(I originally sent this to WikiEn-l - but intended to send it here to
foundation-l... my email reader got confused..)
Hi Dario,
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.
>
This is not a good summary of the conclusions there at all; and it is
worrying that it has been read that way...
You seem to have taken that discussion as implicit approval to run a
CentralNotice banner - although that was certainly suggested as an option
at the time I think it was reasonably expected for further community input
later down the road. Certainly when I supported the suggestion of some sort
of targeted site notice I envisioned a text link, or something.
> 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.
>
But not the community?
> 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.
>
Again; not announced to the community. There was a clear an present
communication failure here.
> 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.
>
You need to tell this *to the community*. Otherwise the discussion will
simply strike up again once you re-enable it. I notice you posted this
exact same message to wikipedia-en-l. The lack of recent discussion on that
list should tell you how effective that is as a communication tool.
The vast majority of English Wikipedia discussion occurs on-wiki, and the
vast majority of editors prefer discussions to occur on-wiki. If you want
to interact with the community, and in this case I think you have to, then
you really have to do so on-wiki :)
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.
>
Most en.wiki editors don't hang out on Meta - and I think it is reasonable
not to expect them to. Especially as this is purely a project focused on
English Wikipedia; it needs to be discussed on English Wikipedia. If you
need help with the right places/protocol then I would be happy to oblige.
This once again highlights the huge disconnect between Wikipedians, the
foundations and the various higher level commitees. It's the same every
time - something big appears, the community get cross/upset/confused, the
foundation etc. express incredulity... and no one talks.
My final comment is this; I am fairly active around here. I am on
foundation-l, I read meta for important notices, and I am active on
en.wiki. And the first time I knew about this (since the Admin Noticeboard
discussion some months back) was when the banner appeared. So how anyone
else stood a chance of giving input I do not know :) Whilst much of the
discussion was public, it was "hidden". And the key failing here is in not
making it open and accessible.
Tom
The Berkman Center at Harvard and Science Po have a banner going,
inviting some logged-in users to participate in a research project on
game theory. An array of people have objected to it as "advertising";
some seem to see it as the first step along a path that will
ultimately lead to big T-Mobile popups or something, others as a
conflict with the no-advertising promise from the fundraising drive.
I don't see the problem, myself. There's no product, service or
commercial interest being advertised. It's for users who are logged
in, not all readers. People who choose to participate actually receive
money, which can then be donated to the IRC or Wikimedia. Yet other
objections are based on privacy concerns (over being redirected to a
third party website)... Such concerns are so overblown, I'm tempted to
advise those who raise them to switch off their cellphones and
disconnect their modems lest the Illuminati (or Fox News) use these
signals to remote into their brains. If I'm honest, I think most
people are just upset that someone didn't personally ask them first.
I'd be interested in hearing a reasonable explanation from the WMF or
someone involved in setting the banner up - how was the agreement
made, is there a policy for such things, how long will it run, how
many people will see it, on which projects, etc. etc. Right now the
conversation is being dominated by people who have a really narrow
range of views on the subject, and a little flame-retardant PR from
Philippe (for example) would do wonders.
~Nathan
Selected quotes:
"Yuck Advertisement :( So, it took us 11 years; but we do accept them
in the end. Anthere (talk) 5:32 am, Today (UTC−5)"
"You know my first thought when I saw it? That it was malware. That my
browser had been hijacked. Unlikely as that is browsing in Linux. My
second thought was that it was being inserted by rogue JavaScript on
the site. - David Gerard (talk) 7:53 am, Today (UTC−5)"
"I ... might actually be okay with [it] but I'm definitely not okay
with it just being slapped in there without my input. [...] Volunteer
Marek 2:26 am, Today (UTC−5)"
"The banner is spammy and should be removed ASAP. The situation is
made even worse due to the close relation Jimbo has with this group.
Giving them pride of place like this compromises our integrity and
should not be tolerated. The fact that this was snuck in without any
en.wiki consensus or discussion is shocking. ThemFromSpace 9:52 pm,
Yesterday (UTC−5)"
"I think it was certainly a very dick move to impose it on the
community - when the first proposal raised clear objections." Tom
Morton, wikimediauk-l 12/9 1:51AM UTC-5
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#Harvard.2FScience_Po_Adverts
[2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Dynamics_of_Online_Interaction…
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archiv…
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#A_quick_not…
[5] http://markmail.org/message/ejepphd2oqhvrnos?q=wikimediauk
Wikimedia Foundation fundraising is now making a misunderstanding about
Wikipedia. Some mass media report that WMF and WP is now encountering
financial difficulties so WMF urges public donation.[1][2][3] Well, I don't
know that is what WMF intended to say, but we need to let the public know
facts. If there is misunderstanding, we may need to make a press release.
----
Links (Korean)
[1] - http://news.donga.com/3/all/20111121/42046137/1
[2] - http://www.wikitree.co.kr/main/news_view.php?id=50747
[3] -
http://news.khan.co.kr/kh_news/khan_art_view.html?artid=201111201226491&cod…
--
김우진
Woojin Kim
014a7d988ba26e725507ba1a918f94629ef940647df4eb837d3977f356d4ce4bf543d5f4b90c4b5936004c7faa2d8d200ba415a4408d2876bc4bd76889196a46
The popular Russian blogger Artemy Lebedev [1] is known for changing
the title of his blog every few days. Usually it is a line from spam
emails. The current title is the translation into Russian of "We now
accept rubles (RUB)", most likely taken from the Wikipedia fundraising
banners.
Lebedev also happens to be a designer who created the ruble symbol; it
is not official yet, but used here and there.
[1] http://tema.livejournal.com/
--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
There was a lengthy discussion recently on en:WP at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#FAC…
about the fact that many featured articles – at least on en:WP – are about
niche topics, while so-called "vital articles" (VA), i.e. core topics that
any encyclopedia would be expected to cover well, are underperforming, with
comparatively few making FA or GA. Looking at the VA list,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VA
topic areas like philosophy, languages and social sciences seem to be doing
particularly poorly.
Generally speaking, it stands to reason that articles on niche topics are
easier to improve. One or two editors can work in relative peace and quiet,
and the number of sources is more manageable. If there are only two dozen
sources covering the topic, it's clear where to start; but where do you
start with a topic like Information technology?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_technology
After ten years, it's still a start-class article in en:WP, little more
than a stub really (though I note it is a featured article in Catalan
Wikipedia).
Do vital articles need a special approach to get them to FA standard,
perhaps with Foundation-sponsored outreach to universities, formation of
article improvement teams involving outside experts, and expert involvement
in the FAC (featured article candidate) assessment process? Or do we trust
that these articles will improve in time through the normal process of
editing?
What is VA quality like in other language versions of Wikipedia?
Andreas
Unless I'm missing something, his examples "morphed photos of Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh and Congress president Sonia Gandhi, as well as
pigs running through Islam's holy city of Mecca." sound like things that we
would not be using in Wikipedia articles, except if the morphed image had
gained sufficient notoriety that it merited an article, or at least a
section in the article on the magazine or cartoonist who'd created it.
Unless he casts his net wider I'm personally more concerned about the sort
of politicians who are prudish about nudity on the web and reluctant to
have information about evolution in the classrooms.
WSC
Message: 10
> Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 15:57:24 +0100
> From: Kim Bruning <kim(a)bruning.xs4all.nl>
> Subject: [Foundation-l] Indian Minister Kapil Sibal Wants to Censor
> social
> To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <20111206155724.A14225(a)bruning.lan>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> media.
> Reply-To:
>
> What to many appeared to be the abstractest of theory just
> a few months ago, is now becoming frightful reality :-(
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-16044554
>
> Kapil Sibal's position seems to be pretty much exactly in
> line with our projected concept of image filtering (he
> practically literally uses the term), except he then
> extends the line all the way into censorship territory,
> without further scrupules.
>
> If we had already gone ahead with the image filter as
> projected, we would be snookered by the time Kapil
> Sibal called our Indian office folks to his office.
>
> With an image filter in place -pretty much exactly to
> Indian Government specification right off the shelf- there
> would be no way to argue that such a thing was impossible,
> difficult, or unconscionable.
>
> We would have either been forced to censor some of our WM
> projects "You don't have enough image taggers for commons?
> I'm sure we can provide some", or withdraw from India.
> Since full-on censorship is intolerable, we would have been
> forced to withdraw.
>
> Now we (still) have clean hands, and (with a bit of luck) can
> probably put down a strong(er) argument that can weather
> any Indian govt attacks on NPOV, should they come. If we
> are careful, we can likely do so politely and assertively,
> without hurting too many people's feelings.
>
> (Also: seeing reporting on facebook and twitter activity, and
> having viewed pages from eg. Hindi Wikipedia, I do not
> believe that the Indian internet community shares Kapil
> Sibal's position. Though they'll have to speak for
> themselves, of course! :-)
>
>
>
> ... but -if we want to reach consensus[1]- what we really need to be
> discussing is: screwdrivers.
>
> sincerely,
> Kim Bruning
>
No, we need to harden the wall agaist all attacks by hammers, screwdrivers and drills.
We have consensus: Wikipedia should not be censored.
> Scattered pieces of the puzzle globe.
The WMF is still trying to scatter it in favour of ???
--
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter.
We are a community of 7 million users fighting spam.
SPAMfighter has removed 4955 of my spam emails to date.
Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len
The Professional version does not have this message
WMF is now seeking fellowship applicants and project ideas for the
Community Fellowships Program. Community members from all Wikimedia
projects and all languages are strongly encouraged to apply by the deadline
of January 15th 2012.
Wikimedia Community Fellows are spearheading community projects,
undertaking research, and piloting new models for engagement to help scale
and increase sustainability of volunteer work in the Wikimedia movement.
The Foundation provides intensive, time-limited financial and logistical
support for fellows to focus on projects of strategic importance.
Submissions for Spring 2012 are encouraged to focus on the theme of
improving editor retention and increasing participation in Wikimedia
Projects.
If you'd like to work with WMF on projects to boost participation and
retention, or know someone who should be recommended for a fellowship, or
if you've got ideas for a fellowship project WMF could support, we'd like
to hear from you! Please visit
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Fellowships for more information.
--
Siko Bouterse
Head of Community Fellowships
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
sbouterse(a)wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
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
Dear colleagues,
WMF is now seeking fellowship applicants and project ideas for the Community
Fellowships Program <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Fellowships>.
Community members from all Wikimedia projects and all languages are
strongly encouraged to apply by the deadline of January 15th 2012! Could
you please help spread the word by sharing this open call in your
communities?
Wikimedia Community Fellows are spearheading community projects,
undertaking research, and piloting new models for engagement to help scale
and increase sustainability of volunteer work in the Wikimedia movement.
The Foundation provides intensive, time-limited financial and logistical
support for fellows to focus on projects of strategic importance.
Submissions for Spring 2012 are encouraged to focus on the theme of
improving editor retention and increasing participation in Wikimedia
Projects.
If you'd like to work with WMF on projects to boost participation and
retention, or know someone who should be recommended for a fellowship, or
if you've got ideas for a fellowship project WMF could support, we'd like
to hear from you! Please visit
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Fellowships, or contact Siko
Bouterse at sbouterse(a)wikimedia.org for more information.
Best regards,
--
Siko Bouterse
Head of Community Fellowships
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
sbouterse(a)wikimedia.org