Wikimedia-l June 2010

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

151 participants
114 discussions

Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 75, Issue 110
by chev folvarko 25 Jun '10

25 Jun '10

Do u have kids? foundation-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org wrote: >Send foundation-l mailing list submissions to > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > foundation-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org > >You can reach the person managing the list at > foundation-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org > >When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >than "Re: Contents of foundation-l digest..." > > >Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Reconsidering the policy "one language - one Wikipedia" > (Milos Rancic) > 2. Re: Wikisource and reCAPTCHA (Samuel Klein) > 3. Re: Reconsidering the policy "one language - one Wikipedia" > (Samuel Klein) > 4. Re: Reconsidering the policy "one language - one Wikipedia" > (Birgitte SB) > 5. Re: Reconsidering the policy "one language - one Wikipedia" > (Mark Williamson) > 6. Re: Wikisource and reCAPTCHA (Andre Engels) > 7. Re: [Wikimedia Announcements] Board resolution commissioning > study and recommendations (Ray Saintonge) > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Message: 1 >Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 01:06:25 +0200 >From: Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com> >Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Reconsidering the policy "one language - > one Wikipedia" >To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> >Message-ID: > <AANLkTinUDX4CYVX6DBVIGOtH8mjl2u5WudJKHiGAKw9V(a)mail.gmail.com> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > >On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 12:26 AM, Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> as if we were dumb. I have heard (and I am not an expert) from many >> people the idea that you will get what you give, meaning that if you >> treat an adolescent as if they were a criminal, they will often become >> a criminal; it seems to me that if we treat children as dumber >> versions of adult human beings, they will grow up to be just that. >> (again, I'm not an expert) > >A kind of virtuous circle and vicious circle. Dumb adults are creating >dumb articles because they think that their children are dumb, which >in turn transforms children into dumb adults ;) > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 2 >Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:43:00 -0400 >From: Samuel Klein <meta.sj(a)gmail.com> >Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikisource and reCAPTCHA >To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> >Message-ID: > <AANLkTim8gNMpYMODDj5WL6pMSBuRIJw38CCn1Fvc9zee(a)mail.gmail.com> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > >On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 11:16 AM, James Forrester <james(a)jdforrester.org> wrote: >> On 24 June 2010 15:37, Samuel Klein <meta.sj(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> I love those proofreading features, and the new default layout for a >>> book's pages and TOC. ?Wikisource is becoming AWESOME. >> >> Ahem. Even more awesome, you mean. :-) > >It used to be just lowercase awesome... THINGS HAVE CHANGED. >:-) > >> Disclaimer - my PGDP account dates from 2004, but I only get involved >> in fits every couple of years. > >Could you ask some of the wiki-savvy continuously active proofreaders >to join this discussion for a little while? I like the work PGDP >does, and bet we can find a way to support and amplify it. > >SJ > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 3 >Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:51:33 -0400 >From: Samuel Klein <meta.sj(a)gmail.com> >Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Reconsidering the policy "one language - > one Wikipedia" >To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> >Message-ID: > <AANLkTimeH7bAor5Lpmf75WLRuUKzMkz1rToKAyGZthW7(a)mail.gmail.com> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > >On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> The fact that 10 years old child probably doesn't know what density >> means, doesn't mean that she or he can't read about that on >> encyclopedia. > >Of course. Children who specialize in a topic often make excellent >teachers, and sometimes featured-article writers. I like Greg's >notion of defining the project in terms of "expected level of >education" of the reader, not age. Almost everyone may want to refer >to a simplified reference for topics that confuse them -- and there is >a niche of popularizers of {science, mathematics, economics} who do >just that, for readers of all ages. Some of them win the highest >literary awards for their work. > > >One data point on language complexity: > >In Peru, I work with families and teachers in rural areas with little >access to books or references, whose children have a snapshot of >Spanish Wikipedia (offline, on their OLPC laptop). For perhaps >100,000 families and teachers, this is their primary general >reference. > >The teachers like this and use it; it is part of a national >project-based curriculum for grades 3-5. >http://www.perueduca.edu.pe/olpc/OLPC_fichasfasc.html > >But the teachers there also asked for a simpler-language project in >Spanish, and a simple project in English to help students with >language learning. > >> My personal responsibility for creating a Wikijunior project >> would be much higher than for creating a Wikinews project. > >Yes. We should definitely lay the groundwork well, as Ziko says. But >there are good projects underway today and doing this, in spanish, >french, and dutch. Some of the organizers of those projects have >contributed to the Wikikids proposal on meta. We can start by >directing energies there, finding out what Vikidia has learned running >projects in French and Spanish, what their standards for >project-creation are, and how we can help them. > >SJ > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 4 >Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 17:25:52 -0700 (PDT) >From: Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com> >Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Reconsidering the policy "one language - > one Wikipedia" >To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> >Message-ID: <606274.71969.qm(a)web113706.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > >--- On Thu, 6/24/10, Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> From: Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com> >> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Reconsidering the policy "one language - one Wikipedia" >> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> >> Date: Thursday, June 24, 2010, 6:06 PM >> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 12:26 AM, >> Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > as if we were dumb. I have heard (and I am not an >> expert) from many >> > people the idea that you will get what you give, >> meaning that if you >> > treat an adolescent as if they were a criminal, they >> will often become >> > a criminal; it seems to me that if we treat children >> as dumber >> > versions of adult human beings, they will grow up to >> be just that. >> > (again, I'm not an expert) >> >> A kind of virtuous circle and vicious circle. Dumb adults >> are creating >> dumb articles because they think that their children are >> dumb, which >> in turn transforms children into dumb adults ;) > > >I think you all are getting rather sidetracked over the details of content of some proposed project that I do not believe you are actually interested in joining. Surely any detailed decisions as exactly how to approach writing medical articles for children would be an internal conclusion. The real issue here is what merits the creation of a new wiki versus some specific project being setup as subset of an existing wiki. > >I have come the conclusion the biggest factor leading to success of a new wiki is a large enough community with a strong sense of a separate mission. If all you have is a small group of hard core content editors you will be more successful as subset of an existing wiki, if one is so kind enough to make room for you. One thing that happens in a small wiki is all the happy energy which was geared towards the content must be siphoned off into seemingly endless administration tasks. It takes a while for the community to grow enough to overcome that deficit. I would not recommend anyone to be in a hurry to make their own new space. The longer you can use an existing wiki to experiment with the your project the stronger you can grow your community, and maybe you can find a way to permanently fit within the existing scope while meeting the needs of your specific mission. If you can it do that it will greatly improve your ability to work on content. I would > advise this group that as exciting as having their own Wikipedia must sound, they might be more successful as a project within de.WP or de.WB And even if they are dead-set on an independent wiki, they will benefit from starting within an existing structure to grow a good sized proof of concept. > >Birgitte SB > > > > > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 5 >Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 18:09:13 -0700 >From: Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com> >Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Reconsidering the policy "one language - > one Wikipedia" >To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> >Message-ID: > <AANLkTikpefpnslNgtGYGtlSI4_VnWnEOIymp9p4Wlutu(a)mail.gmail.com> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > >Birgitte, what I am discussing is whether or no t I see any merit in >this idea at all. Thanks. > > >On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> --- On Thu, 6/24/10, Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> From: Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com> >>> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Reconsidering the policy "one language - one Wikipedia" >>> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> >>> Date: Thursday, June 24, 2010, 6:06 PM >>> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 12:26 AM, >>> Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > as if we were dumb. I have heard (and I am not an >>> expert) from many >>> > people the idea that you will get what you give, >>> meaning that if you >>> > treat an adolescent as if they were a criminal, they >>> will often become >>> > a criminal; it seems to me that if we treat children >>> as dumber >>> > versions of adult human beings, they will grow up to >>> be just that. >>> > (again, I'm not an expert) >>> >>> A kind of virtuous circle and vicious circle. Dumb adults >>> are creating >>> dumb articles because they think that their children are >>> dumb, which >>> in turn transforms children into dumb adults ;) >> >> >> I think you all are getting rather sidetracked over the details of content of some proposed project that I do not believe you are actually interested in joining. ?Surely any detailed decisions as exactly how to approach writing medical articles for children would be an internal conclusion. The real issue here is what merits the creation of a new wiki versus some specific project being setup as subset of an existing wiki. >> >> I have come the conclusion the biggest factor leading to success of a new wiki is a large enough community with a strong sense of a separate mission. ?If all you have is a small group of hard core content editors you will be more successful as subset of an existing wiki, if one is so kind enough to make room for you. ?One thing that happens in a small wiki is all the happy energy which was geared towards the content must be siphoned off into seemingly endless administration tasks. It takes a while for the community to grow enough to overcome that deficit. ?I would not recommend anyone to be in a hurry to make their own new space. ?The longer you can use an existing wiki to experiment with the your project the stronger you can grow your community, and maybe you can find a way to permanently fit within the existing scope while meeting the needs of your specific mission. ?If you can it do that it will greatly improve your ability to work on content. I would >> ?advise this group that as exciting as having their own Wikipedia must sound, they might be more successful as a project within de.WP or de.WB And even if they are dead-set on an independent wiki, they will benefit from starting within an existing structure to grow a good sized proof of concept. >> >> Birgitte SB >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> foundation-l mailing list >> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 6 >Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 05:13:57 +0200 >From: Andre Engels <andreengels(a)gmail.com> >Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikisource and reCAPTCHA >To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> >Message-ID: > <AANLkTik1Phpcg-hKyGYqfSHngEX-I-aAg5nhaKbi0IwB(a)mail.gmail.com> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > >On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Samuel Klein <meta.sj(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> I love those proofreading features, and the new default layout for a >> book's pages and TOC. ?Wikisource is becoming AWESOME. >> >> Do we have PGDP contributors who can weigh on on how similar the >> processes are? ?Is there a way for us to actually merge workflows with >> them? > >I am quite active on PGDP, but not on Wikisource, so I can tell about >how things work there, but not on how similar it is to Wikisource. > >Typical about the PGDP workflow are an emphasis on quality above >quantity (exemplified in running not 1 or 2 but 3 rounds of human >checking of the OCR result - correctness in copying is well above >99.99% for most books) and work being done in page-size chunks rather >than whole books, chapters, paragraphs, sentences, words or whatever >else one could think of. > >There's a number of people involved, although people can and often do >fill several roles for one book. > >First, there is the Content Provider (CP). > >He or she first contacts Project Gutenberg to get a clearance. This is >basically a statement from PG that they believe the work is out of >copyright. In general, US copyright is what is taken into account for >this, although there are also servers in other countries (Canada and >Australia as far as I know), which publish some material that is out >of copyright in those countries even if it is not in the US. Such >works do not go through PGDP, but may go through its sister projects >DPCanada or DPEurope. > >Next, the CP will scan the book, or harvest the scans from the web, >and run OCR on them. They will usually also write a description of the >book for the proofreaders, so those can see whether they are >interested. The scans and the OCR are uploaded to the PGDP servers, >and the project is handed over to the Project Manager (PM) (although >in most cases CP and PM are the same person). > >The Project Manager is responsible for the project in the next stages. >This means: >* specifying the rules and guidelines that are to be followed when >proofreading the book, at least there where those differ from the >standard guidelines >* answer questions by proofreaders >* keep the good and bad words lists up to date. These are used in >wordcheck (a kind of spellchecker) so that words are considered >correct or incorrect by it > >The project then goes through a number of rounds. The standard number >is 5 rounds, of which 3 are proofreading and 2 are formatting, but it >is possible for the PM to make a request to skip one or more rounds or >go through a round twice. > >In the first three, proofreading, rounds, a proofreader requests one >page at a time, compares the OCR output (or the previous proofreader's >output) with the scan, and changes the text to correspond to the scan. >In the first round (P1) everyone can do this, the second round (P2) is >only accessible to those who have been at the site some time and done >a certain amount of pages (21 days and 300 pages, if I recall >correctly), for the third round (P3) one has to qualify. For >qualification one's P2 pages are checked (using the subsequent edits >of P3). The norm is that one should not leave more than one error per >five pages. > >After the three (or two or four) rounds of proofing, the foofing >(formatting) rounds are gone through. In these, again a proofreader >(now called formatter) requests and edits one page at the time, but >where the proofreaders dealt with copying the text as precisely as >possible, the formatter will deal with all other aspects of the work. >They denote when text is italic, bold or otherwise in a special >format, which texts are chapter headers, how tables are laid out, >etcetera. Here there are two rounds, although the second one can be >skipped or a round duplicated, like before. The first formatting round >(F1) has the same entrance restrictions as P2, F2 has a qualification >system comparable to P3. > >After this, the PM gives the book on to the Post-Processor (PP). >Again, this is often the same person, but not always. In some other >cases, the PP has already been appointed, in others it will sit in a >pool until picked up by a willing PP. The PP does all that is needed >to get from the F2 output to something that can be put on Project >Gutenberg: they recombine the pages into one work, move stuff around >where needed, change the formatters' mark-up in something that's more >appropriate for reading, in most cases generate an HTML version, >etcetera. > >A PP that has already post-processed several books in a good way can >then send it to PG. In other cases, the book will then go to the PPV >(Post-Processing Verifier), an experienced PP, who checks the PP's >work, and gives them hints on what should be improved or makes those >improvements themselves. > >Finally, if the PP or PPV sends the book to PG, there is a whitewasher >who checks the book once again; however, that is outside the scope of >this (already too long) description, because it belongs to PG's >process rather than PGDP's. > >To stop the rounds from overcrowding with books, there are queues for >each round, containing books that are ready to enter the round, but >have not yet done so. To keep some variety, there are different queues >by language and/or subject type. A problem with this has been that the >later rounds, having less manpower because of the higher standards >required, could not keep up with P1 and F1. There has been work to do >something about it, and the P2 queues have been brought down to decent >size, but in P3 and F2 books can literally sit in the queues for >years, and PP still is a bottleneck as well. > > >-- >Andr? Engels, andreengels(a)gmail.com > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 7 >Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 21:42:26 -0700 >From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> >Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Board resolution > commissioning study and recommendations >To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> >Message-ID: <4C2433B2.80404(a)telus.net> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > >David Gerard wrote: >> On 24 June 2010 19:28, Michael Snow <wikipedia(a)verizon.net> wrote: >> >>> That's the meaning, definitely, same as it was in the previous board >>> statement. I would observe, too, that for material on user pages, if >>> you're even going to ask whether it's educational, what is it going to >>> educate people about? That particular user, presumably. And in that >>> context, it's pretty hard to rule out any kind of self-expression that >>> person has chosen as not being educational about them. It may be >>> inappropriate for other reasons, such as community policy or social >>> concerns, but this wouldn't really be a basis for enforcing that. >>> >> Nevertheless - if you're going to make official statements like this, >> you can't assume that hundreds of thousands of people are all going to >> interpret them the same way, as you seem to have here. >> >Precisely. We already have too many people ready and willing to take a >common sense idea and turn it into rigid policy. > >Ec > > > >------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >foundation-l mailing list >foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > >End of foundation-l Digest, Vol 75, Issue 110 >*********************************************

1 0

Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Board resolution commissioning study and recommendations
by Michael Snow 25 Jun '10

25 Jun '10

It seems like we have yet to figure out if we can get the announcements list to automatically copy messages here. But since the "reply-to" function is at least set properly for this list, I'll take advantage of it now to make sure the full original message is posted here as well. --Michael Snow On 6/23/2010 10:47 PM, Michael Snow wrote: > As a follow-up to the previous statement and discussion about > appropriate educational content, the board has passed a resolution > requesting a study of the issue of potentially objectionable content. We > have asked the Executive Director to organize this study and develop > recommendations for the board. We expect these will be shared with the > community and stimulate further discussion about whether to adopt > particular recommendations. Potential action would only follow that > process, but since it's hard to say what that might involve without > knowing the recommendations in advance, I will also pass along some > questions and answers that attempt to explain the process in more > detail. The text of the resolution follows: > > 1. The Wikimedia Foundation vision imagines a world in which every > single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That is > our commitment, and we aspire to see it realized. > > 2. We are making good progress towards that goal. Today, hundreds of > millions of people read the Wikimedia projects every month. Those people > represent a wide diversity of ethnicities, nationalities, ages, > socioeconomic conditions, sexual orientations, religions, values and > attitudes. We are proud of that, and we consider it proof of our > projects' broad relevance and utility. > > 3. In any group as diverse as ours, ideas about acceptability and taste > will necessarily vary widely. We know that to be true in our case > because, over the years, we have received many requests asking us to > remove from the projects different types of material, on the grounds > that it is objectionable to particular individuals or groups. However, > Wikimedia policy has never called for material to be deleted purely on > the basis that it is, or may be, objectionable, and our projects have > long contained caveats to that effect. > > 4. We do expect material in our projects to be educational in nature, > and any material that is not educational should be removed. We see our > role as making available all knowledge, not solely such knowledge as is > universally deemed acceptable. We believe that individual adults should > be able to decide for themselves what information they want to seek out. > In the case of children, we believe that their parents, teachers, and > other guardians are best placed to guide them to material that is > appropriate for them, based on their development and maturity, as they > grow into adulthood. > > 5. Nevertheless, we are concerned about the possibility of people being > exposed to objectionable material that they did not seek out. This may > include material that is violent, sexually explicit, or otherwise > disturbing; culturally offensive depictions; profane or vulgar language; > depictions of potentially dangerous activities; and exposure of children > to material that may be inappropriate for them. We believe that the > Wikimedia projects are a valuable educational resource, and we do not > want these issues to interfere in sharing knowledge with present or > future readers. > > 6. The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees believe that the Wikimedia > projects have a serious responsibility to carefully balance these > interests to the best of their ability. This includes considering the > interests of both adults and children, as well as understanding > different cultural perspectives about what material may be offensive. It > is a difficult challenge, and we do not take it lightly. > > WE THEREFORE RESOLVE THAT: > > The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees hereby requests its Executive > Director to undertake a project studying this issue, and to develop a > set of recommendations for the Board. In this work, we ask that she > consult with a variety of stakeholders and experts, including Wikimedia > editors, other organizations which have grappled with the same or > similar issues, and thought leaders including relevant members of our > Advisory Board. We ask that she make an effort to include non-Western > perspectives. The purpose of this work is to develop recommendations to > enable the Wikimedia projects to appropriately and effectively serve all > audiences, including both adults and children, and including readers > both current and prospective. > > The scope of this work should be broad, and might include recommended > changes to editorial policies, technical solutions, the development of > new projects that are appropriate for children, and so forth. In an > effort to allow sufficient time for thoughtful investigation, but also > to bring closure to this issue within a reasonable period, we ask the > Executive Director to deliver preliminary recommendations to the Board > at its fall meeting, and we encourage her to consult with the Board as > required in the intervening months. > > --Michael Snow > > _______________________________________________ > Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Foundation-L, the public mailing list about the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects. For more information about Foundation-L: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ > WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list > WikimediaAnnounce-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l > > >

7 12

[Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Arthur Richards joins Wikimedia
by Tomasz Finc 25 Jun '10

25 Jun '10

Greetings, I'm very excited to welcome Arthur Richards to the Wikimedia Foundation as the backend developer for fundraising. Back in the fall 2005, after Hurricane Katrina, Arthur took a leave of absence from Oberlin College to work with a grassroots relief organization in New Orleans, Louisiana. After finding a lot of discarded computer equipment in trash piles during cleanup, he rescued, repaired and rebuilt a handful of machines to open up the Common Ground Community Tech Center in the Upper 9th Ward of New Orleans. Powered by Linux, a jury-rigged solar array and a back-up generator, the Tech Center provided a place for community members to check on loved ones, learn about computers and publish their own media to the web. After finishing school with a degree in History, Arthur headed to the Bay Area to begin a career in software development. There he worked for a few months as a content manager and developer for YouthNoise.org, a forum for young people to become civicly engaged. In 2007, Arthur left YouthNoise to try his hand at contracting. His first gig was with NetAcceleration, maintaining and providing new functionality for a proprietary content management system. Feeling a need to work with open source software and for social good, Arthur left NetAcceleration and co-founded Colingro Labs, a small web consulting company focused on non-profit, green and socially responsible clients where he fell in love with the Drupal content management system. Most recently, Arthur has been in Guadalajara, Mexico with Adapting to Scarcity, making a documentary on the effects of urban water usage on communities downstream from Guadalajara and offering digital storytelling workshops to youth in affected communities. Arthur will bring in some well needed drupal skills that will benefit our fundraising efforts with CiviCRM. He'll be working with our staff and the CiviCRM community to develop new features along with integrating our custom developments into the core distribution. He'll also be working extensively with our analytics team to better understand and present the various data sources that we have to both internal teams and the community at large. He'll be starting a three month contract on July 6th and will be working in the San Francisco office. Please join me in welcoming Arthur to the Wikimedia team! We'll be setting up his email as his start day gets closer but until then, you can reach him at awjrichards(a)gmail.com. -- Tomasz Finc Engineering Program Manager - Fundraising, Mobile, & Offline _______________________________________________ Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Foundation-L, the public mailing list about the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects. For more information about Foundation-L: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l _______________________________________________ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list WikimediaAnnounce-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l

1 0

Re: [Foundation-l] Reconsidering the policy "one language - one Wikipedia"
by Aaron Adrignola 24 Jun '10

24 Jun '10

It may be relevant to note that http://wikijunior.org currently redirects to http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikijunior . >From what I've heard, Wikijunior was supposed to become its own separate project at some point. Now, that is Wikibooks-related and not Wikipedia-related, but if one were looking for a combined edition of all the projects in each language, for children, you've got the domain name there, owned by Wikimedia. -- Aaron Adrignola

3 2

Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Q&A regarding board resolution
by Michael Snow 24 Jun '10

24 Jun '10

Replying for the purpose of forwarding the original message, part two. --Michael Snow On 6/23/2010 10:59 PM, Michael Snow wrote: > What is the purpose of the resolution? > > The Board is asking its Executive Director to conduct a study, with the > goal of figuring out what to do about potentially-objectionable material > in the projects. We know there is, and will always be, some material in > the projects that some readers will find offensive: that's inevitable, > given the size and scope of our readership, and our commitment to > providing access to all of the world's knowledge. We don't want to cause > unnecessary offence to people, and we particularly don't want to offend > people if it means they won't therefore use our projects, or that they > will aim to keep other people from using them. We want our projects to > be available to as many people as possible, and we would like, as much > as possible, to minimize the number of people who are prevented from > accessing the projects by third-parties. Having said that, we see the > projects' role as making available all knowledge, not making available > solely such knowledge as is universally deemed acceptable. It's a > challenge, and we need to strike an appropriate balance. Therefore, > we're asking our ED to do some investigation and thinking, and make some > recommendations to us at our meeting this fall. > > How was the resolution developed and agreed upon? > > The board and the community have been talking about this topic for the > past two months -- and indeed, the Commons and Wikipedia communities > have been discussing it for many years. Once the board reached general > agreement that a study was a good idea, we asked our ED to draft a > resolution to that effect. After she did that, we spent several weeks > talking with each other, refining the language of the draft, and voting > to adopt the resolution. > > Does the board have consensus on what to do about > potentially-objectionable materials in the projects? > > No. So far, board members have exchanged several hundred e-mails on this > topic, and we will continue to discuss it in the coming months. > Currently, board members have expressed quite different views, and there > is no consensus on how to resolve the issue. We think that's completely > fine though: it's complicated, and it's worth a lot of thought and > discussion. That's why we've commissioned a study: to see what we can > learn from other similar discussions that have taken place within other > organizations. > > What are the individual board members' views on this issue? How divided > is the board? > > We don't really want to characterize individual board members' views. > Having said that, individual board members have expressed their opinions > publicly in the past, and they will probably continue to do so. The > board is comfortable with disagreement on this issue, and it's > comfortable with people expressing their opinions. For example, Michael > Snow has been having a conversation with contributors on Commons, and > both Jimmy and SJ have been expressing their views there too. That's > fine, and the board encourages it. > > How is this study related to the purge of some sexual imagery that > happened on Commons a month ago? > > The Commons purge happened because Jimmy felt there was material on > Commons which didn't belong there -- that was potentially objectionable, > and had no educational value. The board released a statement on May 7, > encouraging Wikimedia editors to scrutinize potentially offensive > materials with the goal of assessing their educational or informational > value, and to remove them from the projects if there was no such value. > Jimmy himself then deleted a bunch of imagery he thought was > problematic. In so doing, he made a lot of admins on Commons really > angry -- essentially because they felt Jimmy was acting unilaterally, > without sufficient discussion. So yes, this study is an attempt to > better handle the general issue of potentially-objectionable material on > the projects, including Commons, by giving it some sustained attention. > > In its statement May 7, the board said that it was not intending to > create new policy, but rather to reaffirm and support policy that > already exists. Has that changed? > > We don't know yet what recommendations will come out of the study. It's > quite possible they will include recommendations to change policy on the > projects. In giving direction to the consultant, we have asked that > everything be considered: nothing has been ruled out. > > In the aftermath of the Commons purge, a lot of editors felt that the > Wikimedia Foundation, the board, and/or Jimmy had overstepped their > authority. What do you say to those editors who believe that editorial > policy is their purview, not the responsibility of the board or the staff? > > We agree with editors who say that, and we believe that Wikimedia's > current methods of developing and enforcing policy, for the most part, > work really beautifully. The Wikimedia projects are a shining example of > the power of mass collaboration, and nobody wants to fundamentally > change anything about how the projects work. > > Is this the first time the Board has ever asked the ED or WMF to address > an issue like this? > > This is the first time the Board has asked the ED to investigate the > issue of potentially-objectionable material on the projects, yes. > > Will the Board make a decision about next steps on this issue following > the ED's presentation of findings? > > The Board will review the recommendations and findings, and will > continue to discuss the matter and reach out to the community of > volunteers to discuss the issue. We won't speculate on what decisions > will be made, or when, until findings have been reviewed and discussed. > > Who will the ED be seeking out to undertake this research? > > She has hired a consultant: Robert Harris, a former executive with the > Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Robert is an experienced Canadian > journalist and writer who, over the course of his career, has held > responsibility for developing and ensuring compliance with editorial > standards and practices at the CBC. We think he's right for this work > because he's smart and thoughtful, has decades of experience handling > sensitive editorial issues, and is experienced at balancing the > interests of multiple stakeholders inside a mission-driven organization > designed to serve the general public. Sue worked with Robert for 17 > years at the CBC, and is confident he can help us with this issue. > > What will the process look like? > > This won't be like the strategy project, which took an entire year and a > team of full-time people. This process will be smaller and simpler. > Robert intends to gather input from four major sources: i) by reading > existing policy and discussion pages on the wikis, ii) by interviewing > key project participants such as board members and community members, > iii) by gathering together external statements of policy, papers and > reports on this topic, and iv) by interviewing key experts such as > advisory board members, anti-censorship advocates, child-protection > organizations, and so forth. He will probably not do much original > research (such as surveys or focus groups): instead, he will tend to > rely on existing research done by others. Once Robert has gathered all > the input, he will do some analysis and thinking, and then make > recommendations to the board. It is intended to be a fairly quick and > simple process of information-gathering and thinking. > > What will the end result look like? > > Robert will explore and summarize our particular context: our mission, > our production processes, and current relevant policies. He will tell us > how other organizations and entities, such as libraries and big > user-generated content sites, have handled this challenge. He will lay > out possible courses of action, and the pros and cons of each in our > context. And finally, he will make recommendations to the board. > > What might those recommendations include? > > Nothing is off the table. Robert has not been asked to explicitly > exclude anything from the scope of recommendations. He could recommend > anything from doing nothing to creative ideas that haven't been > considered before. > > What will happen after the board receives the recommendations? > > The board will discuss the recommendations at its fall meeting. Then it > will talk with the community. Nothing will happen without lots of > discussion. > > Why not hire a community member to do this work? > > Any community member who'd be interested in this work has probably > already formed an opinion on the topic, which means it might be hard for > them to maintain neutrality, and/or other people might perceive them as > non-neutral. Robert brings a fresh eye, which is probably useful. Also, > he will bring to us his experience of designing policy elsewhere. > > What other projects or properties face similar situations as those of > Wikimedia's? Who or what can provide context for this kind of research > or decision making? Who else knows how to address this issue? > > We are interested in practices of other large projects containing > community-created material, such as Flickr, YouTube, Google, eBay, and > the Internet Archive. We are also interested in educational institutions > and archives, whose work is similar to ours. So we will be talking with > groups such as libraries, museums, and universities. Many smart people > have grappled with these issues, and we are looking forward to hearing > how they have handled them. We also know that our context is unique, and > the outcome will need to be suited to us: our mission, goals, values and > editorial practices. > > Are you doing this because you're worried about the media, or donors? > > No. The board is doing this because we've agreed that getting more > information about other approaches to the issue is the right thing to > do. We want to be thoughtful and responsible, and we think it's worth > putting some focused effort against this issue. We may be wrong about > that (and it's true that some board members feel more strongly about it > than others). We want to do what is best in terms of advancing the > mission and meeting the needs of all the world's readers and contributors. > > Has the Board or Foundation actively done anything on the projects to > remove explicit content? Has any illegal material been found or deleted? > > Although the Foundation would remove any illegal content if it were > necessary, it has not needed to do so--the task of removing this kind of > material generally falls to our volunteers first, who watch the latest > changes and additions to our projects. However, project policies often > include editorial considerations in addition to legal considerations; > just because an image is within the bounds of the law does not > necessarily mean it falls within the project scope, and individual > members have removed content they believed was outside of project policies. > > The Wikimedia community has engaged in thoughtful policy development > around these issues for many years. Why is there a need for a top-down > process now? > > It's true that the community has had many good policy discussions about > these issues, dating to the earliest days of Wikipedia. Ultimately, we > think those discussions may have been constrained in ways that aren't > ideal. First, discussions about policy tend to be project-centric, > rather than addressing the interests of the Wikimedia movement as a > whole. That means they typically aren't very informed by a > bigger-picture view (for example, the experiences of other projects, > other communities, other websites, other educational initiatives), in > part because there typically aren't resources dedicated to getting that > information. And, some types of policy change (for example, those with > technology implications) may be abandoned early, because community > members know technical support is hard to come by. We're hoping that > this process will help us to have a broader conversation about the topic > than might otherwise be possible. > > Who wrote this Q and A, and who is its intended audience? > > The first draft of this Q and A was written by Jay and Sue for the > board, based on the text of the resolution, and Sue's understanding of > the consensus that had been achieved by the board over the past several > months. Individual board members requested various revisions, and new > versions of the draft were recirculated over several days. The main > audience is the Wikimedia community, and the goal is to articulate the > board's position as completely as possible. > > --Michael Snow > > _______________________________________________ > Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Foundation-L, the public mailing list about the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects. For more information about Foundation-L: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ > WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list > WikimediaAnnounce-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l > > >

3 2

[Foundation-l] Gmail - List messages flagged as spam
by Ryan Lomonaco 24 Jun '10

24 Jun '10

A housekeeping note: Gmail has been marking some list messages as spam for the past five days or so. It sounds like this is affecting other Wikimedia lists, including Otrs-en-l and daily-article-l. I don't know what if any work has been done to try to fix this issue, but until it's sorted out, you might need to watch your spam folders for list posts. Thanks, Ryan -- [[User:Ral315]]

19 20

[Foundation-l] Donation of Encyclopedic Entries on Famous Poems
by Jeffrey Peters 22 Jun '10

22 Jun '10

Dear List, My name is Jeffrey Peters, a professional researcher who is currently working on my dissertation (dealing with Romantic poetry) and in addition Masters in Classical Lit. I am writing to you today to announce the donation of two fully written pages on two important poems of the English language: Wordsworth's *Ode: Intimations of Immortality* and Coleridge's *Kubla Khan*. Their current pages are almost stub level and contain many errors and problems. Both rewrites/expansions can be found on Simple Wikipedia, a project that is noble and deserves more involvement by the community as a whole: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ottava_Rima/Ode:_Intimations_of_Immor… http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ottava_Rima/Kubla_Khan The above are works of love, and I dedicated dozens of hours at multiple DC university libraries compiling research that, as far as I can tell, cannot be found elsewhere in such a complete and concise form in print or on the internet. I have provided my time and abilities to produce the page for the betterment of the WMF and Wikipedia as a whole. I do so because of four individuals who have inspired me over the last year: Jimbo Wales (for his dedication to the idea of a free and complete encyclopedia), Samuel Klein (for his dedication to the projects and valiant effort to ensure high quality), Cary Bass (for the massive amount of time he puts in ensuring that volunteers are able to succeed), and Philippe Beaudette (for striving to make the WMF more academic friendly). Previously, I donated the material for Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard but I did not compile one whole page with every aspect but included material in a piecemeal fashion. This did not work as well as I hoped, so I put in the additional effort to ensure that the pages can be considered "complete", though they may need additional minor copyedits to remove any final errors. I hope that my donation today will aid Wikipedia's continuing quest to provide a free and educational encyclopedia, and I hope that the level of effort and critical eye, to an extent that appears unrivaled in any current poetry page (even in my previous works), will attract more people to Wikipedia who shall do the same. Sincerely, Jeffrey Peters aka Ottava Rima

9 14

Re: [Foundation-l] Donation of Encyclopedic Entries on Famous Poems
by randallparr5000＠aol.com 22 Jun '10

22 Jun '10

THANK YOU . RANDY R. PARR HAVE A NICE D. -----Original Message----- From: Samuel Klein <meta.sj(a)gmail.com> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Sent: 21-Jun-2010 23:26:13 +0000 Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Donation of Encyclopedic Entries on Famous Poems On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 8:05 PM, Jeffrey Peters <17peters(a)cardinalmail.cua.edu> wrote: > Dear List, > > My name is Jeffrey Peters, a professional researcher who is currently > working on my dissertation (dealing with Romantic poetry) and in addition > Masters in Classical Lit. I am writing to you today to announce the donation > of two fully written pages on two important poems of the English language: > Wordsworth's *Ode: Intimations of Immortality* and Coleridge's *Kubla Khan*. > Their current pages are almost stub level and contain many errors and > problems. Both rewrites/expansions can be found on Simple Wikipedia, a > project that is noble and deserves more involvement by the community as a > whole: > > http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ottava_Rima/Ode:_Intimations_of_Immor… > > http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ottava_Rima/Kubla_Khan Delightful. Thank you, Jeffrey - I hope you don't mind them being used to update en:wp as well. And I agree that Simple Wikipedia deserves more involvement from the community as a whole, and from expert writers in particular. SJ _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

1 0

Re: [Foundation-l] Encouraging participation
by James Heilman 21 Jun '10

21 Jun '10

To attract academics this is and must be viewed as a serious endeavor. Yes some aspects such as reverting vandalism could have a fun twist applied to them but the creation of content must remain simple and serious. Wikipedia already has a problem with its image regarding credibility. Things that would affect Wikipedia's image must be carefully considered. I personally do not need further distraction while I edit. Medpedia http://www.medpedia.com/ has more of a facebook appearance to it and for that among other reasons I will not contribute their. We need to keep our goal of writing an encyclopedia first and foremost. -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, B.Sc.

6 8

[Foundation-l] interesting article on anonymous internet posting (and <3 for Erik)
by James Alexander 21 Jun '10

21 Jun '10

First so that I don't do a separate email on the subject Thank you Erik for getting a hold of google :) I found an interesting article that was in the Boston Globe Magazine this weekend about anonymous posting on the internet. The article focuses on those who post on Boston.com but I obviously jumped to comparing it to us (myopic perhaps?) . I actually think it's a better article on the subject then I've seen for a while with some good video as well. http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/magazine/articles/2010/06/20/inside_the_m… James Alexander james.alexander(a)rochester.edu jamesofur(a)gmail.com

1 0

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
...
12
Older →

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Wikimedia-l June 2010