Wikimedia-l August 2010

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

140 participants
80 discussions

[Foundation-l] Organization on Wikipedia that deals with content issues.
by James Heilman 12 Aug '10

12 Aug '10

A Committee to Deal with Content Issues Wikipedia does not seem to have any formal arbitration committee that deals with content. I have been involved in a number of cases in which such a committee would be exceedingly useful ( ADHD, Rorschach test, abortion, etc.). Currently I am involved in a dispute regarding the interpretation of the literature regarding Transcendental Meditation (TM) which has been going on for years. There are about 5 editors who admit to being practitioner of TM and only or mainly edit the subject area of TM. They have been using Wikipedia to promote this organization / religion. As they have been reasonably polite no actions were taken during the recent Arbitration case and ArbCom stated that it does not feel they should / are able to address content issues. An RfC was filled with a couple of comments however the TMers felt that the comments were uninformed, insufficiently numerous, and therefore not relevant. An RfC is also not binding and has no method for enforcement. These editors have been taking turns reverting changes they disagree with. The question is should Wikipedia be written by those who are interested in writing a well referenced work of knowledge or by special interests who wish to push a particular point of view. Wikipedia currently does not have an effective method to deal with these types of special interest groups who are set on promotion or advertising. If Wikipedia is ever going to become well respected by academia it needs effective measures to deal with these sort of issue. -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, B.Sc.

6 8

Re: [Foundation-l] Participation in Wikimania 2011
by Moushira Elamrawy 11 Aug '10

11 Aug '10

On 8/11/10, Mathias Schindler <mathias.schindler(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Abbas Mahmoud <abbasjnr(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> Not only the Middle East, but the Muslim population at large will not dare >> step into Israeli soil. > > Hey, isn't this already progress when they acknowledge the soil to be Israeli? :) It is difficult to avoid politics, but we need to try. I am not sure if a sarcastic or aggressive tone will be of help within the discussion. Andrea was correct when he expressed his fears of posting his email :) M > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >

1 0

[Foundation-l] Partecipation in Wikimania 2011
by Harel Cain 11 Aug '10

11 Aug '10

Israel is well aware of this situation, and offers the special possibility of stamping not the passport but a separate page on entry and exit, for any visitor that requests it (Westerners who work/travel to countries like Iran will not want an Israeli stamp on their passport). As to visiting Israel being socially unacceptable in some societies, or a good reason for being harassed by one's own government, this is a very regrettable fact of Middle East politics, but totally not within the organizing team's sphere of influence. The only thing we can do about it is hand out "Don't photograph me" labels or anonymous name tags to participants who want them, much like happened in WM2007 in Taipei (for some visitors from the PR of China). Harel Cain Wikimania 2011 team > Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 17:26:09 +0300 > From: moushirah at gmail.com > To: foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Partecipation in Wikimania 2011 > > Abbas: Let us not generalize; it is a complex and complicated matter > about the will/ability to visit Israel if you happen to be a resident > of an Arab or Muslim nation. > > I believe the "difficulty" of getting a visa varies from one country > to another, but even with the help of the bidding team, an issue will > remain unresolved, that is: Some countries do not allow persons with > an Israeli stamp on their passports, to enter their borders. The list > includes: Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria, UAE, Turkey ..and other > destinations. I am not sure if there are exceptions for this rule in > those countries. It is a complicated situation on political and > ethical levels. > Maybe it remains a personal choice of the participant whether to make > it Haifa or not. > > M -- Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

2 1

[Foundation-l] The Signpost – Volume 6 Issue 32 – 9 August 2010
by Wikipedia Signpost 10 Aug '10

10 Aug '10

1 0

Re: [Foundation-l] Organization on Wikipedia that deals with content issues.
by James Heilman 09 Aug '10

09 Aug '10

To address the comments made. The mediation committee does not have formal means of enforcement. This is something maybe we should look at creating. What is needed is a group of people who actively research the topic and come to a tentative and enforceable conclusion. The mediation committee is described as the counterpart to ArbCom but seems to be without teeth. While my experience is mainly with the English Wikipedia the same issues seem to arise in other languages. During the debate over including images of the Rorschach ink blots on Wikipedia the same debate was going on in many other languages. What we have is the occasional small group that unreasonably pushes a one sided promotional point of view to the detriment of the encyclopedia. They often edit on only a single subject area and take up a great deal of resources of editors who are trying to write an encyclopedia. One can go to a number of different places and get a couple of users to comment but none of these comments are ever binding and in a number of debates I have been involved in have been dismissed as uninformed. What is needed is a "finding of facts" not related to user behaviour but content after a review of the literature. These interpretations with discussion would than be implemented until which time the literature on the subject matter changes. This would allow people to resume productive editing rather than going around in circles for sometimes years generating millions of bits of text and spending hundreds of hours. -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, B.Sc.

2 1

[Foundation-l] Stewards acting locally
by Aaron Adrignola 09 Aug '10

09 Aug '10

It is irritating to continually see stewards making local blocks at the English language Wikibooks with the comment "crosswiki abuse <! --globally locked[1]; about bot[2]-- >". This has been occurring since March. In every case I've checked the user in question has a unified account and in nearly all cases they have not made any edits locally, much less done anything for a local block. If there are cross-wiki issues, their account should be locked as is already the case, but the making of these local blocks on top of that is counter to what I've come to expect. English Wikibooks has a dozen admins, with about half active. Stewards will not rename users there because there are local bureaucrats and they will not CU users there because there are local CheckUsers. Why are they making local blocks when there are administrators? These weren't local emergencies because, as stated above, in nearly every case there were no edits. I don't expect that they are aware of local policies and with the exception of one steward, none of them have been made local admins. English Wikibooks opted in to global sysops, but in none of these cases were the people blocking members of such a group; even if they were, the block would have to be for local disruption. Local blocking by stewards for accounts that have already been globally locked is not only redundant, but undermines local project autonomy. Please stop. --User:Adrignola [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/SH#lock [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:StewardBot

7 10

Re: [Foundation-l] Call for Volunteers: Wikimedia Research Committee
by Gregory Kohs 07 Aug '10

07 Aug '10

Gerard M. says: Dear Greg, This is not about criticism but about research. With respect I have not seen your research papers, I am not aware of your credentials that would make you a choice to be considered for being part of a research committee. Given that the work of the committee includes work on policies that have to do with access to confidential data, it seems to me only natural that your status as being banned from several Wikis is an other reason why you are easily disqualified from participating in a research committee. At that you have had your "test" several times and as a result you are a known entity. Thanks, GerardM ++++++++++++++++++++ Allow me to make you aware of my credentials, Gerard, since you asked "with respect". I'm the Director of Market Research for a company valued at $52 billion. I've been making a living with market research for 18 years now. One of my co-authored research papers was published in a scientific journal supplement: http://www.ajronline.org/cgi/data/183/3/DC1/1 I've written a white paper about research for public relations: http://www.icrsurvey.com/docs/MR%20for%20PR.doc For the more casual reader, I've maintained an occasional blog on research since 2005: http://insidemr.blogspot.com/ And, I've conducted numerous informal but systematic research studies about Wikimedia properties: http://www.mywikibiz.com/Wikipedia_Vandalism_Study http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/watcher/<http://toolserver.org/%7Emzmcbride/watcher/> (You'll have to ask around about that one.) http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Survey_about_Wikipedia (Currently, a bit slow-going on the analysis, due to editing parameters imposed on the Wikiversity community by Jimmy Wales) I am curious about this "access to confidential data" of which you speak. This presupposes that other members of the vast Wikimedia community do currently have access to this confidential data. Have they been vetted in some way that you can be assured that they won't do something with that data more monstrous than what I would ever do with such data? I'm trusted with confidential customer account data by a $52 billion company. ****************** Meanwhile, D. Gerard says: Trolling blogs probably isn't the best resume item, no. HTH! ****************** No, it's probably not, if only I were "trolling". Hope that helps! --- Greg

3 2

[Foundation-l] Fwd: [Internal-l] Pre-Strategy Finalization Goals Survey (Community)
by Sue Gardner 07 Aug '10

07 Aug '10

Hi folks, I sent this to an internal Wikimedia mailing list earlier today to surface any bugs, and it seems to be working fine. So, please do fill out this survey, if you've got time :-) Thanks, Sue ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: <susanpgardner(a)gmail.com> Date: 6 August 2010 02:00 Subject: [Internal-l] Pre-Strategy Finalization Goals Survey (Community) To: Internal-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org If you have trouble viewing or submitting this form, you can fill it out online: https://spreadsheets2.google.com/viewform?formkey=dHR2NU5OLUlNR3hCcFBrN3JLU… Pre-Strategy Finalization Goals Survey (Community) Hi folks, Forgive cross-posting to multiple lists, and please feel free to share this e-mail with others. As you know, the strategy plan is nearing finalization: it'll be presented to the board for final approval in October. The last big piece of work prior to its completion is the finalization of goals, measures of success and targets. Some background: Goals, measures of success and targets are in development here http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Plan/Movement_Priorities. They'll continue to iterate over the next few weeks, and will be presented to the board for final approval at the end of August. You can influence them by editing that page, but this survey is designed to give you an additional, different way to give input. Similar surveys have been sent to the staff, and to board members. I'll see the survey results, as will Erik, Barry, Danese, Zack, Veronique and the board, and your responses will be taken into account as the plan is finalized. Couple of quick points: * The survey is anonymous; * Questions are skippable; * Google Docs doesn't seem to have any safeguards against spamming. But please just fill out the survey once :-) * If you want to fill it out, please try to do so before August 15. Thanks, Sue The current strategy plan calls for nearly doubling global unique visitors in the next five years. Choose the response that best reflects your view. - That goal is completely attainable, and might even happen without any particular action; - That goal is completely attainable by the Wikimedia Foundation, and doesn't require any special effort from community members beyond what is already happening; - That goal is completely attainable, if the Wikimedia Foundation and the Wikimedia community work hard to achieve it; - That goal is probably unattainable; - That goal is almost certainly unattainable; - Don't know / not sure. I think the 2010-2015 goals should be: - Fairly easily attainable; - Definitely attainable, but not necessarily easily; - Ambitious but possible; - Audacious and probably not attainable, but inspiring; - Don't know / not sure. In setting 2010-15 goals, I believe the Wikimedia Foundation should: - Create targets that are entirely within the control of the Wikimedia Foundation to influence; - Create targets that also rely upon efforts by others (i.e., editors) to be achieved; - Don't know / not sure. Select the statement that most closely matches your view: - Goal-setting for Wikimedia is straightforward: we know exactly what we want to do, and how to measure success; - Goal-setting for Wikimedia is difficult: we understand pretty well what we want to do, but the measures of success and actual targets are not obvious. However, I believe we can set good goals, measures and targets now, and we should NOT need to change them much during the next five years; - Goal-setting for Wikimedia is difficult. We should set goals now, but many measures and targets will be provisional, and we'll definitely need to REFINE them over the next five years, possibly radically; - Goal-setting for Wikimedia is difficult. We should set the goals, measures and targets that are straightforward, but we should NOT set targets for things we're still uncertain about. - Don't know / not sure. The primary purpose of setting goals is: - To create a shared understanding and alignment about what we're trying to do, publicly and with everyone; - To inspire people: to create an audacious target that everyone can get excited about and rally behind, including editors and donors; - To create accountability: if we don't reach our goals, we are not succeeding; - Don't know / not sure. If we exceed our goals, I will probably feel: - Thrilled; - Disappointed: that would tell me our goals weren't sufficiently challenging; - Don't know / not sure. If we don't meet our goals, I will probably feel: - Fine. Goals are meant to inspire/align: if we do good work but don't meet them, that's okay; - Unhappy. Goals are a serious commitment: if we don't meet them, that is bad; - Don't know / not sure. Select the statement that more closely matches your view: - Perfection is the enemy of the good. I would rather see us using imperfect measures than no measures at all; - Imperfect measures are a waste of time and energy. I would rather see us wait until we have good measures, rather than using measurements that are available today, but not very good; - Don't know / not sure. Below is a list of measures the Wikimedia Foundation is considering putting in place. For each, please rate its importance. Not important Somewhat important Important Critical Don't know / not sure Global unique visitors to all Wikimedia Foundation properties per month according to comScore Total number of active volunteer editors (>=5 edits/month) to all Wikimedia projects Retention of active volunteers Demographics of active volunteers (i.e., age, gender, nationality) Reader-submitted quality assessment results ("rate this article on a scale of one to five") Number of articles/media objects/resources in different languages Uptime of all key services Availability of secure off-site copies of all Wikimedia project data and underlying software infrastructure Site performance in different geographies Financial stability as measured by months of cash on hand, size of reserves, number of donations annually Number of community-originating gadgets, tools, and MediaWiki extensions in production use in Wikimedia projects Regular availability of up-to-date snapshots and archives of all public data to researchers There are some areas in which the Wikimedia Foundation would like to track progress, but it isn't easy to figure out what to measure, or how to measure it. For each item below, please indicate whether it seems to you to be: 1) IMPORTANT: definitely worth the effort to define and track, or 2) LESS IMPORTANT: probably not worth the effort to define and track. Important Less Important Don't know / not sure Measure of Reach: Reach of Wikimedia content among people with no or limited connectivity Measure of Quality: Expert article assessments Measure of innovation: Number of community-originating gadgets, tools, and MediaWiki extensions in production use in Wikimedia projects Assessment of research community health: Thriving environment of research and dialog regarding the social and technical aspects of Wikimedia content and communities Are there other measures that you think are important and should be tracked, that are not listed here? If so, please write them in. Are there any other comments or input you would like to provide with regard to the goal-setting for the strategy plan? If so, please write it in. Any comments on this survey? If so, please write them in. Is there anything else you'd like to say? If so, please write it in. Powered by Google Docs <http://docs.google.com> Report Abuse<https://spreadsheets2.google.com/reportabuse?formkey=dHR2NU5OLUlNR3hCcFBrN3…>- Terms of Service <http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS> - Additional Terms<http://www.google.com/google-d-s/terms.html> _______________________________________________ Internal-l mailing list Internal-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-l -- Sue Gardner Executive Director Wikimedia Foundation 415 839 6885 office 415 816 9967 cell Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

3 2

[Foundation-l] Mini update on sexual content discussions
by private musings 06 Aug '10

06 Aug '10

G'day all, I hope it's appropriate to cross-post this to both commons and foundation lists - it seems so to me, and no doubt if there's a courtesy or practice I'm unaware of, someone will be kind enough to point it out :-) (rude words and nasty comments are ok, but it's better if they rhyme.) Discussions at the meta page where Robert Harris is posing some related questions is gently dying down - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_C… and over on commons we're approaching another poll about whether to adopt the 'sexual content' policy proposal - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Another_poll.… What appears to be the largest point of discussion extant is whether or not media featuring sexual content should contain at least an assertion that all of the participants consent to the upload / publishing of the material - you can see some folk arguing that we shouldn't apply such a condition retrospectively, and maybe not at all - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Automatic_del… I believe consent is desirable across the board in regard to sexual content, and would like to see this sort of wording ratified as policy - http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Sexual_content&oldid… The discussions are actually pretty substantial, civil, useful, and generally better than we've managed in the past, and of course the more outside views on the matter, the better - so if you're at all inclined to share your thoughts on the commons specific side of how WMF handles sexual content, please do pipe up, either ahead of, or as part of the upcoming poll.... cheers, Peter, PM.

2 1

[Foundation-l] Comments about Wikipedia on Reddit
by Nikola Smolenski 06 Aug '10

06 Aug '10

Not sure if this is the right list, however, at http://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/cxq4i/who_here_actually_contribu… a number of people are reporting on their Wikipedia experiences, so I believe reading them may offer useful insights.

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Wikimedia-l August 2010