Hi all,
I just posted an update on the appeals we ran last week on meta:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2011#A_week_of_new_appeals_Decem…
These people have some pretty amazing stories, you should give them a read.
Thanks,
Megan
--
Megan Hernandez
Head of Annual Fundraiser
Wikimedia Foundation
Hello everyone,
As you may have heard, a little while ago some organizers of Wiki Loves
Monuments 2011 came together in a rainy and cold Amsterdam to evaluate
the 2011 edition, and kick off documentation for 2012. We would like to
share some of the results of our meeting with you.
The first and most important information is:
* There is going to be a Wiki Loves Monuments in 2012 -- and if there is
interest, we are going global!
We would like to get a feeling of in how many countries there would be
people potentially interested in organizing a Wiki Loves Monuments
nationally; but firstly, let us start with the basics.
Wiki Loves Monuments is a photo contest organized in 2010 and 2011 in,
respectively, the Netherlands and in Europe. The contest asks the
general audience to upload pictures of monumental/historical sites and
buildings during September. It has a federal structure and is organised
separately in every participating country by the local people who know
how things work in their area; best photos from all countries are
nominated for an international contest.
In 2011 this contest was very successful, with more than 165.000 photos
of monuments in 18 participating countries submitted in total. This was
possible thanks to the hard work of hundreds of volunteers in those
countries who helped organise Wiki Loves Monuments in one way or
another. The winning pictures have been published on
<http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu> and on Wikimedia Commons:
<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2011_winners>.
Besides the wonderful direct impact on the overall quality and coverage
of heritage and culture topics, Wiki Loves Monuments is a fantastic
opportunity to reach some of our important goals: we had a participation
of over 4.000 new users who created the first ever community-driven
contribution peak on Wikimedia Commons
(<http://stats.wikimedia.org/reportcard/#new_editors_per_month>); we
have also helped in establishing cooperation between Wikimedia groups &
chapters and some of their local cultural institutions and organisations
in several countries.
Would you be interested in organizing a Wiki Loves Monuments in 2012 in
your country? Would you like to know more? Find all the details at
<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2012>.
We have put together some information there for you -- and much more
will follow soon.
We would also like you to join our public mailing list where everyone is
welcome to ask any questions about the details on how to organise a Wiki
Loves Monuments in your country. This is a place where many organizers
of 2011 are already on and we will use that as our main channel for
communications and information dispersion in 2012. Be bold and sign up
for the list at
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments>.
So, please speak up if you're interested!
Best regards,
Lodewijk, Maarten & Tomasz (on behalf of so many others)
https://www.youtube.com/user/WikiRiffs
This guy is a singer/songwriter who writes songs and puts them on
YouTube based on random Wikipedia articles.
He's put out a video today asking people for donations to the
Foundation, and noting that all profits he makes from his songs until
the end of 2012 will be going to the WMF.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFpPpMpopV8
Which is pretty cool. ;-)
--
Tom Morris
<http://tommorris.org/>
Today the Wikimedia Foundation posted an important update on how the Stop
Online Piracy Act (SOPA) legislation being considered in DC this week
threatens an open and free web, and particularly how it threatens Wikipedia.
The post is authored by WMF's General Counsel, Geoff Brigham, and can be
found here:
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/12/13/how-sopa-will-hurt-the-free-web-and-wi…
We encourage everyone to broadly share this information among our volunteer
community, throughout your networks, and wherever an audience passionate
about protecting the free and open web can be found.
Thanks,
--
Jay Walsh
Head of Communications
WikimediaFoundation.orgblog.wikimedia.org
+1 (415) 839 6885 x 6609, @jansonw
The Wikimedia Foundation is happy to announce the release of the 2010-11
Annual Report, which is now posted on the WMF Wiki at
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Annual_Report
>From here you can download a high and lo res PDF of the report, or go right
to the meta-hosted wiki version. And for the first time, you can access
translated 'summary' reports in 6 languages. Printed copies are being
worked on right now (proofs being developed) and copies should be in the
WMF office next week.
This year we considerably expanded our multi-lingual effort by adding 6
translated 'summary' reports in Arabic, Japanese, French, German,
Portugese, and Spanish. It's our first really visible multi-lingual
communications product, and it took some serious coordination to time
translation, design, production and wiki publishing.
This year's report focusses on global celebrations around Wikipedia 10, our
emerging work in India, the global education program, our mobile expansion
efforts, and on our major engineering/product accomplishments and
ambitions. We center the book around the amazing Arab Spring article,
highlighting the inspiring quote from Wael Ghonim 'Our revolution is like
Wikipedia...'
The report is as much a story of the work and activities of our
international community as it is a traditional report on the work of WMF
through the year. We hope it's not construed as a report focussed on the
work of WMF staff, rather a wide-ranging review of the work of chapters,
volunteers, partners - individuals and other kinds of volunteers. We aim
to enlighten the reader with the incredible range of activity and
innovation in our movement - to take them beyond the idea that Wikipedia is
simply text living on the web and show them a thriving and dynamic
community.
We also hope that the report can find an audience in those completely new
to our projects and our movement. It should enlighten and deepen someone's
understanding of what this world is about - spurning (requiring!) that they
join us - whether as an editor, donor, partner or even employee.
We open the book with the declaration 'the way the world tells its story' -
an idea the report production team was fascinated by. Wikipedia grown to
become the default place where all people are welcome to share their
history, geography, cultures - the story of the world. The Arab Spring
article stands in the center of this metaphor, a page that took shape in
this extraordinary year and helped millions of people around the world
develop a deeper, neutral, and timely understanding of the events that have
changed the middle east and the world forever.
As always, we welcome your comments and suggestions. You can add comments
along with the community on the meta wiki talk pages.
Many thanks to the report production team: Tilman Bayer, design strategist
David Peters, and our story consultant David Weir. Our communications
intern AJ was also a big help. Mostly we owe huge thanks to the Wikimedians
who made and shared the beautiful imagery in the book by posting it to
Commons. This is an ambitious, 100% fueled-by-free-works project. I'd like
to think it's one of the more unique and successful free culture printed
works out there - and it wouldn't be possible without our community.
Thanks and enjoy!
--
Jay Walsh
Head of Communications
WikimediaFoundation.orgblog.wikimedia.org
+1 (415) 839 6885 x 6609, @jansonw
I’d like to give everybody on this list some information on the Berkman/Sciences Po research project that many of you have been discussing here.
On Thursday the Wikimedia Foundation announced the launch of a banner to support a study led by a team at the Berkman Center/Sciences Po and recruiting participants from the English Wikipedia editor community [1]. The banner was taken down within hours of its launch after concerns raised in various community forums (the Admin Noticeboard [2], the Village Pump Tech [3], various IRC channels and mailing lists such as foundation-l [4] and internal-l [5]) that the design was confusing, that it was perceived as a commercial ad and that the community approval process and privacy terms were unclear and hardly visible.
Here’s what happened until the launch, what went wrong after the launch and what we are planning to do next.
==The prequel==
This proposal went through a long review process, involving community forums, the Research Committee and various WMF departments since early 2010.
The Berkman research team first approached WMF to discuss this study in January 2010. They suggested a protocol to recruit English Wikipedia contributors to participate in an early version of this study by March 2010 and posted a proposal to the Administrators’ noticeboard to get community feedback [6]. The community response at that time opposed the proposed recruitment protocol (posting individual invitation messages on user talk pages). It was suggested instead that the recruitment should be handled through a CentralNotice banner to be displayed to registered editors, but concerns were raised on how to minimize the disruption.
To address these concerns, the proposal went through a full review with the Wikimedia Research Committee, that was completed in July 2011. The RCom evaluated the methods, the recruitment strategy, the language used in the survey and approved the proposal pending a final solution for the recruitment taking into account the concerns expressed by the community [7].
Based on suggestions made by community members (e.g. [8]) the research team started to work on a technical solution to selectively display a banner to a subset of registered editors of the English Wikipedia meeting certain eligibility conditions. WMF agreed to invest engineering effort into a system that would allow CentralNotice to serve contents to a specific set of editors – functionality that would benefit future campaigns run by the community, chapters or the Foundation [9] [10].
A new CentralNotice backend was then designed to look up various editor metrics (i.e. number of contributions, account registration date and editor privileges) – all public information available from our database – and to perform a participant eligibility check against these metrics. A banner would then be displayed to eligible participants, posting the above data (user ID + editor metrics) along with a unique token to the server hosting the survey upon clicking. On the landing page of the survey, participants would have the possibility to read the privacy terms of the survey and decide whether to take it or not.
Throughout the review process of this recruitment protocol, the research team received constant feedback from the Foundation’s legal team, the community department, the tech department and the communication team before the campaign went live.
The campaign was announced in the CentralNotice calendar one month before its launch [11] and the launch was with a post on the Foundation’s blog. The banner was enabled on December 8 at 11:00pm UTC. 800+ participants completed the study within a few hours since its launch. The banner was then taken down by a meta-admin a few hours after the launch due to the concerns described above.
So what went wrong?
==A few explanations we owe you==
• Is the Foundation running ads?
No, this banner is a recruitment campaign for a research project that has been thoroughly reviewed by the Research Committee. We have a long tradition of supporting recruitment for research about our communities via various sitenotices. The methodology of this project is sound and the recruitment method less invasive than thousands of individual messages posted on user talk pages. We believe this research will help advance our understanding of the dynamics of participation in our projects. Receiving support by the Research Committee implies that all published output and anonymized data produced by this study will be made available under open licenses. [12] The banner also received full Wikimedia Foundation approval before its launch.
• Is this campaign conflicting with the fundraiser?
No, this banner is running only for a subset of logged-in editors for whom the main fundraiser campaign has already been taken down. We carefully timed this campaign to minimize the impact on the fundraiser and we scheduled it on the CentralNotice calendar with a month notice for this reason.
• Is this campaign running at 100% on the English Wikipedia?
No, the banner has been designed to target a subsample of the English Wikipedia registered editor population. Based on estimates by the research team, the eligibility criteria apply to about 10,000 very active contributors and about 30,000 new editors of the English Wikipedia. The target number of completed responses is 1500.
• Why does the banner include logos of organizations not affiliated with Wikimedia?
The design of the banner was based on the decision to give participants as much information as possible about the research team running the project and to set accurate expectations about the study.
==What we are doing now==
We realize that despite an extensive review, the launch of this project was not fully advertised on community forums. We plan to shortly resume the campaign (for the time needed by the researchers to complete their responses) after a full redesign of the recruitment protocol in order to address the concerns raised by many of you over the last 24 hours. Here’s what we are doing:
• Provide you with better information about the project
We asked the research team to promptly set up a FAQ section on the project page on Meta [13], and to be available to address any concern about the study on the discussion page of this project. The project page on Meta will be linked from the recruitment banner itself.
• Redesign the banner
We understand that the banner design has been interpreted by some as ad-like (even if the goal was to make clear that this study was not being run by WMF, as it implied a redirection to a third party website for performing the experiment). In coordination with the research team, we will come up with a banner design that will be more in line with the concerns expressed by the community (for instance by removing the logos from the banner).
• Make privacy terms as transparent as possible
Upon clicking on the banner, participants accept to share their username, edit count and user privileges with the research team. The previous version didn’t make it explicit and we are working to address this problem. To make the process totally transparent we will make the acceptance of these terms explicit in the banner itself.
Once redirected to the landing page, participants will have to accept the terms of participation in order to enter the study. The project is funded by the European Research Council: the data collected in this study is subject to strict European privacy protocols. The research team will use this data for research purposes only. The research team is not exposed to and does not record participants’ IP addresses.
==How you can help==
We would like to hear from you on the redesign of the banner to make sure it meets the expectations of the community and doesn’t lend itself to any kind of confusion. We will post the new banners to Meta and try to address all pending questions before we resume the campaign.
This is one of the first times we’re supporting a complex, important research initiative like this one, and I apologize for the bumps in the road. We believe that supporting research is part of our mission: it helps advance our understanding of ourselves. So thanks again for all support you can give in making this a success.
Dario Taraborelli
Senior Research Analyst, Wikimedia Foundation
[1] http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/12/08/experiment-decision-making/
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incide…
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29#Search_…
[4] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-December/070742.html
[5] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/private/internal-l/2011-December/018842…
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archiv…
[7] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Dynamics_of_Online_Interaction…
[8] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-May/065580.html
[9] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-May/065558.html
[10] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CentralNotice_banner_guidelines
[11] http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=CentralNotice/Calendar&oldid=30…
[12] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Subject_recruitment
[13] meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Dynamics_of_Online_Interactions_and_Behavi…
Thank you all for your support. The editors involved stirred up the pot
and learned something in the process. One of them had already been
warned about deleting content just for the fun of it, so this was
instructional for all. In looking through the threads, one of them
found one of my efforts, didn't like it and decided to traverse all the
content to which I had contributed (thus the appearance of a "vendetta")
This did bring up some very important issues that we all need to consider:
1. The recent past is also historically important. Events that occurred
less than 20 years ago in real time are already as remote in Internet
time as the times of the first Pharoahs of Egypt in real time.
2. We are already so used to online access to everything that the
concept of actually going to a library and digging through old
newspapers or memorabilia is alien to the young.
3. Efforts to preserve Silicon Valley's recent past by the Computer
History Museum, the Intel Museum, the Tech Museum, the now defunct Ampex
Museum, the Perham Collection at History San Jose (originally the
Foothill College Electronics Museum) and others need the kind of online
support that WP provides. WP contributors can help create a legacy for
coming generations by citing these resources, performing research using
their collections and writing commentary.
4. Many of us still have original documents from events in the recent
past. How can these be preserved so future historians will have source
material?
5. Many other locations in the world have had similar social changes -
how about a WM project that seeks to capture the pase before it vanishes
completely?
6. The captured past is already being lost by preservationists. I was
involved in an episodic performance arts web site launched in 1995 that
was included in the very first capture of the Internet by archives.org -
That capture has already vanished! (later ones are still present).
On 12/16/2011 3:34 PM, foundation-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 11:44:16 -0700 (MST)
> From: "Fred Bauder"<fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Subject: Re: Vendetta?
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <42740.66.243.192.69.1323974656.squirrel(a)webmail.fairpoint.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
>
>> > It isn't so much about having my stuff edited as it is that there seems
>> > to be a mindset among en.wp editors that stuff needs to be deleted
>> > unless they personally think it is important. We have a virtually
>> > infinite space in which to write and add to the body of knowledge, so
>> > why act as though it needs to be made smaller by applying some arbitrary
>> > criterion?
>> >
>> > I do not have that much free time to be arguing over trivialities - I'm
>> > trying to record history as it has happened from my perspective. If you
>> > don't like my objectivity then go do your own research and do some
>> > editing - don't go for a 1984 style darconian rewrite/deletion.
>> >
>> > Right now I'm spending all my free time wrestling with the article on
>> > "light bulb sockets", which I did not originate. It is difficult to talk
>> > about the sockets without bringing in all sorts of technical reasons why
>> > they are the way they are. I didn't throw out the originator's material
>> > - I've expanded it based on my experiences in the theatrical lighting
>> > industry. I'm sure someone will eventually want to edit the material and
>> > take the time to organize it a bit more. That is ok - it is what
>> > collaboration is all about.
> Our criteria are not arbitrary: notability is established by information
> published in generally reliable sources, see Wikipedia:Notability
>
> "history as it has happened from my perspective" sounds like original
> research.
>
> With respect to light bulb sockets one imagines there is a specialized
> literature, and many patents...
>
> Fred
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 14:04:48 -0500
> From: The Cunctator<cunctator(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Subject: Re: Vendetta?
> To:fredbaud@fairpoint.net, Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <CACOqVVv9k3ycrTkWeb76=y9oX1ZOk-+9dj=x0Tj9UYAKfeqLYQ(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> In other words, Wikipedia does not have space for what you find
> interesting. Sorry.
>
> On 12/15/11, Fred Bauder<fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net> wrote:
>>> >> It isn't so much about having my stuff edited as it is that there seems
>>> >> to be a mindset among en.wp editors that stuff needs to be deleted
>>> >> unless they personally think it is important. We have a virtually
>>> >> infinite space in which to write and add to the body of knowledge, so
>>> >> why act as though it needs to be made smaller by applying some arbitrary
>>> >> criterion?
>>> >>
>>> >> I do not have that much free time to be arguing over trivialities - I'm
>>> >> trying to record history as it has happened from my perspective. If you
>>> >> don't like my objectivity then go do your own research and do some
>>> >> editing - don't go for a 1984 style darconian rewrite/deletion.
>>> >>
>>> >> Right now I'm spending all my free time wrestling with the article on
>>> >> "light bulb sockets", which I did not originate. It is difficult to talk
>>> >> about the sockets without bringing in all sorts of technical reasons why
>>> >> they are the way they are. I didn't throw out the originator's material
>>> >> - I've expanded it based on my experiences in the theatrical lighting
>>> >> industry. I'm sure someone will eventually want to edit the material and
>>> >> take the time to organize it a bit more. That is ok - it is what
>>> >> collaboration is all about.
>> >
>> > Our criteria are not arbitrary: notability is established by information
>> > published in generally reliable sources, see Wikipedia:Notability
>> >
>> > "history as it has happened from my perspective" sounds like original
>> > research.
>> >
>> > With respect to light bulb sockets one imagines there is a specialized
>> > literature, and many patents...
>> >
>> > Fred
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > foundation-l mailing list
>> > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe:https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 12:41:13 -0700 (MST)
> From: "Fred Bauder"<fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Subject: Re: Vendetta?
> To:foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Message-ID:
> <48582.66.243.192.69.1323978073.squirrel(a)webmail.fairpoint.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
>
>> > In other words, Wikipedia does not have space for what you find
>> > interesting. Sorry.
> A summary of generally accepted knowledge is a foundation for creative
> new information. Wikipedia is a tool, a tool meant to be used and
> transcended.
>
> Fred
>
>
The Wikimedia Foundation is happy to announce the release of the 2010-11
Annual Report, which is now posted on the WMF Wiki at
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Annual_Report
>From here you can download a high and lo res PDF of the report, or go right
to the meta-hosted wiki version. And for the first time, you can access
translated 'summary' reports in 6 languages. Printed copies are being
worked on right now (proofs being developed) and copies should be in the
WMF office next week.
This year we considerably expanded our multi-lingual effort by adding 6
translated 'summary' reports in Arabic, Japanese, French, German,
Portugese, and Spanish. It's our first really visible multi-lingual
communications product, and it took some serious coordination to time
translation, design, production and wiki publishing.
This year's report focusses on global celebrations around Wikipedia 10, our
emerging work in India, the global education program, our mobile expansion
efforts, and on our major engineering/product accomplishments and
ambitions. We center the book around the amazing Arab Spring article,
highlighting the inspiring quote from Wael Ghonim 'Our revolution is like
Wikipedia...'
The report is as much a story of the work and activities of our
international community as it is a traditional report on the work of WMF
through the year. We hope it's not construed as a report focussed on the
work of WMF staff, rather a wide-ranging review of the work of chapters,
volunteers, partners - individuals and other kinds of volunteers. We aim
to enlighten the reader with the incredible range of activity and
innovation in our movement - to take them beyond the idea that Wikipedia is
simply text living on the web and show them a thriving and dynamic
community.
We also hope that the report can find an audience in those completely new
to our projects and our movement. It should enlighten and deepen someone's
understanding of what this world is about - spurning (requiring!) that they
join us - whether as an editor, donor, partner or even employee.
We open the book with the declaration 'the way the world tells its story' -
an idea the report production team was fascinated by. Wikipedia grown to
become the default place where all people are welcome to share their
history, geography, cultures - the story of the world. The Arab Spring
article stands in the center of this metaphor, a page that took shape in
this extraordinary year and helped millions of people around the world
develop a deeper, neutral, and timely understanding of the events that have
changed the middle east and the world forever.
As always, we welcome your comments and suggestions. You can add comments
along with the community on the meta wiki talk pages.
Many thanks to the report production team: Tilman Bayer, design strategist
David Peters, and our story consultant David Weir. Our communications
intern AJ was also a big help. Mostly we owe huge thanks to the Wikimedians
who made and shared the beautiful imagery in the book by posting it to
Commons. This is an ambitious, 100% fueled-by-free-works project. I'd like
to think it's one of the more unique and successful free culture printed
works out there - and it wouldn't be possible without our community.
Thanks and enjoy!
--
Jay Walsh
Head of Communications
WikimediaFoundation.orgblog.wikimedia.org
+1 (415) 839 6885 x 6609, @jansonw
_______________________________________________
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