Hello All
I'm Monika, longtime reader of this list. I've been following this conversation on newcomers (who identify as women) and the perils of disclosure of professional affiliations with some interest, and it seems relevant and valuable to share with this group details about the project in working on and invite your help.
I'm a WIR for Oclc's 18-month Wikipedia + Libraries project. This fall OCLC is running an online training program for US public library staff to learn about engaging Wikipedia in their libraries for their communities. The curriculum will cover a wide variety of subjects related to Wikipedia (it's history, pillars, issue of reliability, authority control, organization and user roles, editing and editorial flow, COI, etc.). Through observation, exercises, case studies and small assignments, the participants slowly learn best practices, then strategies to apply what they know about editing to improve info literacy in their communities. By the end the goal is to have the participants be confident that they can engage Wikipedia, understand what they are doing and how it works, have a plan for next step in editing and designing programming.
The course will take place on Webjunction, a learning place for libraries that's been serving 80,000+ library staff globally since 2003. By participating in the nine week course, US public library staff will earn a certificate and some can apply for continuing education credits for their participation. As a WebJunction course, the focus will be on how Wikipedia editing and programming is relevant to library work. Public library staff participating will see how Wikipedia make sense to them as information professionals and possibly, give them reasons to make Wikipedia editing and outreach a part of their staff duties. The curriculum will make suggestions about activities to try at their libraries and include guest speakers who have edited and done outreach as public library staff.
Given the interest in this thread on helping newcomers, I would like to invite folks in this list to consider participating in the program as a volunteer guide for one (or more) of the course modules.
I ask because was I reading Fluffernutters story with a great smile - I completely agree that feeling comfortable to ask questions is critical to learning to participate in something new -- especially a big project like Wikipedia, which has many esoteric technical features, so many guides and policies, but few opportunities to converse informally with human Wikipeidans as a newcomer. For this reason I am interested in recruiting a few thoughtful, helpful editors will be interested in joining this program to mentor / guide newcomers in this online training program. And in return, you can learn more about public libraries. Public libraries and Wikipedia share values and commitments to civility and open access to information.
But most of the participants in the nine week course (Sept 13 - Nov 15; six live online sessions) will be new. 77% of public library respondents in the preview webinar survey said they use Wikipedia weekly but have never edited Wikipedia. 98% said Wikipedia is relevant to their jobs. They would benefit from meeting and getting help and support from real human Wikipedians familiar with the social norms and aspects of the technical open interface.
The course will take place on WebJunctions learning platform. To ensure privacy, the interactive forums are all held there. Guiding and mentoring would require about hour or three for a 2 week module (and you could help out in more than one module). Modules are (roughly): 1) about Wikipedia, 2) editing 101, 3) Wikipedia and information literacy programs, 4) Wikipedia and community outreach.
Please feel free to email me directly if you are interested or fill out this simple form.
oc.lc/wikiguides
Thanks - MSJ
Sent from my mobile phone possibly using voice control, please pardon errors
Sent from my mobile phone possibly using voice control, please pardon errors
> On Aug 8, 2017, at 5:00 AM, gendergap-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
>
> Send Gendergap mailing list submissions to
> gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> gendergap-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> gendergap-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Gendergap digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: FYI - GGTF case appeal (Neotarf)
> 2. "Selective incivility" (Neotarf)
> 3. Re: How to increase the diversity of Wikimedia technical
> contributors and staff? (Fluffernutter wiki)
> 4. Re: How to increase the diversity of Wikimedia technical
> contributors and staff? (JJ Marr)
> 5. Re: FYI - GGTF case appeal (Risker)
> 6. Re: FYI - GGTF case appeal (Neotarf)
> 7. Re: How to increase the diversity of Wikimedia technical
> contributors and staff? (Peter Southwood)
> 8. Re: FYI - GGTF case appeal (Risker)
> 9. Re: FYI - GGTF case appeal (Robert Fernandez)
> 10. Re: FYI - GGTF case appeal (Neotarf)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 08:21:56 -0400
> From: Neotarf <neotarf(a)gmail.com>
> To: "Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the
> participation of women within Wikimedia projects."
> <gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Gendergap] FYI - GGTF case appeal
> Message-ID:
> <CALikuNn1xBxX+YmfZcjfSZutu3=8ncW5=-OM2TBAsR511Hhfxw(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> I have no way of investigating something I was not supposed to find out
> about in the first place. Given Wikipedia's culture of retaliation against
> anyone who speaks out, I am unlikely to find out more, but it did seem
> credible. These agreements are becoming more common, for instance here a
> female employee wanted to get out of her non-disparagement agreement but
> Angel List said no.
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/21/technology/silicon-valley-sexual-harassm…
> Also the internal Google gender manifesto that was just leaked "Until about
> a week ago, you would have heard very little from me publicly about this,
> because (as a fairly senior Googler) my job would have been to deal with it
> internally, and confidentiality rules would have prevented me from saying
> much in public.But as it happens, (although this wasn’t the way I was
> planning on announcing it) I actually recently left Google..."
> https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-manifesto-1e3773ed…
>
>
>> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:16 AM, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 6 August 2017 at 23:08, Neotarf <neotarf(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> ......
>>>
>>> Women who do not want to interact on these terms, with individuals who
>>> are quite probably minors, are being silenced. I have heard that
>>> professional women are being recruited for Wikipedia, women whose employers
>>> would ordinarily be expected to protect them from a 'hostile work place',
>>> but they are being required to post their real identities on their talk
>>> pages, along with the names of their employers. and a COI form statement.
>>> They are also required to sign a non-disclosure agreement that prevents
>>> them from revealing any harassment they experience in Wikipedia, or from
>>> even revealing they have been required to sign an NDA. These women will
>>> join Wikipedia, and listen to the pitch and eat the bagels, and Wikipedia
>>> gets to count them as female editors, but very few of them go on to make
>>> that second edit, because it's their professional reputation on the line.
>>>
>>> If Wikipedia wants women editors they are going to have to come to terms
>>> with this.
>> This is a very inflammatory thing to say, Neotarf, and I need to insist
>> that you show some proof of this. Links to discussions or requirements,
>> please. This is far too sensationalistic to allow it to sit here without
>> serious evidence.
>>
>> Risker/Anne
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gendergap mailing list
>> Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
>> visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
Hello all -
I'm Monika, longtime reader of this list! I've been following this conversation on increasing the diversity of Wikipedias contributors with some interest, as well as the conversation on professional connections on Wikipedia spaces. It seems relevant and valuable to share with this group details about the project in working on -- and to invite your help.
I'm a WIR for Oclc's 18-month Wikipedia + Libraries project. http://www.webjunction.org/explore-topics/wikipedia-libraries.html
This fall the project is running an online training program for up to 500 US public library staff to learn about engaging Wikipedia in their libraries for their communities. The curriculum will cover a wide variety of subjects specific to English Wikipedia (it's history, pillars, community norms, issues of reliability, authority control, organization and user roles, editing and editorial flow, COI, etc.). Through observations, exercises, case studies and small assignments, the participants will slowly learn best practices, then gain strategies to apply what they know about Wikipedia to improve info literacy in their communities. By the end the goal is to have the participants be confident that they can engage Wikipedia, understand what they are doing and how it works, and make a plan for next step in editing and designing programming.
The course will take place on Webjunction, a learning place for libraries that's been serving 80,000+ library staff globally since 2003. By participating in the nine week course, US public library staff will earn a certificate and some can apply for continuing education credits for their participation. As a WebJunction course, the focus will be on how Wikipedia editing and programming is relevant to library work. Public library staff participating will see how Wikipedia make sense to them as information professionals and possibly, give them reasons to make Wikipedia editing and outreach a part of their staff duties. The curriculum will make suggestions about activities to try at their libraries and include guest speakers who have edited and done outreach as public library staff.
Given the interest in this thread on helping newcomers, and how that works, I wanted to share the specifics of this project and I invite folks in this list to participate in the program as a volunteer guide for one (or more) of the course modules.
When I reading Fluffernutter's story, and Pine's, I was smiling - thank you for sharing, I completely agree, the times I've felt most encouraged in trying something new have been when I am genuinely curious and feel comfortable in asking questions -- for me this has also been in a course environment; a safe learning space is critical to gaining the confidence to participate in something new. I think it holds for a big project like Wikipedia, which has many esoteric technical features and so many guides and policies.
For this reason I am interested in recruiting a few thoughtful, helpful editors to join this program to mentor / guide public library staff. Most of the participants in the nine week course (Sept 13 - Nov 15; six live online sessions) will be new to editing and the technical/community aspects of editing. ~77% of public library respondents in the preview webinar survey said they use Wikipedia weekly but have never edited Wikipedia. 98% said Wikipedia is relevant to their jobs. They would benefit from meeting and getting help and support from real human Wikipedians familiar with the social norms and features of the technical interface. In return, you can learn more about public libraries, what they do, their services and missions. Public libraries and Wikipedia share many values -- including commitments to civility and providing free open access to information.
The course will take place on WebJunction's learning platform. To ensure privacy, the interactive forums are all there. Guiding and mentoring would require about hour or three for a 2-week module (and you could help out in more than one module). Modules are (roughly): 1) about Wikipedia, 2) editing 101, 3) Wikipedia and information literacy programs, 4) Wikipedia and community outreach.
I am glad for the opportunity to share this with the gender gap list, and I hope that if you are curious you will reach out. I'm actually writing this en-route to Montreal (first time at Wikimania! Excited! Pls pardon grammar and informality, I'm writing this on my phone!) and will be presenting the project at 4pm on Thursday and Sunday at 11:00am... feel free to email me directly or attend if you are also coming. also share! There's also a simple form to fill out if you prefer too
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/8XPTQXK
Thanks to the members of this list for your consideration / attention to my email and for the dynamic conversations over the years on tough-to-solve issues ...
/MSJ
Sent from my mobile phone possibly using voice control, please pardon errors
> On Aug 8, 2017, at 5:00 AM, gendergap-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
>
> Send Gendergap mailing list submissions to
> gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> gendergap-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> gendergap-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Gendergap digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: FYI - GGTF case appeal (Neotarf)
> 2. "Selective incivility" (Neotarf)
> 3. Re: How to increase the diversity of Wikimedia technical
> contributors and staff? (Fluffernutter wiki)
> 4. Re: How to increase the diversity of Wikimedia technical
> contributors and staff? (JJ Marr)
> 5. Re: FYI - GGTF case appeal (Risker)
> 6. Re: FYI - GGTF case appeal (Neotarf)
> 7. Re: How to increase the diversity of Wikimedia technical
> contributors and staff? (Peter Southwood)
> 8. Re: FYI - GGTF case appeal (Risker)
> 9. Re: FYI - GGTF case appeal (Robert Fernandez)
> 10. Re: FYI - GGTF case appeal (Neotarf)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 08:21:56 -0400
> From: Neotarf <neotarf(a)gmail.com>
> To: "Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the
> participation of women within Wikimedia projects."
> <gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Gendergap] FYI - GGTF case appeal
> Message-ID:
> <CALikuNn1xBxX+YmfZcjfSZutu3=8ncW5=-OM2TBAsR511Hhfxw(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> I have no way of investigating something I was not supposed to find out
> about in the first place. Given Wikipedia's culture of retaliation against
> anyone who speaks out, I am unlikely to find out more, but it did seem
> credible. These agreements are becoming more common, for instance here a
> female employee wanted to get out of her non-disparagement agreement but
> Angel List said no.
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/21/technology/silicon-valley-sexual-harassm…
> Also the internal Google gender manifesto that was just leaked "Until about
> a week ago, you would have heard very little from me publicly about this,
> because (as a fairly senior Googler) my job would have been to deal with it
> internally, and confidentiality rules would have prevented me from saying
> much in public.But as it happens, (although this wasn’t the way I was
> planning on announcing it) I actually recently left Google..."
> https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-manifesto-1e3773ed…
>
>
>> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:16 AM, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 6 August 2017 at 23:08, Neotarf <neotarf(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> ......
>>>
>>> Women who do not want to interact on these terms, with individuals who
>>> are quite probably minors, are being silenced. I have heard that
>>> professional women are being recruited for Wikipedia, women whose employers
>>> would ordinarily be expected to protect them from a 'hostile work place',
>>> but they are being required to post their real identities on their talk
>>> pages, along with the names of their employers. and a COI form statement.
>>> They are also required to sign a non-disclosure agreement that prevents
>>> them from revealing any harassment they experience in Wikipedia, or from
>>> even revealing they have been required to sign an NDA. These women will
>>> join Wikipedia, and listen to the pitch and eat the bagels, and Wikipedia
>>> gets to count them as female editors, but very few of them go on to make
>>> that second edit, because it's their professional reputation on the line.
>>>
>>> If Wikipedia wants women editors they are going to have to come to terms
>>> with this.
>> This is a very inflammatory thing to say, Neotarf, and I need to insist
>> that you show some proof of this. Links to discussions or requirements,
>> please. This is far too sensationalistic to allow it to sit here without
>> serious evidence.
>>
>> Risker/Anne
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gendergap mailing list
>> Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
>> visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
This seems more about Neotarf's personal ban more than anything else.
Looking at the arbcom findings of fact (which I won't quote here), it
doesn't look like the ban was related to the gender gap on Wikipedia as
much as behaviour displayed towards other editors.
Maybe it would be better for the mailing list if we stopped talking about
this? Just a suggestion.
On 15 Jul 2017 8:20 PM, "Nathan" <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I believe because the ArbCom case regards the 'Gender Gap Task Force'
On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 7:24 PM, JJ Marr <jjmarr(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> How does this relate to the gender gap on Wikimedia again?
>
> On 15 Jul 2017 6:00 PM, "Neotarf" <neotarf(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Just to follow up, the WMF has now responded. I appreciate them taking
> time to review these concerns.
>
>
> >>>your best course of action is to discuss the PII situation with WMF
> Legal.
>
> Been and done, also involvement from C-levels, although that was some time
> ago
>
>
> >>>a few other remedies which could come into play, but they would almost
> certainly take longer and be more politically problematic than a minimal
> intervention
>
> If this is necessary, we should not shrink from it. If this can happen to
> me, it can happen to anyone -- your students, your employees, or someone
> like Bassel Khartabil. The arbitrators should not be using dox as a tool to
> silence voices for diversity or as an arbitration outcome.
>
> The foundation lost social capital during the media viewer/visual
> editor/flow controversies, because the community went to a great deal of
> effort to document the problems with those products, and was not listened
> to. But that was a long time ago, and the community has now lost the high
> ground, largely because of the gender issue. 640 people voted in the 2014
> arbcom election, but after this GGTF case, 2674 people voted in the 2015
> election. Is there any doubt that the arbcom is out of touch with the
> community, and that the community process is failing? The arbitration
> committee was not established by the community, it was established by Jimmy
> Wales. Is there any doubt the foundation has the capability and the
> resources to step in and protect the long term interests of the movement if
> the arbcom and the community process can not?
>
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 8:03 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately I don't think there is much more I can do here. Based on
>> what you wrote, I think that your best course of action is to discuss the
>> PII situation with WMF Legal. There are a few other remedies which could
>> come into play, but they would almost certainly take longer and be more
>> politically problematic than a minimal intervention in which WMF Legal
>> clarifies to the Ombuds and Arbcom what is required under WMF's
>> interpretation of its privacy policy.
>>
>> Pine
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:49 PM, Neotarf <neotarf(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The privacy policy as written certainly leads users to expect their PII
>>> is safe. There is nothing I can find in the written policy that would back
>>> the idea that the ombuds should refuse to remove PII if they think it might
>>> have been posted in good faith. If it could be used to identify someone, it
>>> should just be removed. That's just basic safety. Maybe they are not
>>> allowed to go against arbitrators I also don't understand why arbitrators
>>> would insist on posting PII over and over. We have seen too much what that
>>> can lead to. In all fairness, the gamergate sub-reddit was very
>>> professional and removed the dox within an hour of my request.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hmm. I'd like to take a closer look at this, but unfortunately I'm
>>>> already backlogged with other projects. I wish I knew what to suggest here.
>>>> If you have already been to the Ombudsman Commission and you disagree with
>>>> their interpretation of WMF policies, then you might try to contact WMF
>>>> Legal, although I don't know to what extent they will want to involve
>>>> themselves.
>>>>
>>>> For what it's worth, if I had my way the OC would (1) have
>>>> significantly more independence from the WMF Board and staff and (2) be
>>>> issuing monthly or quarterly reports about its activities, but
>>>> realistically the current setup is likely to continue for the foreseeable
>>>> future.
>>>>
>>>> Pine
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
I read the unofficial Google internal memo that has been the subject of
some controversy, and upon reading it my Wikipedian-trained instincts were
to wonder where the citations were that should, if they were available,
have supported numerous assertions that were made in that memo. I'm not an
expert in diversity -- and I suspect that the author of that memo isn't,
either. In the absence of verifiable and reliable sources, I'm skeptical of
numerous assertions that were made in that document.
This leads me a question that I've had in mind for awhile. How can we
increase the diversity of Wikimedia technical contributors and staff? I'm
referring both to gender diversity and racial diversity (people of African
descent appear to be significantly under-represented).
My unscientific hunch is that what would help is increasing people at young
ages to consider a career in a science, technology, engineering, or math
("STEM") field, and then continuing to support their interest from
elementary school through college.
(Personal story: I was a poor performer at math in middle school and at one
point I emotionally gave up on the subject, yet I did significantly better
when I reached college and (a) had instructors whose styles were more
compatible with how I learn and (b) had classroom environments that were
more supportive of learning.)
I don't know to what extent Wikimedia should be involved in encouraging
people at early ages to become interested and stay involved with STEM, and
I think that we should ask ourselves if perhaps this is an area in which we
should make some financial and time investments, with the goal of
facilitating development of diverse candidates into engineering and
technical roles for the community as well as organizations like WMDE and
WMF. We probably shouldn't be steering people at young ages to make
long-term commitments to STEM or the Wikimedia ecosystem, but perhaps we
could take some actions that would at least encourage them if they seem to
be interested in STEM to continue their academic growth in those domains. I
don't know if there is data that explains how gender and racial disparities
develop and how to address them, but my hunch is that the earlier that the
issues are addressed, the better.
I don't know what other options to suggest; perhaps people here will have
some ideas. I'd particularly like to invite Victoria to the conversation;
perhaps she can comment sometime in the next several days (probably not for
several hours, since this is still Sunday evening on the US west coast).
Hoping to hear some thoughtful discussion,
Pine
Hi all,
For anyone who identify significantly as a woman and will be in Montréal
next week for Wikimania, please consider coming along to the annual
WikiWomen's Lunch on Saturday August 12.
If you are planning on coming, please sign up on the event page:
<https://wikimania2017.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiWomen%27s_Lunch>.
Hope to see many of you there,
Katie
--
Katie Chan
Any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily represent the view of any organisation the
author is associated with or employed by.
Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
- Heinrich Heine
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Hi all,
As we have stated in our annual plan [1], “currently, community members
must search many pages and places to stay informed about Foundation
activities and resources.” We have worked in the past two quarters to
create a single point of entry. We call it the Wikimedia Resource Center,
and its alpha version is now live on Meta Wikimedia:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Resource_Center
As the movement expands to include more affiliates and more programmatic
activities every year, newer Wikimedians are faced with lack of experience
in the movement and its various channels for requesting support. In order
to expand Wikimedia communities’ efforts, we want to provide easy access to
resources that support their very important work. The [[m:Wikimedia
Resource Center]] is a hub designed in response to this issue: it is
intended to evolve into a single point of entry for Wikimedians all over
the world to the variety of resources and types of staff support they may
need to develop new initiatives or also expand existing ones.
This version of the Resource Center is only the beginning. For phase two of
the project, we will enable volunteer Wikimedians to add resources
developed by other individuals or organizations to the Wikimedia Resource
Center, and in phase three, the Wikimedia Resource Center will include
features to better connect Wikimedians to other Wikimedians that can
support them.
We want to hear what you think about this prototype and our plans for it!
If you have comments about the Wikimedia Resource Center, you can submit
your feedback publicly, on the Talk Page, or privately, via a survey hosted
by a third party, that shouldn’t take you more than 4 minutes to complete.
A feedback button is on the top right corner on every page of the hub.
Looking forward to more collaborations!
Best,
María
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2016-2017/…
--
María Cruz
Communications and Outreach Project Manager, Community Engagement
Can someone look at this for me?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Women%27s_Equality_Party#Proposal_to_rem…
The Women's Equality Party is non-partisan. It is willing to work with ANY and ALL OTHER PARTIES. It is a key fact about them as a party. I think removing it would breach WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE "to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article". I've also offered multiple sources to demonstrate its non-partisanship.
All the comments seem to be debating whether the party IS non-partisan, if a party CAN BE non-partisan etc. and consensus building on that point.
The Women's Equality Party is not affiliated to any OTHER party, a key fact which is made repeatedly clear in the article.
I think it needs an administrator to make a ruling on the Wikipedia POLICY POINTS that I have made (no-one has taken me up on any of them in the discussion), rather than a consensus based on the ding-dong over the concept of non-partisanship generally.
For me this is an attempt at censorship.
>"We cannot suggest that WEP are a bunch of head-bangers if they are willing to work with anyone, regardless of which side of the political divide they come from."
>"Let's take 'non-partisan' out of the infobox, it makes the party sound too reasonable."
Marie
This sounds like a great project. Forwarding.
Pine
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Leila Zia <leila(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> With the start of the new fiscal year in Wikimedia Foundation on July
> 1, the Research team has officially started the work on Program 12:
> Growing contributor diversity. [1] Here are a few
> announcements/pointers about this program and the research and work
> that will be going to it:
>
> * We aim to keep the research documentation for this project on the
> corresponding research page on meta. [2]
> * Research tasks are hard to break down and track in task-tracking
> systems. This being said, any task that we can break down and track
> will be documented under the corresponding Epic task on Phabricator.
> [3]
> * The goals for this Program for July-September 2017 (Quarter 1) are
> captured on MediaWiki. [4] (The Phabricator epic will be updated with
> corresponding tasks as we start working on them.)
> * Our three formal collaborators (cc-ed) will contribute to this
> program: Jérôme Hergueux from ETH, Paul Seabright from TSE, and Bob
> West from EPFL. We are thankful to these people who have agreed to
> spend their time and expertise on this project in the coming year, and
> to those of you who have already worked with us as we were shaping the
> proposal for this project and are planning to continue your
> contributions to this program. :)
> * I act as the point of contact for this research in Wikimedia
> Foundation. Please feel free to reach out to me (directly, if it
> cannot be shared publicly) if you have comments/questions about the
> project in the coming year.
>
> Best,
> Leila
>
>
> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_
> Annual_Plan/2017-2018/Final/Programs/Technology#Program_
> 12:_Grow_contributor_diversity
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Voice_and_exit_
> in_a_voluntary_work_environment
> [3] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T166083
> [4] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Technology/
> Goals/2017-18_Q1#Research
>
> --
> Leila Zia
> Senior Research Scientist
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
Hello, this is to let everyone know that I have submitted an appeal to the
GGTF case.
It has been very difficult to try to respond to the accusations in this
arbitration case, because I don't understand them. Everyone who has looked
at the diffs has found nothing. Kevin Gorman called them "flimsy". Even
Wikipediocracy, which has no particular love for me, could find nothing.
After having had time to go through some of the histories, I found that
half of the diffs were from someone who wrote a program specifically to
collect diffs of my edits in order to sift through them and who was able to
use the program to discover IP addresses as well. The other half of the
diffs were added to the case by one of the arbitrators after the evidence
phase of the case had closed and included edits made by Jimmy Wales and one
of the admins--not even my edits. I don't want to say a lot about this on
a public mailing list, but at this point it is pretty obvious that this is
a false conviction.
I understand I was eligible to appeal this after one year, however I have
waited more than two years. My initial inquiry to the WMF was on 11/17/16.
I was assigned a member of the WMF staff and told I could expect to hear
something in mid-January. Since then, I have made three followup queries,
asking for an update to the expected timeline, but have been unable to get
any response at all. At this point, there is no reason to believe the
non-response is not deliberate.