Hi guys,
I just posted an update on the current editor appeal we're running. Take a
look: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2011
Thanks,
Megan
--
Megan Hernandez
Head of Annual Fundraiser
Wikimedia Foundation
Hi,
I just wanted to give anyone interested a heads up that we are holding an
IRC office hours this Sunday, December 4th at 22:00 UTC. This is about the
informal taskforce developing around the Special:FeedbackDashboard feature
that the WMF features team has developed for collecting new editor feedback
and getting it responses.
The feature is currently deployed on English Wikipedia and Dutch
Wikipedias, so please spread the word. Each community is in a different
place right now (EN has a taskforce with 35ish members, NL just has a
description page) but it would be great to have anyone interested in using
this feature join us.
- Office hours links: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours
- English Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:New_editor_feedback
- Dutch Wikipedia: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciaal:FeedbackDashboard
--
Steven Walling
Community Organizer at Wikimedia Foundation
wikimediafoundation.org
2011/12/1 Carol Moore <carolmooredc(a)verizon.net>
> On 11/29/2011 5:19 PM, emijrp wrote:
> >
> >
> > So, the first step would be to try and figure out if women are
> > visiting the site and not editing or just not visiting at all, before
> > saying nonsense about sexism and Wikipedia community.
>
> Fundraising from women is an interesting topic. You may think comments
> about sexism and the Wikipedia community are nonsense, but guess what.
> Women who take a lot of sexist nonsense AT wikipedia sure aren't going
> to donate TO wikipedia, are they?
>
> Also, since women in general are busier with work AND family
> responsibilities, so often the women who have the most time to edit are
> unemployed, disabled, retired or otherwise on limited incomes.
>
[citation needed]
Furthermore, editing Wikipedia only requires 30 minutes a day/week. I'm
sure all women waste more time watching TV. But watching TV is funnier for
most the people.
In the other hand, looks like women in all ages have time to waste in
Facebook
http://www.kenburbary.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Image1_thumb3.png And
gender balance is fifty-fifty.
Finally, if the reason for the low female editors proportion is time, how
can Wikipedia solve that? Are we going to pay to female editors for their
time?
> I can
> think of a few. Besides a ten spot here and a ten spot there, we can't
> give large amounts of money.
>
But there are women with big bucks out
> there giving lots to women-friendly organizations left and right. We
> must make Wikipedia women friendly to get their money.
>
You are wrong. To see donation banners and to donate only reading is
required, not editing. Are you going to say that only poor women read
Wikipedia?
By they way, making Wikipedia women friendly? What does that mean? Is that
a new politically correct science?
Better, make Wikipedia friendly to disabled people, the great forgotten
excluded people group. For example, blind people can't sign up because of
Wikipedia captcha (there is no sound captcha
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4845). That is a real
barrier which Wikimedia Foundation have to solve putting resources.
Where is the accessibility mailing list? Accessibility is a recommendation
by W3C since 1997, and we are in the top ten websites, as WMF likes to
boast.
> Anyway, putting down one of the main concerns of this list as nonsense
> is not helpful.
>
Sure. For your information, this mailing list is a insult to the real
excluded people.
>
> Thanks.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
We are currently discussing an evolving image filter proposal on the Meta
brainstorming page* that would give users the option of creating personal
filter lists (PFL). The structure and interactivity of these personal
filter lists would be comparable to those of editors' personal watchlists.
The way this would work is that each project page would have an "Enable
image filtering" entry in the side bar. Clicking on this would add a "Hide"
button to each image displayed on the page. Clicking on "Hide" would then
grey the image, and automatically add it to the user's personal filter list.
Any image added to the PFL in this way would appear greyed on any
subsequent visit to the page. It would also appear greyed on any other
project page where it is included, and (given an SUL account) any page
containing the image in any other Wikimedia project such as Commons itself
– including Commons search result listings. In each case, the user would
always retain the option of clicking on a "Show" button or the placeholder
itself to reveal the picture again, and simultaneously remove it from their
PFL. Of course, if they change their mind, they can add it right back
again, by clicking on "Hide" again. It would work like adding/removing
pages in one's watchlist.
Apart from enabling users to hide images and add them to their PFL as they
encounter them in surfing our projects, users would also be able to edit
the PFL manually, just as it is possible to edit one's watchlist manually.
In this way, they could add any image file or category they want to their
PFL. They could also add filter lists precompiled for them by a third
party. Such lists could be crowdsourced by people interested in filtering,
according to whatever cultural criteria they choose.
It became very clear during the discussions over the past few months that
tagging files for the personal image filter, or creating image filter
categories, was not something the community as a whole wanted to become
involved in – partly because of the work involved, partly because of the
arguments it would cause, and partly because it would not be possible to do
this truly neutrally, given different cultural standards of offensiveness.
Various people suggested that the Foundation do nothing, and leave the
creation of image filters to third parties altogether.
This proposal occupies a middle ground. The Foundation provides users with
the software capability to create and maintain personal filter lists, just
like it enables users to maintain watchlists, but it is then up to a
separate crowdsourcing effort by those who want to have a filter to find
ways of populating such lists. This is consistent with the overall
Wikimedia crowdsourcing approach, and a natural extension of it. Even if
this crowdsourcing effort should unexpectedly fail to take off, readers
will still gain the possibility of hiding images or media as they come
across them with a single click, with the assurance that they won't ever
see them again anywhere on our projects unless they really want to. That in
itself would be a net gain. Users who don't want to have anything to do
with filtering at all could switch any related screen furniture off in
their preferences, to retain the same surfing experience they have now.
Under this proposal, the entire informational infrastructure for filtering
would reside in readers' personal filter lists. The data structure of the
wiki itself does not change at all, just like adding pages to a personal
watchlist affects no one apart from the user whose watchlist it is. There
are no filter tags, no specially created filter categories, and no one has
to worry about defining, creating or maintaining them. The filter users do
that for themselves.
For unregistered users, their PFL could be stored in a cookie. However,
they would be encouraged to create an SUL account when they first enable
image filtering, so they can retain the same surfing experience even after
changing computers, or after accidentally deleting the cookie.
Andreas
*
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Brainstorming#Page-spe…
