, 1,338 (58.6%) community members voted for
the enforcement guidelines, and a total of 945 (41.4%) community members
voted against it. In addition, 658 participants left comments, with 77% of
the comments written in English.
We recognize and appreciate the passion and commitment that community
members have demonstrated in creating a safe and welcoming culture.
Wikimedia community culture stops hostile and toxic behavior, supports
people targeted by such behavior, and encourages good faith people to be
productive on the Wikimedia projects.
Even at this incomplete stage, this is evident in the comments received. The
Enforcement Guidelines did reach a threshold of support necessary for the
Board to review. However, we encouraged voters, regardless of how they were
voting, to provide feedback on the elements of the enforcement guidelines.
We asked the voters to inform us what changes were needed and in case it
was prudent to launch a further round of edits that would address community
concerns.
Foundation staff who have been reviewing comments have advised us of the
emerging themes. As a result, as Community Affairs Committee, we have
decided to ask the Foundation to reconvene the Drafting Committee. The
Drafting Committee will undertake another community engagement to refine
the enforcement guidelines based on the community feedback received from
the recently concluded vote.
For clarity, this feedback has been clustered into four sections as follows:
1.
To identify the type, purpose, and applicability of the UCoC training;
2.
To simplify the language for more accessible translation and
comprehension by non-experts;
3.
To explore the concept of affirmation, including its pros and cons;
4.
To review the conflicting roles of privacy/victim protection and the
right to be heard.
Other issues may emerge during conversations, particularly as the draft
Enforcement Guidelines evolve, but we see these as the primary areas of
concern for voters. Therefore, we are asking staff to facilitate a review
of these issues. Then, after the further engagement, the Foundation should
re-run the community vote to evaluate the redrafted Enforcement Outline to
see if the new document is ready for its official ratification.
Further, we are aware of the concerns with note 3.1 in the Universal Code
of Conduct Policy. Therefore, we are directing the Foundation to review
this part of the Code to ensure that the Policy meets its intended purposes
of supporting a safe and inclusive community without waiting for the
planned review of the entire Policy at the end of the year.
Again, we thank all who participated in the vote and discussion, thinking
about these complex challenges and contributing to better approaches to
working together well across the movement.
Best,
Rosie
*Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight *(she/her)
Acting Chair, Community Affairs Committee
Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/> Board of Trustees
<https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
Hello friends
Short version : We need to find solutions to avoid so many africans
being globally IP blocked due to our No Open Proxies policy.
*https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking*
Long version :
I'd like to raise attention on an issue, which has been getting worse in
the past couple of weeks/months.
Increasing number of editors getting blocked due to the No Open Proxies
policy [1]
In particular africans.
In February 2004, the decision was made to block open proxies on Meta
and all other Wikimedia projects.
According to theno open proxiespolicy : Publicly available proxies
(including paid proxies) may be blocked for any period at any time.
While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended
targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked [...]
Non-static IP addresses or hosts that are otherwise not permanent
proxies should typically be blocked for a shorter period of time, as it
is likely the IP address will eventually be transferred or dynamically
reassigned, or the open proxy closed. Once closed, the IP address should
be unblocked.
According to the policy page, « the Editors can be permitted to edit by
way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag. This is granted on
local projects by administrators and globally by stewards. »
I repeat -----> ... legitimate users... may freely use proxies until
those are blocked. the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an
open proxy with the IP block exempt flag <------ it is not illegal to
edit using an open proxy
Most editors though... have no idea whatsoever what an open proxy is.
They do not understand well what to do when they are blocked.
In the past few weeks, the number of African editors reporting being
blocked due to open proxy has been VERY significantly increasing.
New editors just as old timers.
Unexperienced editors but also staff members, president of usergroups,
organizers of edit-a-thons and various wikimedia initiatives.
At home, but also during events organized with usergroup members or
trainees, during edit-a-thons, photo uploads sessions etc.
It is NOT the occasional highly unlikely situation. This has become a
regular occurence.
There are cases and complains every week. Not one complaint per week.
Several complaints per week.
*This is irritating. This is offending. This is stressful. This is
disrupting activities organized in _good faith_ by _good people_,
activities set-up with _our donors funds. _**And the disruption**is
primarlly taking place in a geographical region supposingly to be
nurtured (per our strategy for diversity, equity, inclusion blahblahblah). *
The open proxy policy page suggests that, should a person be unfairly
blocked, it is recommended
* * to privately email stewards(_AT_)wikimedia.org.
* * or alternatively, to post arequest (if able to edit, if the editor
doesn't mind sharing their IP for global blocks or their reasons to
desire privacy (for Tor usage)).
* * the current message displayed to the blocked editor also suggest
contacting User:Tks4Fish. This editor is involved in vandalism
fighting and is probably the user blocking open proxies IPs the
most. See log
So...
Option 1: contacting stewards : it seems that they are not answering. Or
not quickly. Or requesting lengthy justifications before adding people
to IP block exemption list.
Option 2: posting a request for unblock on meta. For those who want to
look at the process, I suggest looking at it [3] and think hard about
how a new editor would feel. This is simply incredibly complicated
Option 3 : user:TksFish answers... sometimes...
As a consequence, most editors concerned with those global blocks...
stay blocked several days.
We do not know know why the situation has rapidly got worse recently.
But it got worse. And the reports are spilling all over.
We started collecting negative experiences on this page [4].
Please note that people who added their names here are not random
newbies. They are known and respected members of our community, often
leaders of activities and/or representant of their usergroups, who are
confronted to this situation on a REGULAR basis.
I do not know how this can be fixed. Should we slow down open proxy
blocking ? Should we add a mecanism and process for an easier and
quicker IP block exemption process post-blocking ? Should we improve a
process for our editors to pre-emptively be added to this IP block
exemption list ? Or what ? I do not know what's the strategy to fix
that. But there is a problem. Who should that problem be addressed to ?
Who has solutions ?
Flo
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Tks4Fish
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global_permissions#Request…
*[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking*
You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Foundation_Leg…>
More languages
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Foundation_Leg…>
• Please help translate to your language
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Translate&group=page-W…>
Hi everyone! The Ombuds commission (OC) and the Case Review Committee (CRC)
are looking for members. People are encouraged to nominate themselves or
encourage others they feel would contribute to these groups to do so. There
is more information below about the opportunity and the skills that are
needed.
About the Ombuds commission
The Ombuds commission (OC) works on all Wikimedia projects to investigate
complaints about violations of the privacy policy, especially in use of
CheckUser <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CheckUser_policy> and Oversight
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Oversight_policy> (also known as
Suppression) tools. The Commission mediates between the parties of the
investigation and, when violations of the policies are identified, advises
the Wikimedia Foundation on best handling. They may also assist the General
Counsel, the Chief Executive Officer, or the Board of Trustees of the
Foundation in these investigations when legally necessary. For more on the
OC's duties and roles, see Ombuds commission on Meta-Wiki
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ombuds_commission>.
Volunteers serving in this role should be experienced Wikimedians, active
on any project, who have previously used the CheckUser/Oversight tools OR
who have the technical ability to understand these tools and the
willingness to learn them. They must be able to communicate in English, the
common language of the commission. They are expected to be able to engage
neutrally in investigating these concerns and to know when to recuse when
other roles and relationships may cause conflict. Commissioners will
serve two-year
terms (note that this is different from past years, when the terms have
been for one year).
About the Case Review Committee
The Case Review Committee (CRC) reviews appeals of eligible Trust & Safety
office actions. The CRC is a critical layer of oversight to ensure that
Wikimedia Foundation office actions are fair and unbiased. They also make
sure the Wikimedia Foundation doesn’t overstep established practices or
boundaries. For more about the role, see Case Review Committee on Meta-Wiki
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Case_Review_Committee>.
We are looking for current or former functionaries and experienced
volunteers with an interest in joining this group. Applicants must be
fluent in English (additional languages are a strong plus) and willing to
abide by the terms of the Committee charte
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Trust_and_Safety/Case_Review_Committee/Char…>r.
If the work resonates and you qualify, please apply. Committee members will
serve two-year terms (note that this is different from past years, when the
terms have been for one year).
Applying to join either of these groups
Members are required to sign the Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic
information
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Confidentiality_agreement_for_nonpublic_inf…>
and must be willing to comply with the appropriate Wikimedia Foundation
board policies (such as the access to non-public information policy
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Access_to_nonpublic_information_policy>
and the Foundation privacy policy
<https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Privacy_policy>). These positions
require a high degree of discretion and trust. Members must also be over 18
years of age.
If you are interested in serving in either capacity listed above, please
write in English to the Trust and Safety team at ca[image: @]wikimedia[image:
.]org (to apply to the OC) or to the Legal Team at legal[image:
@]wikimedia[image:
.]org (to apply to the CRC) with information about:
-
Your primary projects
-
Languages you speak/write
-
Any experience you have serving on committees, whether movement or
non-movement
-
Your thoughts on what you could bring to the OC or CRC if appointed
-
Any experience you have with the Checkuser or Oversight tools (OC only)
-
Any other information you think is relevant
There will be two conversation hours to answer any questions that potential
applicants may have:
-
17 October 2022, 03:00 UTC (other timezones
<https://iw.toolforge.org/zonestamp/1665975648>) (Zoom meeting link)
(add to calendar)
-
16 November 2022, 18:00 UTC (other timezones
<https://iw.toolforge.org/zonestamp/1668621642>) (Zoom meeting link)
(add to calendar)
The deadline for applications is 31 December 2022 in any timezone.
Please feel free to pass this invitation along to any users who you think
may be qualified and interested. Thank you!
On behalf of the Committee Support team,
Karen
--
Karen Brown
Trust & Safety Specialist
Wikimedia Foundation
kbrown(a)wikimedia.org
BIng with ChatGPT is now released by Micrsoft.
And from what I understand they use Wikipedia content considerably. If
you ask Who is A B and A B is not widely known, the result is more or
less identical to the content from the Wikipedia article (but worse, as
it "makes up" facts that is incorrect).
In a way I am glad to see Wikipedia is fully relevant even in this
emerging AI-driven search world. But Google search has ben careful to
always have a link to Wikipedia besides their made up summary of facts,
which here it is missing (yet?). And for licences, they are all ignored.
So if this is the future the number of accesses from users to Wikipedia
will collapse, and also their willingness to donate... (but our content
still a cornerstone for knowledge)
Anders
(I got a lot of fact from an article in Swedish main newspaper by their
tech editor. He started asking fact of himself, and when he received
facts from his Wp article plus being credited to a book he had noting to
do with, he started to try to tell/learn ChatGPT of this error. The
chatPGT only got angry accusing the techeditor for lying and in the end
cut off the conversation, as ChatGPT continued to teat the techeditor as
lyer and vandal..).
Hi Everyone,
How is underrepresented knowledge on wikimedia projects addressed through
new ways of contributions? Intangible cultural heritage of different tribes
in Africa is one such knowledge facing underrepresentation on wikimedia
projects. As indigenous people migrate to cities; face an aging population
of cultural guardians and a strong tradition of oral storytelling, it is
important to save the voices of knowledge at the brink of extinction.
See how
<https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1PLcKx0IEGrBKnp455hFAxxv5AFNz5GeY?us…>
the Wikimedia Foundation is supporting community efforts to digitize
endangered igbo dances in Nigeria through the AID project
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Audiovisuals_of_Igbo_Dances_(AID)_Project>.
Kind regards,
Euphemia Uwandu,
On behalf of the Project Team