Because this subject was previously mentioned on Foundation-l and Research-l, I thought that those who are interested in research budgets might want to look at the information that’s now available here. Thanks to Steven Walling (WMF) for following up. I’m hoping that we’ll see more of this kind of information in the future so that the community can compare ROIs of proposed and completed projects.
Hi Brandon, thanks for the explanation, but wouldn't it be easier to just
analyse edit summaries? If you edit by section the edit summary defaults to
start with the section heading.......
> Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 14:51:49 -0800
> From: Brandon Harris <bharris(a)wikimedia.org>
> To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fw: Strike against the collection of
> personal data through edit links
> Message-ID: <4F2DB685.70000(a)wikimedia.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> (This may not be 100% accurate; the person who knows most about
> this is
> on vacation, but I'll try to explain to the best of my understanding.)
> Those weird URLs are part of a clicktracking process. It's a test
> see how people go about editing the page *most often* (by section, or by
> edit tab) and further to see how effective various calls-to-action (such
> as those given by Article Feedback) are.
> The longevity of the data isn't something I can comment to but I'd
> surprised if it lasted even 3 months. I do not know if there are
> identity markers connected to them but I wouldn't be surprised.
> To that end, the data is only useful in roll-ups, and wouldn't be
> something published anywhere except in aggregate.
> On 2/4/12 2:27 PM, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
> > MZ is correct: 3 months is the purge for Checkuser data.
> > As to the rest of it, Diederick van Liere, our resident guru of data,
> > be checking into this, and will confirm back when we know exactly wht is
> > intended by the devs for that data. I will say that generally speaking,
> > the Foundation prefers to maintain the minimum data possible for the
> > shortest period of time.
> > Thanks,
> > pb
> > ___________________
> > Philippe Beaudette
> > Head of Reader Relations
> > Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> > 415-839-6885, x 6643
> > philippe(a)wikimedia.org
> > To check my email volume (and thus know approx how long it will take me
> > respond), go to http://courteous.ly/hpQmqy
> > On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 2:19 PM, MZMcBride<z(a)mzmcbride.com> wrote:
> >> Fred Bauder wrote:
> >>> David Gerard wrote:
> >>>> 3 months I can live with :-) Can someone from WMF just confirm what
> >>>> is kept for how long?
> >>> The exact time is confidential.
> >> Err, no, I don't think so. It's not defined in the files at
> >> <http://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/>, which means it should be using the
> >> default, as defined at
> >> <
> >> ser.php?revision=106556&view=markup>. From that file:
> >> ---
> >> # How long to keep CU data?
> >> $wgCUDMaxAge = 3 * 30 * 24 * 3600; // 3 months
> >> ---
> >> The last attempt to change this value (without community discussion) was
> >> summarily shot down:
> >> <http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki?view=revision&revision=40847
> >> That's only CheckUser data, though. I'm not sure what David wants
> >> from the Wikimedia Foundation. Different data has different expiries. A
> >> of it is permanent (e.g., revisions aren't going anywhere for the most
> >> part). I guess the question is specific to the ClickTracking extension:
> >> <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ClickTracking>?
> >> MZMcBride
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation
> Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Firstly, congratulations to Phillipe on a very richly deserved promotion!
I'm sure that you will do very well in your new role.
However, I must concur with Lodewijk in stating that the idea behind the
new department is still not entirely clear to me. It's not about advocacy
and lobbying (except when it is), but I'm not sure what else it is supposed
to do or why it's organisationally near the legal department? If the
purpose is primarily to advocate on behalf of the community internally
within WMF, would that be because you feel that the voice of the community
has not been heard clearly in the Foundation previously? If so, this is a
step forward but it's regrettable that input from the community hasn't been
something that's been institutionally considered in the past.
> From: Lodewijk <lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org>
> To: philippe(a)wikimedia.org
> Cc: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Announcement:
> Building a new Legal and Community Advocacy Department & Promotion
> Philippe Beaudette
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Hi Philippe,
> it sounds great. Awesome. But still, it doesn't make much sense to me,
> Saying people can 'edit' is of course bound to cheer people up - but if you
> don't understand *what* you're editing, it is also bound to either become a
> mess, or either just become what you pick it to become. I can't suggest
> changes to team or actions if I am unable to grasp behind the very broadly
> stated goals. Right now it is clear who is in the team, but honestly I
> don't know you guys well enough to derive from that what you should be
While reading the detailed "Legal and Community Advocacy/LCA Announcement",
on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal/LCA_Announcement , I stumbled
upon the following sentence: "We would like to build a community advisory
board to reinforce our commitment to a global perspective while
understanding and promoting communities beyond English Wikipedia". This was
quite a big news for me - and something worth much more than a simple side
sentence in the details section of a department reshuffling announcement,
so I'll be starting this thread.
As many will know, I have always been a supporter of the Wikimedia
Foundation asking more structural feedback and active input from the
community. I don't believe myself that this 'Foundation-l' is the best
venue for that, nor any of the other communication channels we have at our
availability right now. In the past I have proposed a "Volunteer Council"
which the board did not want to back up and died in silence. In the past
several other mechanisms with similar goals have been proposed.
So, at this announcement I see a good side - this 'community advisory
board' could bring us exactly that: a more structural approach to getting
continuous community input on Foundation governance decisions - other than
having a board member election every two years. If we were to call it
'community advisory board' (who cares about the name) and still give it the
same rights (right for information, right to be asked for its opinion
before certain decisions are being made, right to give unasked advice,
right to veto certain decisions even?) then it would be great news. But
somehow I don't have the feeling that this department is aiming for that.
So I hope it can be elaborated a bit what is a) the authority of this
advisory board (who decided to build it - board, ED or team), b) what will
be the purpose and c) what will be the rights. I know you won't have all
detailed answers yet because you need to enter a consultation process with
the community before setting such steps (which I am grateful for) but I
would like to get a little more insight in the direction you want to aim
Finally, I hope that in case this 'advisory board' is indeed toothless and
very topic centered, I hope that this is being made obvious in its name as
well. And I hope too that this wouldn't hold back people from keeping
asking for a 'real' volunteer council.
Dear Wiki colleagues,
I am excited to invite members of Wikimedia Foundation to participate
in the Wiki Africa project that will expand and increase the contents
of Africa information in Wikipedia. Through this invitation we hope to
build a strong partnership in promoting African content in Wikipedia.
WikiAfrica is an international collaborative project between Africa
Centre and Lettera27 that is designed to Africanize Wikipedia by
generating and expanding 30,000 articles over two years. The project
promotes a new method of acquiring and sharing knowledge that is
fully-inclusive, mainstream, intercultural and relevant to
contemporary and historic Africa. The initial two years are focused on
encouraging external Africa-based, cultural organizations, museums and
archives, as well as bloggers and journalists, to contribute their
knowledge to Wikipedia.
These initial two years focus on content related to literature,
poetry, art, cinema and other cultural products. WikiAfrica will not
exclude anything that falls outside of these categories, but focuses
most of its energy in these areas. At the same time, the WikiAfrica
project expands the African content that is already available online
and improves existing articles by combining sources and promoting the
participation of experts. WikiAfrica contributes to the aims of
Wikimedia projects online (especially the WikiProject Africa,
WikiProject African diaspora and the Africa Portal) and also works
externally with texts, quotes, images, audio and video.
The project will be approached and achieve its goals via the following
-Create partnerships with organisations that have existing
archives that are readily accessible and that are predisposed to
placing this content online;
-Motivate the adaptation of a copyleft or Creative Commons
approach to intellectual property.
-Activate new Wikipedia users and editors in Africa through
marketing and promotion; and
-Create training tools and establish the mentorships required to
activate a new team of users and editors of Wikipedia (wikipedians).
Click on Get started
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiAfrica/Get_started ) or
the Project page
contribute to Wiki Africa and become a member of Wiki Africa!
Please visit our incubator at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiAfrica/Incubator for a step
by step guide on how to start your articles for new authors.
We look forward to working with all Wikimedia members interested in
developing African content through knowledge exchange, participation
and contribution to this project.
For any questions don't hesitate to contact me.
Administrator and content manager Wiki Africa
(Sharing this oped published in the Washington Post today. Will be printed
in tomorrow's paper)
We are the media, and so are you
By Jimmy Wales and Kat Walsh, Thursday, February 9, 4:15 PM
It’s easy to frame the fight over SOPA and PIPA as Hollywood vs. Silicon
Valley —two huge industries clashing over whose voice should dictate the
future of Internet policy —but it’s absolutely wrong. The bills are
dead,thanks to widespread protest. But the real architects of the bills’
defeat don’t have a catchy label or a recognized lobbying group. They don’t
have the glamour or the deep pockets of the studios. Yet they are the
largest, most powerful and most important voice in the debate —and, until
recently, they’ve been all but invisible to Congress.
They are you. And if not you personally, then your neighbors, your
colleagues, your friends and even your children. The millions of people who
called and wrote their congressional representatives in protest of the Stop
Online Piracy Act and the Protect Intellectual Property Act were
“organized” only around the desire to protect the Web sites that have
become central to their daily lives.
Change like this needed a fresh set of voices. The established tech giants
may have newfound political influence, but their fights are still the same
closed-door tussles over minor details. They have been at the table, and
they have too much invested in the process to change it. More important,
they are constrained by obligations to their shareholders and investors, as
well as by the need to maintain relationships with their advertisers,
partners and customers.
Wikipedia,its users and its contributors don’t have the same constraints.
We don’t rely on advertising dollars or content partnerships. The billions
of words and millions of images in our projects come from the same place as
our financial support: the voluntary contribution of millions of
individuals. The result is free knowledge, available for anyone to read and
Wikipedia is not opposed to the rights of creators —we have the largest
collection of creators in human history. The effort that went into building
Wikipedia could have created shelves full of albums or near-endless nights
of movies. Instead it’s providing unrestricted access to the world’s
knowledge. Protecting our rights as creators means ensuring that we can
build our encyclopedias, photographs, videos, Web sites, charities and
businesses without the fear that they all will be taken away from us
without due process. It means protecting our ability to speak freely,
without being vulnerable to poorly drafted laws that leave our fate to a
law enforcement body that has no oversight and no appeal process. It means
protecting the legal infrastructure that allowed our sharing of knowledge
and creativity to flourish, and protecting our ability to do so on
technical infrastructure that allows for security and privacy for all
We are not interested in becoming full-time advocates; protests like the
Wikipedia blackout are a last resort. Our core mission is to make knowledge
freely available, and making the Web site inaccessible interrupts what we
exist to do. The one-day blackout,though, was just a speed bump. Breaking
the legal infrastructure that makes it possible to operate Wikipedia, and
sites like ours, would be a much greater disruption.
Two weeks ago we recognized a threat to that infrastructure and did
something we’ve never done before: We acknowledged that our existence is
itself political, and we spoke up to protect it. It turned out to be the
largest Internet protest ever.
The full-time advocates of freedom of information, such as the Electronic
Frontier Foundation and Public Knowledge, have been fighting for decades to
help create the legal environment that makes our work possible. We cannot
waste that effort by failing to speak in our own defense when that
environment is threatened.
It’s absolutely right that Congress cares about the content industry,
recognizing its ability to innovate, to create wealth and to improve lives.
But existing copyright enforcement laws were written in a world in which
the information we had access to on a broad scale came from a few
established media outlets. The players were easy to identify. They
organized into groups with common interests and fought to protect those
interests. The “content industry” is no longer limited to those few
The laws we need now must recognize the more broadly distributed and
broadly valuable power of free and open knowledge. They must come from an
understanding of that power and a recognition that the voices flooding the
phone lines and in-boxes of Congress on Jan. 18 represented the source of
that power. These laws must not simply be rammed through to appease narrow
lobbies without sufficient review or consideration of the consequences.
Because we are the media industry. We are the creators. We are the
innovators. The whole world benefits from our work. That work, and our
ability to do it, is worth protecting for everyone.
Jay Walsh, Head of Communications
+1 415 839 6885 ext 6609
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:
WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Per the above requests voiced on this list, I have created three smaller
resolution versions of the video in 720, 360 and 240p, which have been
uploaded to Wikimedia Commons by Reedy (thanks!).
The videos are linked at the original files' description page:
Hope that'd be useful :-))
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I am pleased to announce the beginning of the voting of steward elections
2012 . Eligible voters are now encouraged to give their valuable votes
to elect new stewards this year. To find out more about voter eligibility,
please take a look on our guidelines page.  Vote page will remain open
to vote until February 27 2012, 23:59 (UTC).
This year, we have made some modifications so it will be easier for voters
to vote compared to the last years. You just have to follow the following
- Click on the big gray vote button on the vote page, a box will appear;
- Select your vote (yes/no/neutral), and write your comments (if you
have any) in the comment box;
- And click "vote" on that box and it will save your vote automatically.
Additionally, we are using template and bot so it will be easy to check the
votes and verify the eligible ones.
This year, we are also arranging the confirmation of existing stewards ,
so you are also welcome to give your valuable comments/feedback about their
works. Confirmations are a good opportunity to check if we are still happy
with our current stewards. So please speak your voice there.
if you have any queries related to anything about to the election, you can
ask us on the talk page . You are also free to poke us on IRC channel
We hope you will participate as soon as possible to speak your opinion and
make this year's election a successful one (as you did in past).
Please feel free to forward this e-mail to any other lists if you think it
will be useful. :-)
Wikitanvir on Wikimedia
(On behalf of the Election Committee.)