Hi Wikimedians,
[image: WhatsApp Image 2023-05-11 at 11.25.13.jpg]
This is an open invitation to our WIR meetup scheduled for Tuesday, May 16,
2023, at 1 p.m. GMT+1. The distinguished speaker for the event is Ruby
Brown, Senior Programs Officer at Open Foundation West Africa. She will be
delighted to enlighten us on the process of organizing work sessions for
various Wikimedia projects.
Please refer to the session details below:
- Topic: Organizing Work Sessions on a Wikimedia Project
- Date: May 16, 2023
- Time: 13:00 GMT+1
- Location: Zoom Meeting <https://bit.ly/WIR-eng>
We eagerly anticipate your presence at the session. Feel free to reach out
to me if you have any inquiries.
Thank you,
Bukola James <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Bukky658>
Community Coordinator,
Code for Africa <http://codeforafrica.org/> (Knowledge Team/ WiRs
Initiatives)
Hello everyone,
After the first announcement of the Africa Day Campaign Microgrant, we are
giving the opportunity to Wikimedians in these following countries to apply
for the microgrant:
Egypt, Algeria, Liberia, Guinea, Botswana, Kenya and Uganda.
As part of this campaign, we are calling on all organizers across Africa to
join us in increasing knowledge about topics related to Africa through
activities such as edit-a-thons, content campaign drives, local writing
contests, and so much more! We want to make this a memorable and
unforgettable event for everyone.
Who can apply;
The best part? We are offering microgrants ranging between USD500 and
USD1000 to Wikimedia user groups, affiliates, Mission aligned organizations
and institutions, as well as individuals in the aforementioned countries to
support their participation in this campaign.
Application Deadline
The deadline to apply is *Sunday 14th, May 2023*.
About the campaign
Open Foundation West Africa <https://www.ofwafrica.org/> is proud to be an
implementing partner for this year's Africa Day Campaign, which is part of
the African Knowledge Initiative (AKI)
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Africa_Knowledge_Initiative>. This
initiative was born out of a partnership between Wikimedia Foundation
<https://wikimediafoundation.org/> , Africa Union <https://au.int/>, and Africa
No Filter <http://www.africanofilter.org/> with a goal to increase the
coverage of African topics on Wikimedia projects.
Join us as we come together to celebrate Africa's rich cultural heritage
and promote the African continent's diverse knowledge base. Let's make this
campaign a success, and together we can showcase Africa to the world!
For more information contact info(a)ofwafrica.org
--
Eugene Makafui Masiku,
Communications Officer
Open Foundation West Africa
Dear friends,
I'm sorry to update that our friend and colleague Deror Lin
(user:Deror_Avi) passed away this morning.
Deror was a truly Wikimedian in blood who poured his heart and soul into
the movement in many ways, even in his final days. He joined Wikipedia in
2004 and was one of the founders of Wikimedia Israel. For over 16 years, he
served as an active board member.
He was the driving force behind Wikimania 2011 in Haifa and a key member of
the Wikimania committee ever since. He led countless programs and projects,
both locally and internationally, including conferences, WLM competitions,
educational programs, photo and editing contests, and many others.
More than that, he wrote over 8,600 articles on HEWP (comprising more than
2% of it!), making him the number one article writer in HEWP, alongside
more than 37,000 contributions to Commons.
For his huge contribution and love for the movement, he was honored last
year as the Wikipedia Laureate of 2022.
Deror, you were not just a colleague but a true friend. We worked together
on many projects, events, and initiatives over the years. No matter the
situation, you always had a smile and shining eyes with your love for
Wikipedia.
*On behalf of Wikimedia Israel, I extend our deepest condolences to Deror's
family and friends. You will always be remembered, Deror.*
*ברוך דיין האמת. Baruch dayan ha-emet*
Itzik.
Hello folks,
Please join us in welcoming Wikimedia's accepted candidates for Google
Summer of Code 2023 [1] and Outreachy Round 26 [2]!
**Google Summer of Code 2023**
1. Ahmed Amine Hassou, Morocco, Wiki Education Dashboard: Refactoring
and upgrading React <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T332976>
Mentors: Sage Ross
2. Chenhao Liu, United States of America, Wiki farm support for Canasta <
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T333773>
Mentors: Yaron Koren, Jeffrey Wang
3. Nikhil Mahajan, India, End-to-end test coverage for Abstract
Wikipedia's Wikifunctions <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T333498>
Mentors: Stef Dunlap, James Forrester, Cory Massaro, Denny Vrandečić
4. Zexi Gong, China, Wikidocumentaries to import images from the web to
Structured Data on Commons <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T332671>
Mentors: TuukkaH, Susannaanas
5. Shashwat Khanna, India, Improve Programs & Events Dashboard UX for
Article Scoped Programs <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T332932>
Mentors: Sage Ross
6. Saurabh Jamadagni, India, Adding a menu to Scribe-iOS application
and expanding keyboard languages <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T333156>
Mentors: Andrew McAllister
7. Ritika Pahwa, India, Commons Android app: Make upload more reliable <
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T332126>
Mentors: Nicolas Raoul, Kaartic Sivaraam
8. Punith Nayak, India, Improve the functionality of VideoCutTool - New
features <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T330465>
Mentors: Gopa Vasanth, Sohom Datta
9. Varun Shrivastava, India, Improve the functionality of VideoCutTool
- Code Quality/Code Health <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T333466>
Mentors: Gopa Vasanth, Sohom Datta
**Outreachy Round 26**
1. Nathaly Toledo, Venezuela, Research imbalances in translation
between languages on Wikipedia <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T333792>
Mentors: Adam Wight, Kavitha A, Simulo
2. Abhishek Bhardwaj, India, Research imbalances in translation between
languages on Wikipedia <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T333097>
Mentors: Adam Wight, Kavitha A, Simulo
3. Sulagna Saha, Bangladesh, Write a Ruby gem for analyzing Wikidata
edits <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T333790>
Mentors: Sage Ross, Will Kent
We would like to encourage accepted candidates to introduce themselves on
this thread and give a brief overview of the project they will be working
on.
We’re so proud of the contributions they have made so far to our community,
and we look forward to having a wonderful time working with them over the
summer. Also, a huge shout-out to the project mentors for their enthusiasm
and commitment!
[1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Google_Summer_of_Code/2023
[2] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Outreachy/Round_26
Regards,
GSoC / Outreachy Wikimedia organization administrators (Gopa, Sohom,
Srishti)
Hi everyone,
I joined the Wikimedia Foundation on August 1 of last year in a newly
created role as the Chief Product and Technology Officer (CPTO). (For the
first few weeks, some of the staff called me C3PO as they got used to the
new title :) The role was created to bring both the Product and Technology
departments back under a single accountable leader for the first time since
about 2015. Like Maryana
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Chief_Executive_Office…>,
I decided to spend the first few months of my time at Wikimedia listening
and learning. Although I come from the open source technology field, and
have worked with volunteers and communities in prior jobs, it felt
important to start here with curiosity and openness about what’s working
well and what needs to change.
Since then, I have met one on one and in small groups with more than 360
people, who spoke with me from 38 different countries. I also attended 22
large and small convenings and events which included about 3,150 people.
This includes members of the Foundation’s product and technology teams,
other Foundation staff, editors, functionaries, affiliates, movement
organizers and open internet partners. I tried to approach every
conversation with curiosity, openness, and eagerness, letting go of any
preconceptions I may have had (intentionally embracing beginner’s mind
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshin>) about the Foundation, the
Wikimedia projects, and communities worldwide that contribute to creating
and sharing free knowledge. I can confirm that I quickly found myself awash
in details, experiencing a firehose of information from all sides! My
husband and two young children have also learned a lot more about this
movement in the last six months than you might expect.
To provide myself with some structure, I asked everyone the same kind of
questions about: (1) the impact our product and technology organizations
have had on the movement and/or the world in the last five years, and what
people were most proud of; (2) the current vision and strategy and if they
will take us where we need to go; and (3) the most promising opportunities
that people see in our work, and what is needed to realize that potential.
I want to thank everyone who took the time to share with me, and I’ve
included some direct, anonymized quotes in this letter from the
conversations I had. And I want to confirm that the listening continues — I
will create more spaces in the year ahead for dedicated conversations about
some of the important topics I have highlighted below. I will also be
posting this letter to Meta.
Pulling in the same direction: More visible and shared metrics
On a page of the first notebook I had for my onboarding, I quoted a person
who said they just wanted "meaningful common goals." This was a theme
repeated over and over — a clear desire from everyone to do work together
that was linked by common purpose, and with all the volunteers that have
created all Wikimedia projects. I got to hear so many different voices, and
I heard the details from every side — what’s working, what hasn’t been
working for a long time — some of the problems we face are over ten years
old. People shared what’s missing, what’s extra, who’s fighting to be heard
and who’s feeling lost at sea.
"I think there are lots of promising opportunities to incentivise people to
pay off technical debt and make our existing stack more sustainable. Right
now there are no incentives for engineers in this regard."
"Are we really having impact?"
How can we unite behind meaningful common goals? And which metrics matter
the most? We have so much data, but we really need lodestar
<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lodestar> (or some refer to this as north
star) metrics across the whole Foundation, a system for reviewing and
reflecting on what we learn from them, and then a way to connect those
metrics with the day to day work everyone is doing.
To get at that, we’re doing two main things — one is deepening our
understanding of volunteer activities and the health of the volunteer
communities. This will be through working closely with volunteers using
existing processes and sharing what we’re learning, as well as qualitative
and quantitative research workstreams, including reviewing existing
research of volunteer activities and typical work profiles. The other is
working to establish a set of Foundation-wide lodestar metrics. Shared
metrics help everyone understand how we’re measuring success across the
Foundation, and we’re sharing these publicly as part of our Annual Plan.
Over time, we plan to bring our measures of success for important
initiatives to communities for conversations and debate to help everyone
align what success might look like. Shared metrics and data will empower us
to make more effective and better decisions, along with collaboration with
those who are working on changes and those who may be directly affected by
them.
What does our open source strategy look like for today’s world?
"I strongly believe that Wikipedia will be obsolete by 2030 if we don’t fix
MediaWiki now."
What is our open source strategy?
We have to make some harder choices about what it means to be an
open-source organization, and shift the conversation to resolve historic
debates that prevent us from making important, strategic choices.
Two big areas to resolve are:
-
What is our strategy for MediaWiki support? Today there is a tug of war
about whether we should support MediaWiki for third-party users, even
though their use cases have diverged significantly from those of Wikimedia
projects. I’m planning a MediaWiki convening in late 2023 to begin tackling
this issue.
-
What is our strategy for third-party re-use of Wikimedia content? There
are a lot of nuances around rate limiting and updating the existing API
policies in line with our values around open access. How can we coordinate
more across the Foundation and technical volunteers to build greater
understanding and alignment? Wikimedia project content also has become a
cornerstone of artificial intelligence (AI) products. Wikipedias have long
used machine learning (ML) to improve content and detect vandalism. How can
we help support the use of ML and AI that is a public good? We have
started some
conversations
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2023-2024/…>
about this but need to go further.
What will it take to have impact at scale?
"Before we can think about strategy, we need to answer ‘do we want to
change this culture to work with a unified strategy, or do we want to
change the strategy methodology to work with a decentralized culture? Or
some combination thereof?’"
What is our strategy for scaling that will allow us to have the most impact
with limited resources?
Today we support over 750+ distinct Wikimedia projects, with over 300 of
those including language versions of Wikipedia, Wikisource, multiple
language versions of Wiktionary, and many other free knowledge projects.
What is an efficient and responsible way to steward the limited resources
we have towards Wikipedia and/or the sister projects? And similar to the
earlier conversation about Foundation metrics – we must do this in a way
that can have an impact on our mission of bringing free knowledge to the
whole world.
Some of the big questions that came up included consolidation of projects
and the technology underpinning them where it makes sense, and from a
prompt given to me by the Commons community – how can we think even bigger,
and question elephants in the room, which in part would be to examine the
long-standing and seemingly unquestioned assumption that MediaWiki is the
best software to solve all problems we face. And if we do solve big
problems in different ways, what does that look like? What can we learn
from projects like WikiLearn, which uses free software not made by the
Foundation, as well as people and organizations outside our movement? This
is definitely a multi-year, rich problem space to explore.
Everyone’s relationship with English Wikipedia, including the Wikimedia
Foundation’s
"For various reasons, the Foundation and some parts of the communities are
stuck in an uneasy relationship where the Foundation admires but fears the
communities’ power, like a beautiful but dangerous animal – the tiger might
attack you – and the communities, not least English Wikipedia, distrust the
Foundation."
My experience so far has been that we have a very contentious relationship
with English Wikipedia. The Foundation raises most of the revenue to
support a global movement from English Wikipedia, and it’s often where
volunteers raise most of the concerns and objections to the Foundation’s
work.
It's painfully affecting volunteers and staff that are trying to maintain
content and code, and make important improvements to all the websites, as
with the launch of Vector 2022 this year. It has made product and
engineering teams very conservative in their approach to rolling out
features, making each change take 12 or 18 months, or years!, to get
valuable features to users. And it impacts our ability to collaborate with
communities on and off English Wikipedia on big goals like knowledge equity
and the movement strategy recommendations. As Yoda noted
<https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Fear#L>, fear is the path to the dark side.
This is a bummer, and I’d like it to change.
So how do we break this cycle? What I’m doing now is directly engaging.
Today, for example, I participated in an office hours session to talk about
Vector 2022. Some of the product senior leadership in the recent past have
specifically avoided talking directly with people on English Wikipedia, and
this approach will no longer be applied. Engaging human to human is the
best way I know to help resolve some of the mystery, fear and anger that
are present. However, that will absolutely not fix what’s wrong here. We
need systemic solutions. Today, there’s no way to make lasting and mutually
binding agreements with volunteers, and that isn’t a sustainable way to
create and maintain infrastructure software. My hope is that, with a more
open and direct approach to engage and also through the work of the
Movement Charter Drafting Committee, we will chart out a path for more
lasting, productive collaboration.
Being more intentional, and also clear, in our technical support for
volunteers
"We lack clear governance and communication for most of our tech
components, squandering a lot of the opportunities we have for more and
better participation from long-time and new volunteers."
How can the Foundation be more intentional about our relationship with all
volunteers?
Today we have few and incomplete policies about what volunteers can do in
technical spaces. We need to chart clearer boundaries, and move more toward
rational and practical policy instead of precedent guiding our work.
Similarly, the technical spaces where the Foundation "stays out" have felt
ad hoc, which led to volunteers stepping in to do important work. The
Foundation needs to exhibit better accountability in maintaining essential
services (e.g. 2-factor authentication), and to be explicit about the
technical tasks that it is definitely leaving for volunteers to own.
Finally, we really need to embrace a product development model that’s more
collaborative and efficient. This calls into question feedback tools like
RfCs, and takes into consideration movement "technology council" proposals.
What will really make us better together? I’m really interested in finding
an answer to this question.
Three Priorities for the Coming Year
What I have identified above are complex issues that cannot be solved in a
single year. We all need to take a multi-year view, especially in order to
define the precise issues that need to be solved more carefully.
For now, you have seen the draft annual plan priorities for the
Foundation’s Product/Tech teams and they include:
- *Volunteers*: We need closer connections, with a focus on making all
time spent volunteering fulfilling and productive. I will continue to talk
directly to volunteers, on-wiki and in person. I am making a shift in our
Annual Plan to support the work and improve the experience of "editors with
extended rights" (inclusive of admins, stewards, patrollers, and moderators
of all kinds, which are also known as functionaries). The work done by this
group on mis- and dis-information and on enforcing our Universal Code of
Conduct is crucial to the functioning of all Wikimedia projects. Success
requires that we are able to have metrics to guide our progress, identify
ways of measuring the health of communities, and that we do this work hand
in hand with volunteers.
- *Maintenance*: Staff and volunteers have both identified that we have
far too many unfinished technical migrations. This means that we continue
to support both old and new tools and ways of doing our technical work.
This increases the workload of everyone, without necessarily adding
features or improving our technical systems overall. Challenges include
issues with Foundation staff and volunteer community decision making,
accountability for that decision making and the best projects to pursue,
and, on the Foundation's side, a desire to not cause upset among
volunteers. As a result, we have many abandoned or poorly maintained tools.
We must be able to choose maintenance and technical migration areas for
prioritization, and then be ok with not doing work on others in order to
complete some of these big projects. For example, we have big work to do on
our data infrastructure, which is aging and made up of more than 40
distinct and fragile systems supported by a tiny team. We also have big
work to do on MediaWiki to ensure it can support our projects for the next
20 years.
- *Decision making*: From the very start of my time with the Foundation,
a common theme that kept coming up was the confusion that internal teams
had around decision making structures and accountability. I heard stories
about teams being indefinitely stuck, unclear decisions from the past, and
an inability to make and keep a decision. I view decision making like
lifting weights: you get good at it by doing it, incrementally and
consistently, over a long period of time. To start, I am making decisions
around the structure and organization of the Product and Technology teams
within the Foundation in order to make decision owners more clear, direct
and transparent. We’re collaborating better together internally, and
raising long-standing unresolved issues between teams in order to resolve
them, one by one. As I look ahead, clarity of decision making and how we
align our work towards our three objectives will be a core part of how I
organize teams.
In addition, I believe that decision making and achieving lasting positive
results needs to be rooted in data. We will identify essential metrics to
evaluate progress and assess impact on the three objectives of our work.
This allows us to stay focused on our most important goals, make
adjustments as needed, and track our progress over time.
I am committed to promoting transparent and accountable decision making at
all levels of management and individual contributor leadership. As I wrote
earlier in this letter, I also welcome ideas on how to build well-defined
processes for engaging with communities and making decisions that endure.
These changes to how we make decisions will allow us to move more quickly,
be more responsive, and create a larger impact for our goals over time.
What’s Next
During my listening tour, some staff asked me an "elephant in the room"
question: why should they trust me? Given the number of different
executives who have come to the Foundation and left within a year or two,
skepticism about yet another new leader is high. My answer was: I believe
the problems we face, as a Foundation and volunteers striving to bring free
knowledge to the world, are complex puzzles that cannot be solved by one
person, and I’m committed to a multi-year approach to collaboratively solve
them together.
Success requires more than a product roadmap. We need deep and effective
collaboration between the Foundation and all volunteers and communities,
shared ways to learn and be successful together, and constant adaptation to
changes in the internet and world, so we can solve the big puzzles we face
together.
Trust is built over time and through consistency, so I don’t ask for trust
as I begin my work. I ask that people be open to working closely together,
learning as much as we can about the important problems we face, and that
we regularly review our work in a data-informed way.
I would like to be direct about how difficult I know some of these topics
are, even for a discussion. But it is our job to tackle the most difficult
questions, especially where inaction due to fear has led to stagnation and
demotivation amongst both our staff and communities. This is not going to
be a quick turnaround. None of these issues will be a quick or easy fix.
Building and improving systems will be a lot of work, and will take a lot
of patience. But the payoff for solving each of these puzzles will be that
we’re able to engage more fully, and maybe even more joyfully, in our work.
My listening tour was an invaluable opportunity to get candid information
about what exactly is working, what isn’t, and what ideas everyone has for
creating something great together. We have a lot of work ahead of us, but
I’m encouraged by the energy and enthusiasm and I know we’ll be able to
tackle this together.
Next time you’ll hear from me is August to share the outcomes of community
discussions related to annual planning
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2023-2024>,
and where I think we’re going to have impact in the coming year. In the
meantime, I want to share a few questions that I’ll be returning to
regularly: Are there examples of big issues that we've tackled well as a
movement? Where would you suggest I draw inspiration? What's worked well?
These are the complex issues that will guide my priorities over the coming
years. What elephants am I missing?
As I shared when I joined
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…>,
I came to work for the Wikimedia Foundation because free access to
knowledge is the most important thing I can be doing right now. Our work
empowers the people who have knowledge to share. By involving youth, women,
and underrepresented identities to contribute their unique knowledge, we
will continue our journey to share the sum of all human knowledge. And this
kind of mission cannot be accomplished by any one person alone; we are
called to – and I feel strongly committed to – collaborate and truly be in
this mission together.
-selena
It is very sad to hear about Deror's passing. He was a wonderful person
that I am happy I got to know many years ago. I wish the world would not
have prevented us from meeting during the last years. My deep condolences
to his family, friends and colleagues.
With love,
John
Den sön 7 maj 2023 14:04 <wikimedia-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org> skrev:
> Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
> wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe, please visit
>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikimedia-l.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: Wikimedia Foundation launches Open the Knowledge Journalism
> Awards on World Press Freedom Day
> (Andreas Kolbe)
> 2. Re: Deror Lin passed away (pavan santhosh)
> 3. Re: Wikimedia Foundation launches Open the Knowledge Journalism
> Awards on World Press Freedom Day
> (Bobby Shabangu)
> 4. Re: Deror Lin passed away (Bobby Shabangu)
> 5. Re: Deror Lin passed away (Gnangarra)
> 6. Re: Deror Lin passed away (Ndahiro Derrick Alter)
> 7. Re: Wikimedia Foundation launches Open the Knowledge Journalism
> Awards on World Press Freedom Day
> (Bobby Shabangu)
> 8. Re: Wikimedia Foundation launches Open the Knowledge Journalism
> Awards on World Press Freedom Day
> (The Cunctator)
> 9. Re: Local enforcement of the Universal Code of Conduct
> (Andreas Kolbe)
> 10. Re: Deror Lin passed away (Samuel Klein)
> 11. Re: Deror Lin passed away (Raymond Leonard)
> 12. Re: Deror Lin passed away (Kat Walsh)
> 13. Re: Deror Lin passed away (effe iets anders)
> 14. Re: Deror Lin passed away (phoebe ayers)
> 15. Re: Deror Lin passed away (Florence Devouard)
> 16. Re: Deror Lin passed away (AZ Mayank)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 6 May 2023 13:32:57 +0100
> From: Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Foundation launches Open the
> Knowledge Journalism Awards on World Press Freedom Day
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <CAHRTtW8M8vEUia9wH8-4eQ=
> HEYBFbU1Vjhe6uR97F4tfSn5qaA(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> boundary="000000000000b8679805fb059bcf"
>
> Dear Bobby, Shola and all,
>
> You say, "We (Africans) were consulted".
>
> According to Meta[1], the Working Group for these awards comprised four
> English-speaking Wikimedians (at least two of whom are themselves
> journalists) from Nigeria, Ghana, South Sudan and Kenya.
>
> At the time of writing, the Meta page has been translated into German,
> Italian and Korean only. That's an odd assortment of languages for a
> pan-African award!
>
> It doesn't create the impression that there was a signficant amount of
> involvement by the large African communities speaking and writing in
> French, Arabic, Portuguese, Swahili or Afrikaans, for example.
>
> Another noteworthy aspect is that while Wikimedia staff are not eligible
> for participation, African Wikimedia volunteers are. This could potentially
> include members of the Working Group itself, as well as their friends and
> colleagues from their local Wikimedia user groups.
>
> The documentation says very little about how the winners will be
> determined. All I found was this:
>
> · *The Wikimedia Foundation (in collaboration with volunteer Wikimedia
> editors), through its discretion, will use these nominations to help
> identify journalists for this recognition.*
>
> Could the team say a little more about how conflicts of interest will be
> managed?
>
> Also, I would second what The Cunctator said earlier: "It might help to
> explicitly mention the awareness of these language issues in the public
> presentation of this effort." Just saying that this is a first effort and
> that other languages will be considered in future years would help a lot.
>
> For example, you could commit to just having French next year, Arabic the
> year after that, etc.
>
> At the moment, the incongruity between the professed emphasis on
> "diversity, equity and inclusion" and the restriction to English that
> follows immediately after is very striking.
>
> This said, I hope you get great entries and look forward to reading the
> winning entries in due course.
>
> Best,
> Andreas
>
> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Open_the_Knowledge_Journalism_Awards
>
> On Sat, May 6, 2023 at 3:38 AM Bobby Shabangu <bobbyshabangu(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for your email and concerns about inclusion Andreas. We (Africans)
> > were consulted.
> >
> > And thanks Shola for that response. The key word here is “Pilot”. Looking
> > forward to the results and impact of this project in future.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Bobby Shabangu
> >
> > On Fri, 05 May 2023 at 18:45, Neurodivergent Netizen <
> > idoh.idreamofhorses(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I know there are cultures in the world that regard English as a litmus
> >> test with regards to whether or not you’re educated, and was wondering
> if
> >> that added a layer of nuance to the conversation. However, this changed
> my
> >> mind:
> >>
> >>
> >> Q: My article is in French, Portuguese, Swahili, or any other language
> >>> that is not English. Can I submit a translated version?
> >>>
> >> A: This year’s awards are focused on articles published in English. We
> >> are *not accepting translated articles*.
> >>
> >>
> >> While I share Cunctators enthusiasm about the Working Group, the
> decision
> >> to not accept even a translated article has an exclusionary impact
> >> regardless of intent.
> >>
> >> From,
> >> Emily
> >> She/her
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On May 5, 2023, at 8:05 AM, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> While I share the concerns expressed, I'm personally enthusiastic about
> >> the thoughtfulness and initiative of the Working Group. It might help to
> >> explicitly mention the awareness of these language issues in the public
> >> presentation of this effort.
> >>
> >> On Fri, May 5, 2023, 10:45 AM Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Lodewijk,
> >>>
> >>> In your reply to Olushola you said:
> >>>
> >>> "I hope you can perhaps also clarify whether 'in English' means that
> the
> >>> original article has to be available in English, or that some
> translation
> >>> should be available in English."
> >>>
> >>> As Shola hasn't provided any clarification on this, note that the
> FAQ[1]
> >>> for the award states:
> >>>
> >>> Q: My article is in French, Portuguese, Swahili, or any other language
> >>> that is not English. Can I submit a translated version?
> >>> A: This year’s awards are focused on articles published in English. We
> >>> are *not accepting translated articles*.
> >>>
> >>> Best regards,
> >>> Andreas
> >>>
> >>> [1]
> >>>
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/our-work/open-the-knowledge/journalism-awar…
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Thursday, May 4, 2023, effe iets anders <effeietsanders(a)gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > Hi Olushola,
> >>> > thanks for working on efforts like this. I think it's definitely our
> >>> African communities that should be the judge of what shape works best
> for
> >>> an award like this. Out of curiosity, as a way for us all to learn and
> >>> maybe for Africans among us who want to participate in this
> conversation
> >>> that you refer to, could you link to where this
> conversation/consultation
> >>> is happening?
> >>> > I hope you can perhaps also clarify whether 'in English' means that
> >>> the original article has to be available in English, or that some
> >>> translation should be available in English. I think the former would be
> >>> much more restrictive than the latter, especially if some translation
> >>> resources (including community resources) are available.
> >>> > Best,
> >>> > Lodewijk
> >>> > On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 1:48 PM Olushola Olaniyan <
> >>> olaniyanshola15(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Dear all,
> >>> >>
> >>> >> My name is Olushola (User: Olaniyan Olushola). I am from Africa and
> >>> have been a Wikimedia since 2014 and passionate about language. I
> co-lead
> >>> the Oral History documentation of Nigerian indigenous languages ( see
> more
> >>> about it here ). I am part and parcel of the working group for this
> >>> Journalism Award. Together with other community members and some
> foundation
> >>> staff, we have co-created the submission guidelines and award criteria,
> >>> including that articles should be English language articles published
> in a
> >>> major outlet.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Everything regarding the rationale for this award is being done in
> >>> consultation with members of our African communities, aligned with our
> >>> goals to increase exposure for the work we love in the region and close
> >>> knowledge gaps.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> One thing to mention is that articles about Africa, especially
> >>> written by journalists with a local perspective, must be better
> represented
> >>> in our language Wikipedias, including English.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> With this being a brand-new initiative, it was the best time to
> >>> learn.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> It is a pilot, and we all see this as an experiment to draw more
> >>> attention to journalists' important role as content creators on
> Wikipedia.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> You will agree that we need to celebrate existing journalism
> >>> excellence that helps fill knowledge gaps online.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> The working group conferred, and since this is a pilot, we decided
> >>> together that it was a good idea to consider the need to limit the
> scope to
> >>> collect data and insights easily. We understand the sentiment behind
> >>> language in Africa and beyond, and we always wanted to keep everything
> >>> simple. We know that no language is superior to the other, so this is a
> >>> pilot. From here, we will likely assess the impact we can have before
> >>> scaling.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> We wish to expand this initiative with more regional volunteers
> >>> should it succeed - and we hope it will.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> We already have more than a hundred entries!
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Thank you
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Shola
> >>> >>
> >>> >> _______________________________________________
> >>> >> 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
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
Dear Wikimedia Foundation Trustees and all,
The Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) has been in force for some time. The
Enforcement Guidelines have now been endorsed by the community. But as with
any new document, shared understandings and clarifications must develop
over time. Until then, practical enforcement is anything but routine. Here
is an example.
Section 3.1 of the UCoC states that the following is harassment:
*Disclosure of personal data (Doxing): sharing other contributors' private
information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email address
without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or
elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity
outside the projects.*
As you are no doubt aware, a Wikimedian and a non-Wikimedian co-author
recently published an academic essay criticising aspects of the English
Wikipedia's Holocaust coverage. In their essay, the authors mention the
legal names and the places of employment of two longstanding Wikipedia
contributors who, as WMF Trust & Safety will confirm, have suffered years
of egregious harassment because of their Wikimedia participation. I
understand this has included threats to their children, calls to their
workplace asking for them to be fired, etc.
Given this history, the authors' decision to share precise information
about these contributors' workplaces in their academic essay struck me as
ill advised. It is hard to justify on scholarly grounds – the Holocaust
topic area is unrelated to the academic positions held by these two
Wikipedians. And surely it must have occurred to the authors that providing
information on their workplaces might exacerbate the harassment they are
already experiencing, of which the authors were well aware.
Needless to say, neither of the two contributors gave their consent to
having their names and workplaces shared in the essay, which criticises
them severely – and in at least some cases very unfairly.
Given that explicit consent is what the UCoC requires for sharing of
personal information, sharing details of these Wikimedians' workplaces –
especially in the context of harsh and inflammatory criticism of their
editing, and a long history of prior harassment suffered by these
contributors – struck me as a bright-line violation of UCoC Section 3.1,
specifically:
*Disclosure of personal data (Doxing): sharing other contributors' private
information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email address
without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or
elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity
outside the projects.*
The reason I am mentioning this here is that the English Arbitration
Committee, which opened an arbitration case soon after publication of the
essay, appears largely to have taken a different view to date, preferring
to apply the most charitable interpretation of a local English Wikipedia
policy instead of the UCoC definition.[1]
Local policy on English Wikipedia says that sharing a contributor's
personal information (on Wikipedia) is not harassment if said contributor
has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information,
on Wikipedia at some time in the past.[2] In this specific case, one of the
two contributors once, over a decade ago, posted a link to a Dramatica page
containing their name and a previous place of employment (different from
their current place of employment as shared in the essay). I understand
they tried later on to have that edit oversighed but were refused. The
other contributor is open about their legal name and workplace on
Wikipedia.
As we can see, the English Wikipedia's local policy is not aligned with the
UCoC. The UCoC – which we are told defines a minimum standard that takes
precedence over any and all local policies and must not be ignored or
circumvented – demands that Wikimedians wanting to share other
contributors' personal information obtain "explicit consent" from the
contributors concerned. "Explicit consent" is generally considered to be a
much higher standard than implied consent.[3] "Explicit consent" is telling
an author, "Yes, it is fine for you to mention my name and workplace in
your essay."
And unlike local policy, the UCoC says that it covers conduct outside of
Wikimedia spaces as well. It says it applies to –
*all Wikimedia projects, technical spaces, in-person and virtual events, as
well as the following instances:*
*Private, public and semi-public interactions*
*Discussions of disagreement and expression of solidarity across community
members*
*Issues of technical development*
*Aspects of content contribution*
*Cases of representing affiliates/communities with external partners*
On the face of it, "public interactions" and "expressions of disagreement"
would seem to include writings a Wikimedian publishes about another
contributor in a journal, a newspaper, a blog, etc., or statements they
make about them in press interviews.
ArbCom on the other hand appears to have taken the view that the UCoC only
applies to places "like Wikimedia listservs, affiliate zoom calls, and
Wikimedia in-person events. But that doesn't include peer reviewed papers."
So, the question I am now unclear about is: Are Wikimedians communicating
about Wikipedia outside of Wikimedia spaces – from academic journals,
newspapers and TV interviews to blogs and discussion forums – bound by the
UCoC (and specifically Section 3.1) or not? Very specifically, are they
permitted to share contributors' private information such as their
workplace address in these various venues, without obtaining explicit
consent to do so?
Clarification would be very welcome. I feel we do need some guidance as to
what the words in the UCoC are intended to mean in practice, and how much
leeway local projects should have in interpreting its intent.
Regards,
Andreas
[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World_War…'_evidence_(UCoC_violation)
[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_info…
[3] See e.g. the GDPR-related explanation here:
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-…
Dear all,
Yesterday's WMF press release
<https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2023/05/03/wikimedia-foundation-launch…>
announced an African journalism award:
*Africawide – The Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit that operates
Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects, is today launching the inaugural
Open the Knowledge Journalism Awards. Coinciding with the 30th anniversary
of World Press Freedom Day, this year’s awards celebrate the contributions
of journalists in Africa who prioritize diversity, equity and inclusion in
their reporting.*
This sounds great, until we come to the following line:
*Articles must have been published online and in English between January 1,
2022 and June 23, 2023.*
How is this compatible with the idea that we "prioritize diversity, equity
and inclusion"? The piece starts with the word "Africawide" ... surely we
are aware that about half of Africa is French-speaking?
I can understand that you might want to incentivise journalism in European
rather than African languages – simply because such journalism would be
more likely to find a volunteer with the time to add the information to
Wikipedia, and because of a lack of staff with the language skills required
to cover dozens of African languages.
But French, Portuguese and Spanish should be within the WMF's capabilities,
all the more so as machine translation these days is good enough to tell
even a non-French speaker whether a French article covers an interesting
subject.
I hope that next year, journalists writing in other languages will not be
completely excluded from consideration for this award. Relying on English
will only strengthen some of the existing biases in coverage.
Andreas