It may seem a big goal, but perhaps en:wp can emulate the success of
en:wn. Will we achieve the best-practice level of seven layers of
review? We can but hope.
- d.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Chad <innocentkiller(a)gmail.com>
Date: 13 September 2011 17:18
Subject: [Wikitech-l] Fwd: Autoconfirmed article creation trial
To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Forwarding to wikitech-l. Private e-mail threads are not a transparent
way to discuss this.
-Chad
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Snotty Wong <snottywong.wiki(a)gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 12:02 PM
Subject: Autoconfirmed article creation trial
To: Jimbo Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com>, Jimmy Wales
<jwales(a)wikia-inc.com>, sgardner(a)wikimedia.org, Philippe Beaudette
<pbeaudette(a)wikimedia.org>, brion(a)wikimedia.org,
bharris(a)wikimedia.org, rlane32(a)gmail.com, jalexander(a)wikimedia.org,
ariel(a)wikimedia.org, aschulz4587(a)gmail.com, robla(a)wikimedia.org,
swalling(a)wikimedia.org, innocentkiller(a)gmail.com,
tstarling(a)wikimedia.org, Mdennis(a)wikimedia.org
Cc: Kudpung <kudpung.wikipedia(a)gmail.com>, yanksinfinite(a)aol.com
Dear WMF staff and developers,
I'm User:Snottywong on en-wiki and I'm emailing you on behalf of
several other en-wiki users who have been helping to organize a trial.
The trial, which you may already be familiar with, is to temporarily
restrict new article creation to autoconfirmed users. If you're
unfamiliar with the details, you can catch up by reading the original
bugzilla thread I started in an attempt to implement the trial. (See
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30208)
The bugzilla thread has largely become stale, there has been no
activity for several weeks. It's clear that some developers are not
in favor of this trial, as they believe it will result in a reduction
in new editor retention. It would be an assumption of bad faith to
say that the developers are purposely ignoring the bugzilla thread in
the hopes that the volunteers who organized it will give up on trying
to implement it, but sadly it appears this may be happening. This
email is an attempt to reopen the lines of communication between the
volunteers who organized this trial and the developers, in the hopes
that this more private communication will facilitate coordination. I
can assure you that nothing you send me in an email will be publicly
posted.
The situation, from the perspective of the volunteer editors who
organized the trial, is this: We put together a proposal to restrict
article creation to autoconfirmed editors. We posted notices to the
proposal in the most public places on Wikipedia, the village pump,
WP:Centralized discussion, etc. Over 500 editors contributed their
opinions to the proposal over the course of 2 months. The proposal
was then closed by an uninvolved admin, with the view that the
proposal had been widely endorsed and there was consensus for the
change. The admin also noted that there was strong support for a
trial of the changes before they are made permanent, and that this is
the direction in which we should proceed.
Anyone familiar with Wikipedia knows that it is spectacularly amazing
for a proposal that was open for 2 months with 500+ editors
contribution to actually succeed.
So, we proposed the change, got strong support for it, and then we
asked you guys to make it happen. And we feel like the response we
got was "we don't think that's a good idea, so we're not going to do
it." This was a very disappointing response for us, partly because of
the hard work we had put in to organize the proposal and the trial,
and partly because it goes against the fundamental Wikipedia concept
of governing by consensus; one of the most important aspects of
Wikipedia which has gotten it where it is today.
After digesting this response for awhile and regrouping, we understand
your natural instinct to protect Wikipedia from a change that you
believe could hurt it. This is the perspective we're coming from as
well: we believe that the number of inappropriate and very poor
quality articles that are created every day by very new users is
hurting Wikipedia in a different way. We do our best to patrol these
new articles and we try to ensure that these inappropriate articles
don't make it past our defense mechanisms, but there are simply too
many to handle and plenty make it through. This is evident when you
click the "Random article" button a few times.
It's also understandable that it's easy to assume that this trial, on
the surface, will lead to less new editors and less new articles. On
the contrary, we believe that it will lead to more serious editors and
better quality articles. Quality over quantity. We believe that with
Wikipedia approaching 4 million articles, there is a natural decline
in the number of new things that can be written about; and that
instead of focusing on creating new articles, editors will begin to
focus on fixing the ones we already have.
But, we will never know what this change would bring unless we
actually try it. This is why we want to implement it only as a
temporary trial, and reserve judgment until after the trial. We need
your help to make this happen. Specifically, we need:
1. Your cooperation. Nothing will happen if you guys stonewall us and
refuse to act, and this would be a devastatingly disappointing outcome
for dozens of editors.
2. Your expertise. Changes to the MW software are required to
implement this trial. Some comments on the bugzilla thread imply that
these changes are relatively minor. We also need to collect copious
statistics about the effects of the trial. We can do much of this
work ourselves, but we need your help in both collecting the
statistics as well as determining which ones are important.
3. Your creativity. Obviously, preventing people from creating new
articles will produce some level of an annoyance factor for them. The
more positively we can communicate this restriction to new users, and
the more options we can give them to create new articles and become
autoconfirmed more quickly, the less annoyed the users will be. If we
can make them feel like they've earned the trust of other editors by
the time they become autoconfirmed, they will be that much more
invested in the whole concept of Wikipedia.
We have started some of this work at WP:ACTRIAL, but there is only so
much we can do as volunteer editors with limited time and no developer
access. We need your help. Please let us know if we can come
together to make this happen, and let's lay out a road map for
cooperatively and collaboratively implementing this trial.
Best regards,
Scott (User:Snottywong)
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
It isn't entirely clear from the posts on this list whether this is a fork
of half the community of WikiNews or half of EN Wikinews. Looking at the
OpenGlobe site I get the impression it is the latter. Clearly there is a
difference in impact between the two, and it would be good to hear from
those who've chosen not to fork as to how healthy the rest of Wikinews is
and how they intend to respond to the fork.
If OpenGlobe succeed in creating an equally open but more inclusionist fork
that is more friendly, and also more welcoming to new editors, then they
will be hard to compete with. It is a good aim though and very sad that they
thought they had to fork to achieve it. When the anti advertising fork
happened wikimedia responded by dropping plans for advertising, and I hope
that we can respond to this fork with a similar attitude of seeking to
address the problems that drove people away.
I wish both forks well. We now need to be realistic that News is a yet more
crowded market, and other than closer synergy between Wikinews and Wikipedia
I see difficulty in getting WikiNews to the point where the problems that
inspired the fork can be resolved. One possible solution would be to try and
get the WikiProjects to be more generically Wikimedia rather than as at
present very Wikipedia focussed. This could be done by running a bot on
WikiNews to inform relevant Wikiprojects, so when someone submitted a
wikinews story relating to Archaeology in India, Wikiprojects India and
Archaeology both had requests for reviewers.
Another solution would be to upend our approach to IT development, whether
you are a fan of Wikilove and article feedback both are very much topdown
initiatives. I think it would be great if we could ringfence some IT budget
for bottom up initiatives, the image filter consultation had a question as
to how important that development was, but lacked the comparators that would
have made the question meaningful. What I'd like to see is a
prioritisation page on Meta comparing the priority of multiple potential
developments, - much like the way Wikimania chooses presentations. That way
projects and editors could make a pitch for IT investments that their
communities actually had consensus for - currently even EN wiki can get
consensus for change but not get IT resource for it to happen.
Regards
WereSpielChequers
On 13 September 2011 06:39, <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: A Wikimedia project has forked (Stephen Bain)
> 2. Re: A Wikimedia project has forked (geni)
> 3. Re: Wiki Loves Monuments (Was: On curiosity, cats and
> scapegoats) (Milos Rancic)
> 4. Re: A Wikimedia project has forked (Erik Moeller)
> 5. Re: A Wikimedia project has forked (Sue Gardner)
> 6. Re: A Wikimedia project has forked (Phil Nash)
> 7. The Wikinews fork: updates (Tempodivalse)
> 8. Re: On curiosity, cats and scapegoats (Keegan Peterzell)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:36:54 +1000
> From: Stephen Bain <stephen.bain(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] A Wikimedia project has forked
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <CAO5b2ftngOmENaYDQ7F4nQ8Tx3fG0d5FOMzWwfOiHqYndhNwbQ(a)mail.gmail.com
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >
> > I would characterize WMF's prioritization as an "A rising tide lifts
> > all boats" policy. Improvements are generally conceived to be widely
> > usable, both in Wikimedia projects and even outside the Wikimedia
> > environment, and to have the largest possible impact. Even if a first
> > deployment is Wikipedia, they will generally benefit other projects as
> > well.
>
> I believe the correct name for that is the trickle-down effect :)
>
> --
> Stephen Bain
> stephen.bain(a)gmail.com
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 02:15:51 +0100
> From: geni <geniice(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] A Wikimedia project has forked
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <CAOU87sQPag3+ULEmDZT78bVLR+=8MSo+C6BjcS9vJfATeoVefA(a)mail.gmail.com
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On 12 September 2011 23:45, Samuel Klein <meta.sj(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Now: what do we need to do to make Wikinews better and more useful?
> > What are the costs and technical or other work involved?
>
> Very little. Mostly wikinews is misstargeted. Yet another website
> rewriting AP reports is never going to draw crowds. Wikinews needed
> original research and never really had very much of it. It is also
> operating in an extremely crowded market where as wikipedia had the
> field pretty much to itself when it started.
>
> > ?MZM, you are
> > confused in this thread - Wikimedia doesn't exist to serve EN:WP, or
> > to serve its most popular *current* project, it exists to support the
> > global dissemination of all sorts of knowledge, and collaboration to
> > create that knowledge.
>
> The reality is however that it's always en.pedia that is on the
> receiving end of whatever the foundation wants to do at any given
> time.
>
>
>
>
> --
> geni
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 03:45:59 +0200
> From: Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wiki Loves Monuments (Was: On curiosity,
> cats and scapegoats)
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <CAHPiQ2FBuo_0Zg_Oa91z1ZbHC-P=m_R9ixa61oZseFRQt9PpFQ(a)mail.gmail.com
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2
>
> 2011/9/12 Tomasz Ganicz <polimerek(a)gmail.com>:
> > W dniu 12 wrze?nia 2011 19:30 u?ytkownik Tomasz Koz?owski
> > <odder.wiki(a)gmail.com> napisa?:
> >> On 12.09.2011 19:05, Milos Rancic wrote:
> >>
> >>> Eh, wrong example. There is Wikimedia Macedonia and they really hate
> >>> monuments because every local tycoon builds monuments in Macedonia,
> >>> presently.
> >>
> >> What was that supposed to mean? Either I don't get the joke or this
> >> isn't really a joke, is it?
> >>
> >
> > Maybe it is just missunderstanding of word "monument"? In "Wiki Loves
> > Monuments" it does not mean a memorial statue of the person, but an
> > "unmovable pice of human heritage" such as historical buildings, old
> > towns, old cementaries, etc. So - a recently built memoral of recent
> > political or social activities rather do not fulfill the definition.
> > In order to avoid this missunderstanding we called our (Polish) part
> > of "Wiki Loves Monuments" -"Wiki Lubi Zabytki". Maybe in Macedonian
> > there is similar word to Polish "zabytek" ?
>
> Not expert in Macedonian, but I think that you are probably right, as
> it seems that nouns are the same in Serbian: "spomenik" is both
> particular ("memorial statue") and general word (Belgrade Castle is
> also "spomenik"). There is a word "monument", but that one means
> something of really big importance (Egyptian pyramids are "monument";
> while even Belgrade Castle isn't usually named with that word;
> Wikipedia could be called "monument", as well) or for something very
> old, usually connected with civilization which doesn't exist anymore
> (obelisks could be called "monument").
>
> And, yes, according to Macedonians which I know (including
> Wikimedians), there is ongoing "monument/statue rush" in Macedonia.
> It's a kind of subcultural kitch movement among richer Macedonians. At
> lesser level, it could be seen in the rest of Balkans, as well.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 18:55:35 -0700
> From: Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] A Wikimedia project has forked
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <CAEg6ZHkKJZsWza+3RzUpkFiDdL4HhcT_EjVQuhawb6q37Hs=Rw(a)mail.gmail.com
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 5:26 PM, MZMcBride <z(a)mzmcbride.com> wrote:
> > My point is that without specific focus, these
> > other sites languish and slowly die. A software package that was built
> for
> > an encyclopedia can't work for a dictionary. It doesn't work for a
> > dictionary. It also can't and doesn't work for a number of other
> concepts.
>
> Of course, up to this point we all agree. That said, far from a myopic
> focus on English Wikipedia, strategies to support specialized needs
> and exploration of new ideas have long been very much a high priority
> for WMF. It's an issue that's very clearly articulated in the
> "Encourage Innovation" section of the strategic plan:
>
> [begin quote]
> Support the infrastructure of networked innovation and research.
> - Develop clear documentation and APIs so that developers can create
> applications that work easily with our platforms.
> - Ensure access to computing resources and data for interested
> researchers and developers, including downloadable copies of all
> public data.
> - Continually improve social and technical systems for volunteer
> development of core software, extensions, gadgets and other technical
> improvements.
>
> Promote the adoption of great ideas.
> - Develop clear processes for code review, acceptance and deployment
> so that volunteer development does not linger in limbo.
> - Organize meetings and events bringing together developers and
> researchers who are focused on Wikimedia-related projects with
> experienced Wikimedia volunteers and staff.
> - Showcase and recognize the greatest innovations of the Wikimedia
> movement, and create community spaces dedicated to the exploration of
> new ideas.
> [end quote]
>
>
> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Movement_Strategic_Plan_Summar…
>
> That strategy is very much reflected in our actions and our budgeting,
> as is evident from consulting recent activity reports.
>
> One can legitimately criticize that this helps achieve incremental
> improvements across the board, but leaves a gap of "large, focused
> investment to meet specialized needs" (e.g. build new software to
> support a wiki-based dictionary). But it doesn't necessarily have to
> do so.
>
> IMO, the question that's worth asking is: What's the constraint that's
> keeping more people from launching successful initiatives under the
> Wikimedia umbrella? There are clearly both technical and social
> constraints. One technical constraint is the fact that taking an
> initiative from scratch to a successful launch requires considerable
> WMF support along the way. How can we reduce the need for WMF
> organizational support?
>
> The Wikimedia Labs project (
> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Labs ) is designed to push
> that boundary. In the "Test Dev Labs" environment, the goal is to make
> it possible to test and develop software under conditions that are
> very close to the WMF production environment. This means that,
> provided you're willing to invest sufficient resources, you should be
> able to get a project much closer to "WMF readiness" than you are
> today with far less WMF help. Indeed, it is designed to not become an
> on-ramp for new volunteers not just in development, but also site
> operations.
>
> That's of course a risky project and it may not live up to our
> expectations. But it's IMO a smarter bet to make than just picking
> (with an unavoidable element of arbitrariness) one of the many
> specialized areas in which we currently aren't succeeding and throwing
> $ and developers at it. Because it could enable us to approach far
> more organizations and individuals to invest time and money in complex
> free knowledge problems without having to pass through the WMF
> bottleneck.
>
> There are literally thousands of mission-driven organizations that
> would love to find ways to help solve problems in the free knowledge
> spaces we're occupying. Yet, even Wikimedia's own chapter
> organizations are still only a relatively small part of the ecosystem
> of technical innovation (which is no discredit to the many things they
> have done, including some great technical work).
>
> Having organizations take on challenges either because they are
> inherently suited to do so, or simply because they have the
> organizational bandwidth, seems like a fairly rational path to
> increase our ability to get things done. If that's the world we want
> to live in, it also seems entirely rational to me that WMF should
> focus on general high impact improvements while continually investing
> a considerable amount of its capacity in helping more people to build
> great things.
>
> In addition to technical support systems, forks can be a very good and
> healthy part of that development (to break out of social constraints),
> as can be the development of new organizations. A Wikinews
> Foundation, or a Wiki Journalism Foundation, or some other such
> construct may make a lot of sense in the long run, specifically when
> it comes to the problem of citizen journalism.
>
> --
> Erik M?ller
> VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation
>
> Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 19:36:27 -0700
> From: Sue Gardner <sgardner(a)wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] A Wikimedia project has forked
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <CAGZ0=LMsBjgFOJFkhnA0cbTMN9h2mr16ik+hGbF1heSXp=-KuQ(a)mail.gmail.com
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On 12 September 2011 18:15, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 12 September 2011 23:45, Samuel Klein <meta.sj(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Now: what do we need to do to make Wikinews better and more useful?
> >> What are the costs and technical or other work involved?
> >
> > Very little. Mostly wikinews is misstargeted. Yet another website
> > rewriting AP reports is never going to draw crowds. Wikinews needed
> > original research and never really had very much of it. It is also
> > operating in an extremely crowded market where as wikipedia had the
> > field pretty much to itself when it started.
>
>
> On the English Wikinews [1] at least, it's seemed to me that part of
> the issue is that different editors are working on different genres of
> news. Some do celebrity coverage, others do investigative work or
> collaborative coverage of breaking events, etc. Those are quite
> different value propositions that appeal to different types of
> readers, and I would think that Wikinews has simply never produced
> enough critical mass of any one genre, sufficient to create and
> maintain a large readership that wants that genre.
>
> Jimmy said once that part of the reason Wikipedia works so well is
> because everybody knows what an encyclopedia article is supposed to
> look like. I think that's true, and I think Wikinews has suffered in
> comparison, because there are many different types of news, not just
> one.
>
> Thanks,
> Sue
>
>
> [1] the only one I personally can read
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 04:04:18 +0100
> From: "Phil Nash" <phnash(a)blueyonder.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] A Wikimedia project has forked
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <94B3D8AB562741668345CAC74D7A1089@mothere50f7f7b>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> Sue Gardner wrote:
> > On 12 September 2011 18:15, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 12 September 2011 23:45, Samuel Klein <meta.sj(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Now: what do we need to do to make Wikinews better and more useful?
> >>> What are the costs and technical or other work involved?
> >>
> >> Very little. Mostly wikinews is misstargeted. Yet another website
> >> rewriting AP reports is never going to draw crowds. Wikinews needed
> >> original research and never really had very much of it. It is also
> >> operating in an extremely crowded market where as wikipedia had the
> >> field pretty much to itself when it started.
> >
> > Jimmy said once that part of the reason Wikipedia works so well is
> > because everybody knows what an encyclopedia article is supposed to
> > look like.
>
> Practical experience on a day-to-day basis would suggest that this is
> unduly
> optimistic. We are failing to attract new editors who can be, or wish to
> be,
> educated into "what an encyclopedia article is supposed to look like", and
> are discarding those experienced editors who do. Even those who remain but
> are becoming increasingly disillusioned with all the nonsense that goes on
> will eventually leave, or create a fork of Wikipedia, and to be honest, if
> I
> had the money right now, I'd do it myself, and cast ArbCom in its present
> form into the bottomless pit.
>
> I used to care about Wikipedia, as did others, but it's becoming
> increasingly difficult to do so.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 22:25:14 -0500 (CDT)
> From: Tempodivalse <r2d2.strauss(a)verizon.net>
> Subject: [Foundation-l] The Wikinews fork: updates
> To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Message-ID:
> <987992995.5676448.1315884314473.JavaMail.root@vznit170060>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Hello! Thanks for the show of support; I was expecting the response to be
> more
> lacklustre than this. I can't answer everyone's comments individually, but
> I'll try
> to address some of the more common questions.
>
> To be clear, OpenGlobe was not created due to a dispute with the
> Foundation.
> The main reason for forking was the perceived hostility and rudeness among
> Wikinews editors,
> especially to newbies and outsiders, which makes it difficult to get
> anything done
> and drives off new recruits. Bureaucracy also
> played a role: article standards have become so high that very few stories
> make it to the front page; the project currently averages fewer
> than two published pages a day and 75%+ of stories are deleted as old news
> before they see
> "daylight". The stories that are published generally go live only after a
> lengthy delay and
> some time after the event has taken place, making their usefulness
> questionable.
>
> Re how we're going to be different from Wikinews: OpenGlobe is still in the
> developing
> stage, so I'm not sure what direction things will take, but two important
> things are on our
> agenda: make publication of articles much easier and more rewarding, and
> put the focus on
> quality, in-depth reporting, and articles on underreported but relevant
> events,
> instead of just rewriting an article done by AP or Reuters. We also might
> allow more
> "human interest stories", that are unbiased but thought-provoking, as an
> addition to the
> more typical coverage. (There's been a complaint that I've created several
> articles from the PD
> Voice of America, but rest assured I don't want to do that on a daily
> basis; I just needed "filler" for the main page
> until better articles could be made.)
>
> We probably can't keep up with the MSM with sheer manpower, but we can sure
> be a lot
> less biased/superficial. That, plus the fact that we're open-source, and
> anyone can
> contribute, gives us our own little (but important) niche. I think citizen
> journalism has
> become more appealing to the public over the past few years, and we're in
> position to
> take advantage of that.
>
> We have a freenode channel set up at #openglobe, and we're frequently
> brainstorming
> in there, so you're invited to join if you want to see what's going on (and
> have your own
> say).
>
> I've suddenly become quite busy with this new project, so please don't
> expect frequent replies
> to this list.
>
> Regards,
>
> -Tempodivalse (http://theopenglobe.org)
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 00:39:27 -0500
> From: Keegan Peterzell <keegan.wiki(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] On curiosity, cats and scapegoats
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <CAELXKRK-chNaiXzkbYLsp+DQZs0FiiuHLYrZx8OW7_iMWuetWQ(a)mail.gmail.com
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> I didn't participate in the referendum. I understood from the beginning
> that this was going to be implimented, the matter of community opinion is
> nice to ask for but didn't really matter, and ultimately the only thing
> that
> comes of this is help answering Islamic users questioning us showing
> depictions of Mohammed.
>
> The conversation in this thread has been engaging in helping me decide my
> opinion on a personal level: I'll go with the filter as responsible
> concept.
>
> Milos, you state that Americans see everything involving nudity under the
> label as porn and offensive, and filtering with that mindset is a bad idea.
> You're correct about Americans acting that way in general. I could pull a
> juvenile prank and replace someone's computer background with the image of
> a
> penis, and it will be called porn. It's not, it's an image of a penis, but
> that's the feeling we evoke.
>
> We're growing and developing in Islamic countries and countries with a high
> percentage of Islamic population. A highly held principle is not seeing,
> publishing, or distributing depictions of Mohammed. This is a deeply felt
> belief, one which makes any claims to offending morals seem trivial. We
> had
> a massive problem at the Arabic Wikipedia over providing content that
> depicted Mohammed. From our standpoint in customer relations on OTRS and on
> Wikimedia projects in general, we could do little but provide information
> on
> how the hide all images with the disclaimer of NOTCENSORED, NPOV, you
> should
> be more cultured than to believe that's actually what Mohammed looked
> like/be more open minded...the list goes on.
>
> Now, when we choose to point to cultural trends as a reason something is
> bad, the argument will die. If you inform most of the Western readers that
> you are offended by images of Mohammed, at some point someone will have the
> same reaction that happens when talking about Americans and sexual images.
> Americans might have the same argument used against them with Muslems.
> The
> point is that we have to respect cultural norms and see why they are what
> they are. We can disagree, but the first step for globalization is the
> ability to say "Oh, I see where you're coming from."
>
> What is fundamentally ingrained in a culture is part of the root of that
> culture. We're global, but culture is not. Which leads to...
>
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 2:58 AM, Fajro <faigos(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Can anyone explain me how this Image Filter is not against the mission
> > of the Wikimedia Foundation?
> >
> > Letting some users to block Wikipedia content is NOT a good way to
> > "disseminate it effectively and globally" as stated in the mission
> > statement.
> >
> > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mission_statement
> >
> >
> > --
> > Fajro
> >
>
> I fundamentally disagree. If the content can be managed to be culturally
> sound, that is effective to disseminate globally. If Islamic countries do
> not want to see images of Mohammed, that is effect in maintaining other
> content without blocking the site. Same applies to other religious
> imagery,
> political imagery, sexual imagery, and whatever else. The filter is for
> images, and while pictures are louder than words, we can at least have the
> words while maintaining cultural integrity.
>
> --
> ~Keegan
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
> End of foundation-l Digest, Vol 90, Issue 70
> ********************************************
>
Hello! Thanks for the show of support; I was expecting the response to be more
lacklustre than this. I can't answer everyone's comments individually, but I'll try
to address some of the more common questions.
To be clear, OpenGlobe was not created due to a dispute with the Foundation.
The main reason for forking was the perceived hostility and rudeness among Wikinews editors,
especially to newbies and outsiders, which makes it difficult to get anything done
and drives off new recruits. Bureaucracy also
played a role: article standards have become so high that very few stories
make it to the front page; the project currently averages fewer
than two published pages a day and 75%+ of stories are deleted as old news before they see
"daylight". The stories that are published generally go live only after a lengthy delay and
some time after the event has taken place, making their usefulness questionable.
Re how we're going to be different from Wikinews: OpenGlobe is still in the developing
stage, so I'm not sure what direction things will take, but two important things are on our
agenda: make publication of articles much easier and more rewarding, and put the focus on
quality, in-depth reporting, and articles on underreported but relevant events,
instead of just rewriting an article done by AP or Reuters. We also might allow more
"human interest stories", that are unbiased but thought-provoking, as an addition to the
more typical coverage. (There's been a complaint that I've created several articles from the PD
Voice of America, but rest assured I don't want to do that on a daily basis; I just needed "filler" for the main page
until better articles could be made.)
We probably can't keep up with the MSM with sheer manpower, but we can sure be a lot
less biased/superficial. That, plus the fact that we're open-source, and anyone can
contribute, gives us our own little (but important) niche. I think citizen journalism has
become more appealing to the public over the past few years, and we're in position to
take advantage of that.
We have a freenode channel set up at #openglobe, and we're frequently brainstorming
in there, so you're invited to join if you want to see what's going on (and have your own
say).
I've suddenly become quite busy with this new project, so please don't expect frequent replies
to this list.
Regards,
-Tempodivalse (http://theopenglobe.org)
I was reading Orwell's essay last night (in the old-fashioned paper form,
while in the bath).
I thought it was an interesting analysis which could apply to peoples'
motivations for contributing to the Wikimedia projects, from those who edit
"from the desire to see things as they are" to those who write for "sheer
egoism", and just a few "who may feel strongly about typography, width of
margins, etc" (or possibly hyphens ;-) ) Not sure an editor survey couched
in quite these terms would get a useful result though.
Orwell's full text is available here:
http://orwell.ru/library/essays/wiw/english/e_wiw but this is the key bit;
Chris
--
I think there are four great motives for writing, at any rate for writing
prose. They exist in different degrees in every writer, and in any one
writer the proportions will vary from time to time, according to the
atmosphere in which he is living. They are:
*(i) Sheer egoism.* Desire to seem clever, to be talked about, to be
remembered after death, to get your own back on the grown-ups who snubbed
you in childhood, etc., etc. It is humbug to pretend this is not a motive,
and a strong one. Writers share this characteristic with scientists,
artists, politicians, lawyers, soldiers, successful businessmen — in short,
with the whole top crust of humanity. The great mass of human beings are not
acutely selfish. After the age of about thirty they almost abandon the sense
of being individuals at all — and live chiefly for others, or are simply
smothered under drudgery. But there is also the minority of gifted, willful
people who are determined to live their own lives to the end, and writers
belong in this class. Serious writers, I should say, are on the whole more
vain and self-centered than journalists, though less interested in money.
*(ii) Aesthetic enthusiasm.* Perception of beauty in the external world, or,
on the other hand, in words and their right arrangement. Pleasure in the
impact of one sound on another, in the firmness of good prose or the rhythm
of a good story. Desire to share an experience which one feels is valuable
and ought not to be missed. The aesthetic motive is very feeble in a lot of
writers, but even a pamphleteer or writer of textbooks will have pet words
and phrases which appeal to him for non-utilitarian reasons; or he may feel
strongly about typography, width of margins, etc. Above the level of a
railway guide, no book is quite free from aesthetic considerations.
*(iii) Historical impulse.* Desire to see things as they are, to find out
true facts and store them up for the use of posterity.
*(iv) Political purpose.* — Using the word ‘political’ in the widest
possible sense. Desire to push the world in a certain direction, to alter
other peoples’ idea of the kind of society that they should strive after.
Once again, no book is genuinely free from political bias. The opinion that
art should have nothing to do with politics is itself a political attitude.
[subject changed]
On 12 September 2011 08:46, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod(a)mccme.ru> wrote:
> Right, but we do have this systemic bias already in place: in ALL our
> projects, the articles on localities in Sweden are longer and better
> written (and better illustrated) than the articles on localities in Burkina
> Faso. We could indeed initiate smth like an effort to improve articles on
> localities in Burkina Faso (which may be combined with the outreach effort
> in the global South or whatever keywords are currently used), but it is
> clear to me that the overlap between users participating in WLM and users
> capable of writing articles on Burkina Faso is close to zero if it at all
> exists.
Basically, we need to recruit more editors. The work on how to do
usably reliable sourcing other than English-language printed works may
help too.
- d.
Hi all,
Just to check: I've been assuming of late that everyone that's interested in reading announcements (including things like chapter reports, committee reports and signpost issues) is subscribed to the wikimediaannounce-l mailing list - is that a valid assumption, or should reports continue to be sent to this list?
Thanks,
Mike Peel
(who sends out WMUK reports, amongst occasional others)
Dear All,
I am delighted to invite you to a dedicated mailing list which
shall serve the purpose of bringing together Wikimedians from Central
and Eastern European countries (that is, to say, east of Germany,
including Austria),
On August 6 at the 2011 Wikimania in Haifa we have decided that a
meeting for Wikimedians from CEE countries, of which an idea has been
floating in the Wikimedia world since 2005, shall take place in the next
year; Wikimedia Czech Republic has generously volunteered to investigate
the possibility of organising such a conference in Prague in February
2012.
Beside organising a CEE Wikimedia conference, we have also agreed that
we're in need of a closer and ongoing cooperation, e.g. by having
regular meetings between a local Wikimedia community and a Wikimedian
from another country. So if there will be a local Wikimedia meet-up in
your area, please share the news on the list and try to invite a user
from a neighbouring country to share your experiences and thoughts.
There is a dedicated Meta wiki page for a meet-up which may be used for
gathering ideas for a future cooperation; it's located at
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_meetup_Central_and_Eastern_Europe>.
It's a wiki, so feel free to edit it. A good idea would be for us all to
put it on the watchlist so we could easily keep track of changes.
More information on the list as well as a subscribe form are available
here: <http://tools.wikimedia.pl/mailman/listinfo/wmcee-l>. For now, the
archives are available to the list members only, but this might be
changed in the future.
Please share the news of setting up the list in your local Village
Pumps, Information Noticeboards and other mailing lists. Invite your
friends, and don't hesitate if you want to share an idea or just say hello.
Thank you!
--
Tomasz Kozłowski | [[user:odder]]
As this debate has ploughed on I've become less likely to use this feature
myself. But am still utterly unconvinced by the opposition arguments.
Re: Demagogy of "multiculturalism" when it means "pushing POV by right-wing
US". As long as the image filter would enable Moslems to opt out of seeing a
certain set of cartoons, then this to me is about globalisation not about
appeasing Conservapedia and its fans. Actually one of the most predictable
risks of implementing this is that we will be attacked by our American
critics "Wikipedia enables censorship, Moslems now allowed to censor images
they dislike, but naturally no "block all porn" option for Christians" (all
porn is bound not to be an option because definitions of porn are so
divergent. But if it were they'd pick another unimplemented option such as
"swimsuit" or "respectable swimsuit").
As for Kim's Red team Blue team shenanigans, why would anyone bother? I can
understand why spammers try to subvert our processes and add their links and
spamcruft - they see us as a free source of advertising worth their time to
try and sneak their message in. But if devout Bahais decide to use this
filter to screen out certain images, how likely is it that there will be an
opposing team trying to sneak those images past their filter? Especially if
the filters are personal options that other editors can't see.
WereSpielChequers
Board is filled with a bunch of amateurs (not derogatory meaning!) --
> including yourself in the past and hypothetically including myself if
> I passed last election -- which position is the product of political
> will (community, chapters, Board will itself).
>
> Any sane body -- which is aware that it is there because of political
> will and not because of their expertise (no, Stu and Jan-Bart are not
> in the Board as experts when they act as apologists of Jimmy's
> deletion of artworks on Commons [1][2]) -- knows that it should
> delegate responsibilities to those who know the matter better.
>
> However, Wikimedia Foundation Board acts dilettantish whenever one of
> the Board member (or a friend of that Board member) has strong
> position toward some issue.
>
> For example, Wikipedia in Tunisian Arabic has been rejected by the
> Board, although relevant international institutions (and reality, as
> well) recognize it as a separate language [3]. Just after long
> discussion (in short period of time) between two Board members and
> Language committee, it was threw under the carpet as "waiting" [4]
> with the excuse to wait for non-existent initiative to create North
> African Arabic Wikipedia (it was my initiative at the end, just to end
> with grotesque Board's dilettantism, by claiming that their members
> are better introduced in linguistic diversity than relevant
> international bodies and Language committee as well; which I see as
> humiliating for the Board, but Board members don't think so).
>
> I didn't want to open this issue; but the flow of discussion --
> claiming that Board *really* knows what it is doing -- forced me to
> give it as an example.
>
> While I am sure that at least Arne cares about German Wikipedia and
> Bishakha cares about Hindi Wikipedia -- collectively, Board reacts
> just if someone points to their POV related to English Wikipedia.
> Everything else, including Serbian Wikipedia in 2005 and including
> Kazakh Wikipedia in 2011, are just safari-like care about interesting
> and strange species. Yes, Board cares when some project dares to
> question Jimmy's authority, like when Wikinews did it well and
> Wikiversity badly.
>
> If the Board members would be more honest in their intentions, not to
> hide behind demagogy of "multiculturalism" when it means "pushing POV
> by right-wing US" and similar phrases with similar opposite meanings,
> we could start to have real discussion. Not to mention that it is
> obvious that some of the motivations of some of the Board members are
> not even politically motivated, but very personally (and "very" has
> the meaning inside of the phrase).
>
> [1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-May/058026.html
> [2] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-May/057795.html
> [3]
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_new_languages%2FWi…
> [4]
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_new_languages%2FWi…
>
>
>