Ladies That FOSS is WMDE's first Open Source Hack Event aimed primarily at
women who want to join a Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) project but
don’t know where to start. This is a unique opportunity for nonbinary and
woman coders to test out uncharted waters and code FOSS by meeting some
people who already got the FOSS flu and are deeply involved in projects.
So this is how it works. This day will be a one-day hack event where women
get the chance to dive into the FOSS movement and try out projects.
Projects will give women the chance to hack with them on something which
can be accomplished on that day. While hacking, the new women on the team
can get to know the FOSS movement and see what impact they can have.
This is an event which will offer newcomers the opportunity to engage
closely with the projects. Only four to six participants are matched with a
project. A unique chance to get to know some of the coolest projects and
coders out there and become part of the FOSS community. There will be
plenty of time for learning, trying, chatting, eating and *most of all,
We already welcome Wikidata, Mozilla's Firefox Browser, and coala - BUT the
collaboration is missing MediaWiki! Please contact us, if you would like to
become a MediaWiki mentor and join this event.
Please get in touch with julia.schuetze(a)wikimedia.de and myself if you are
interested and possibly able to help.
Working Student Software Development
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
Phone: +49 (0)30 219 158 26-0http://wikimedia.de
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.
That‘s our commitment.
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,
When was the last time you saw a woman on stage talking about something
other than gender? This list is meant to be "a list of female experts to
talk to when assembling panels, researching, or reporting on issues at
intersections of technology, the law, privacy, civil liberties, and
national security." I googled a few of them, and it looks like at least
some may be "notable", but very few have WP articles.
The website has a link to a similar list for women in foreign policy
I thought this opportunity might interest some people on this list.
Wiki Ed has been leveraging our higher ed connections to partner with
academic libraries. They're opening up online resources to Wikipedians with
a history of editing in particular topic areas. Editors receive the same
kind of access a student at the institution would have: databases,
journals, special digital collections, and even books.
We've seen great results so far (one example that might interest you is Barbara
Page’s efforts <https://wikiedu.org/blog/2016/06/28/upitt-visiting-scholar/> to
expand access to women's health information thanks to resources provided by
Right now, Hunter College would like to donate resources to a Wikipedian
who will use them to improve biographies of women or articles about women's
education, which seems fit for a lot of people on this list.
There are other positions
If anyone is interested, I can help connect you.
You can be located anywhere in the world, so long as you have a history of
contributions to the English Wikipedia. We have a Google form
for you to express your interest in a Visiting Scholar position, and we'll
try to find a good match!
Thanks everyone! Happy editing,
Educational Partnerships Manager
Wiki Education Foundation
User:Jami (Wiki Ed) <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jami_(Wiki_Ed)>
WikiConference North America 2016
7-10 October 2016, San Diego, CA, USA
WikiConference North America (formerly WikiConference USA) is the third
annual conference on the North American continent devoted to Wikipedia and
other Wikimedia projects. The weekend will feature both academic and casual
presentations on Wikimedia-related outreach activities, workshops to
improve the skills of grassroots organizers, and discussions on the past,
present, and future of the Wikimedia projects. The conference features
offerings about community outreach, online activity, partnerships with
institutions of knowledge, and technology. Keynote speakers are scheduled
to include Katherine Maher, Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation,
and Merrilee Proffitt, Senior Program Officer of OCLC Research. The last
day of the conference will feature programming coinciding with Indigenous
Registration for the conference is now open. You can register at
Scholarships partially covering costs of travel and attendance are
available for active contributors to Wikimedia projects. Apply by August
23rd for scholarships at https://wikiconference.org/wiki/2016/Scholarships.
This is a volunteer run conference and volunteers are needed for any number
of tasks. If you are attending, please consider volunteering for at
We seek presentations addressing topics related to Wikipedia or open access
and culture. Presentations may be from any discipline regarding any
relevant topic. Please submit a description of your proposed presentation
using our online submission process at
https://wikiconference.org/wiki/Submissions. If you are interested in
participating in the peer-reviewed academic track, see our call for
academic submissions at
- Sydney Poore (User:FloNight) and Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight
(User:Rosiestep), conference organizers
Hello, Pete Forsyth!
It is, Ellie Kesselman, your friend from that Q&A website where we are
That Marfan's syndrome image in the Wikipedia article was of concern to me,
for a variety of reasons.
Subsequently, there was a discussion about it on Commons. Participants
included the person who uploaded the image and some members of this mailing
list, myself included. A compromise was reached which satisfied the
uploader (he contributes to many medically-related articles for Wikipedia)
*AND* we who had identified potentially problematic legal, ethical and
privacy-related issues regarding the image in question. The complete
Commons discussion and outcome is linked in the prior gendergap mailing
notice if you are curious for details.
To everyone, not just Pete: The Commons talk page discussion was amicable
and resolution was prompt. Collectively, we did a good job!
I am in no way an expert in copyright so I can't comment on that aspect of
However, reading through the article it is clear to me that the syndrome
can affect several parts of the body. As in many medical images I have seen
in the past, nudity of the subject of the image allows for the symptoms
referred to to be clearly seen by non-experts on the field (like myself)
and be educated. This is not possible in the same way if the subject is
My personal preference would for the image to be anonymised, in the way
that previously suggested (obscuring the subject's face or eyes).
On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 3:00 PM, <gendergap-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Send Gendergap mailing list submissions to
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Gendergap digest..."
> Today's Topics:
> 1. Re: Marfan syndrome image (Keilana)
> 2. Re: Marfan syndrome image (Lisette Kalshoven)
> 3. Marfan syndrome image (Neotarf) (Ellie Kesselman)
> 4. Re: Marfan syndrome image (SarahSV)
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2016 11:54:48 -0500
> From: Keilana <keilanawiki(a)gmail.com>
> To: "Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the
> participation of women within Wikimedia projects."
> Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Marfan syndrome image
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> One option in these cases is to anonymize the image to make the subject not
> immediately recognizable - one common way I see to do this is to block out
> the subject's eyes or blur their face. I would offer to do this but I have
> no idea how to work any kind of image editing program, so it would probably
> be a disaster!
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com>
> > Well said, Lane. We lack a clear consensus around what kind of consent is
> > required for the subject of photos. It's an area that deserves attention.
> > -Pete
> > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> > On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 5:38 AM, Lane Rasberry <lane(a)bluerasberry.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >> I know this issue. It does look like a mistake that the academic paper
> >> has a 2.0 license and Wikipedia tags it as 2.5. Other than that issue,
> >> copyright seems in order.
> >> Wikimedia Commons does not have a clear policy on consent for images,
> >> other than images should comply with local law. I would like to
> establish a
> >> policy on consent because even though there is no policy, people
> >> consent in OTRS and petition to remove content based on lack of consent.
> >> More information about this image is in these places.
> >> - <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_
> >> Medicine/Archive_70#Patient_with_Marfans
> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:
> >> >
> >> - <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:PEG/Wikimedia_
> >> New_York_City/Development_of_a_model_release_process_for_
> >> photos_and_video#Patient_with_Marfan_syndrome.2C_image_
> >> taken_from_academic_medical_journal
> >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:PEG/
> >> >
> >> The issue of consent for photographs is not easy to resolve.
> >> yours,
> >> On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 7:57 AM, Neotarf <neotarf(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Would someone look at the copyright issues surrounding the image in
> >>> Marfan syndrome? This article was mentioned in the Signpost as being
> >>> worked on in honor of Kevin Gorman. The image shows a pubescent child,
> >>> partially clothed, apparently during a medical exam. The image was
> >>> with a CC-by-2.5 license. But if you go to the copyright information
> >>> the case study, it says the article was published under 2.0 license.
> >>> is separate copyright statement for the image: "Written informed
> >>> was obtained from the patient's parents for the publication of this
> >>> report and accompanying images. A copy of the consent form is
> available for
> >>> review by the Editor-in-Chief of this journal." It says the child is
> >>> years old and has a "global intellectual impairment".
> >>> Is the consent needed for a medical study in Brazil the same type of
> >>> consent needed to host an image on Commons? Does the license for the
> >>> article also apply to the image of the child? Can someone sort through
> >>> these issues?
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marfan_syndrome
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Gendergap mailing list
> >>> Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> >>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing,
> >>> visit:
> >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
> >> --
> >> Lane Rasberry
> >> user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
> >> 206.801.0814
> >> lane(a)bluerasberry.com
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Gendergap mailing list
> >> Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> >> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
> >> visit:
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gendergap mailing list
> > Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
> > visit:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Regarding the Marfan syndrome image, I looked into it as well as I could.
It seems to be allowed for re-use per the terms of the Creative Commons
license in the source article. I changed the description of the image on
Wikimedia Commons to be "13 year old female" instead of woman, but that
doesn't help at all. The use of the image in the Wikipedia article bothers
me a lot, as she is an almost entirely naked 13 year old girl with an IQ of
50 according to the research article. I wish that it was not uploaded to
Commons to begin with. Doc James was the user who uploaded according to the
log. I can't find any reason to get it removed or deleted though. If anyone
else can look into it, as Neotarf mentioned, I would be grateful. In my
previous job, I worked for a state services program that cared for children
with debilitating congenital medical conditions, and this photograph makes
me feel very uncomfortable and sad because it seems exploitative to show
this female child naked from three views on Wikipedia, but I don't know
what to do about it.