Posted to the WMF and WM UK blogs a few moments ago.
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/09/28/joint-statement-from-wikimedia-foundat…http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2012/09/joint-statement-from-wikimedia-foundat…
---
*Joint statement from Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia UK
*
Over the past six months, a Wikimedia UK trustee led two Wikipedia-related
projects, Monmouthpedia and Gibraltarpedia, in a way that seemed to some
observers to blur his roles as a Wikimedia UK trustee, a paid consultant
for the projects’ government partners, and an editor of the English
Wikipedia. This raised questions in the Wikimedia community about whether a
trustee was able to balance appropriately the interests of his clients with
his responsibilities to Wikimedia UK, the values and editorial policies of
Wikipedia, and whether any conflict of interest that arose as a result was
effectively managed.
To better understand the facts and details of these allegations and to
ensure that governance arrangements commensurate with the standing of the
Wikimedia Foundation, Wikimedia UK and the worldwide Wikimedia movement,
Wikimedia UK’s trustees and the Wikimedia Foundation will jointly appoint
an independent expert advisor to objectively review both Wikimedia UK’s
governance arrangements and its handling of the conflict of interest.
The review will consider Wikimedia UK’s current governance arrangements,
current internal policies, such as the Trustee Code of Conduct, the Nolan
Committee Requirements, the Conflicts of Interest policy, the Representing
Wikimedia UK policy, any other relevant policies of Wikimedia UK, and best
ethical practices.
Considering specifically the conflict of interest, we will ask the expert
advisor to identify any gaps between how the conflict of interest situation
within Wikimedia UK would ideally have been handled and how it actually was
handled, and to recommend how situations such as this should be managed in
the future. The review will also touch on any activities that may have
blurred work as a paid consultant with work as a Wikipedia editor, but
recommendations for changes to Wikipedia’s policies and practices will be
outside its scope: we leave the broader topic of reviewing Wikipedia’s
editorial policies to the community.
Once the review is completed, it will be reviewed by both the Wikimedia
Foundation and Wikimedia UK and then published.
At the same time, Wikimedia UK has agreed with the Wikimedia Foundation
that the Foundation shall process payments for the United Kingdom during
this year’s fundraiser.
Wikimedia UK has the benefit of legal and professional advice to assist in
understanding and handling conflicts of interests. The goal of both
organizations in carrying out this review, and Wikimedia UK’s in deciding
to absent itself from the 2012 fundraising campaign as a payment processor,
is to demonstrate that we mutually recognize the importance of handling
conflicts well beyond simple requirements of the law. We understand our
responsibilities to you: the members of Wikimedia UK and the Wikimedia
movement, its donors, editors, and readers.
_______________________________________________
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
_______________________________________________
WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
WikimediaAnnounce-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Roger Bamkin <victuallers(a)gmail.com>
Date: 29 September 2012 06:53
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Joint statement with the Foundation
To: UK Wikimedia mailing list <wikimediauk-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
I have been encouraged to issue statements for the last week or so
about the debate. I have resisted as I did not want to escalate what I
saw as an unfortunate bit of publicity for Wikimedia UK and the
Foundation. I'm very disappointed to see the latest press release I
believe that the statement on my talk page on the English, Catalan and
Simple Wikipedia supplies some background.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Victuallers
In retrospect we could all give the board and me better advice. I have
tried to remain loyal to you, the mission, and the board. I have made
less money working for "the mission" then I would have done elsewhere,
and I think I have also shared in extending our reach. I've visited
many countries and talked with five of six ministers from Gibraltar,
Wales and the British Parliament about WMUK. You know I worked as an
unpaid wikipedian in residence and you may have guessed that I turned
down paid work last year to concentrate on leading the WMUK board
during my last term. That was costing me too much money and so with
the board's agreement I stood down so that Monmouthshire County
Council could make the exceptional step of paying me. They did not do
this lightly and they had to get special agreement from their elected
members that in this case it was worth stepping outside their normal
employment procedures to save Monmouthpedia. This is well documented.
As my statement shows both the board and the Foundation should have
been aware of the public statements that were made. I have heard it
claimed that the Foundation were unaware - but I resigned as chair of
the UK chapter. Someone must have read the reason. I was very clear
when you re-elected me as a board member that I had and would continue
to have business interests like Monmouthshire County Council. (I have
to eat). We may have been mistaken, but it was a joint and informed
decision.
It seems a long time ago when I was in Haifa and we were told that the
Foundation did not want WMUK to take part in last years fundraiser.
But we did and that made us several hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Our current exec can take a lot of credit for achieving that.
best regards
Roger
On 28 September 2012 23:41, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> There were plenty of large countries on that list, although media attention is likely to spread further when it originates in English, that's true.
>
> On Sep 28, 2012 11:37 PM, "Deryck Chan" <deryckchan(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 28 September 2012 23:20, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sep 28, 2012 11:11 PM, "Deryck Chan" <deryckchan(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > There is, an will always be, the option to donate to WMUK rather than WMF even if WMUK isn't the default payment processor anymore.
> >> >
> >> > What I can certainly see is a fragmented 2012 fundraiser, with certain donors staying with WMUK and others switching to WMF because that's where the default landing page now points them to. Lots of returning donors will be very very confused either because they can't gift-aid their donations, or because two "Wikipedia organisations" are asking for their money at the same time.
> >>
> >> What will happen is exactly the same as what happened in the countries where the foundation took over fundraising last year which was, indeed, los of people being very confused and not understanding who it was they had just given money to.
> >>
> >> The foundation will need to be very clear about its messaging. I would recommend a prominent notice on the landing page that the WMF is not a registered charity in the UK, so that there can be no claims that they have misled donors.
> >
> >
> > The main difference here is, I believe, that the UK donor base is much larger than the countries whose payment processing was taken over by WMF last year. And they speak English. Therefore the media outcry from the confusion is likely to be much louder.
> >
> > From a regular reader-donor's point of view, being confused about where their money went to is almost certainly worse than learning that some trustee is involved with a conflict of interest scandal, weirdly, between multiple projects all to do with Wikipedia.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia UK mailing list
> > wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> > WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
--
Roger Bamkin
Victuallers Ltd
01332 702993
0758 2020815
Google+:Victuallers
Skype:Victuallers1
Flickr:Victuallers2
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
We need to make sure we own the names before voting on them. Else we
risk someone else buying it or choosing a name that is either already
used or too expensive. Domain names that are not already owned
typically go for $10. There are some like Wikiplanet that are being
sold for $25,000. The latter is thus not an option.
--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
I know many of you will have seen this on other lists already, but
it's pretty exciting news.
-- phoebe
----- Forwarded Message -----
California universities to produce 50 open-source textbooks
via Ars Technica by Timothy B. Lee on 9/28/12
California Governor Jerry Brown gave his pen a workout yesterday. In
addition to signing legislation prohibiting social network snooping by
employers and colleges, he also has also signed off on a proposal for
the state to fund 50 open source digital textbooks. He signed two
bills, one to create the the textbooks and the other to establish a
California Digital Open Source Library to host them, at a meeting with
students in Sacramento.
According to a legislative summary, the textbook bill would "require
the California Open Education Resources Council to determine a list of
50 lower division courses in the public postsecondary segments for
which high-quality, affordable, digital open source textbooks and
related materials would be developed or acquired." The council is to
solicit bids to produce these textbooks in 2013. The bill makes clear
that the council has the option to use "existing high-quality digital
open source textbooks and related materials" if those materials fit
the requirements.
The law specifies that the textbooks must be placed under a Creative
Commons license, allowing professors at universities outside of
California to use the textbooks in their own classrooms. The textbooks
must be encoded in XML, or "other appropriate successor format," to
facilitate re-use of the materials.
....
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/09/california-universities-to-produ…
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 11:00:08 -0700, Jeff Green <jgreen(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
> I'm planning to deploy Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for the
> wikimedia.org domain on Weds October 5. SPF is a framework for
> validating outgoing mail, which gives the receiving side useful
> information for spam filtering. The main goal is to cause spoofed
> @wikimedia.org mail to be correctly identified as such. It should also
> improve our odds of getting fundraiser mailings into inboxes rather than
> spam folders.
>
> The change should not be noticeable, but the most likely problem would
> be legitimate @wikimedia.org mail being treated as spam. If you hear of
> this happening please let me know.
>
> Technical details are below for anyone interested . . .
>
> Thanks,
> jg
>
> Jeff Green
> Operations Engineer, Special Projects
> Wikimedia Foundation
> 149 New Montgomery Street, 3rd Floor
> San Francisco, CA 94105
> jgreen(a)wikimedia.org
>
> . . . . . . .
>
> SPF overview http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sender_Policy_Framework
>
> The October 8 change will be simply a matter of adding a TXT record to
> the wikimedia.org DNS zone:
>
> wikimedia.org IN TXT "v=spf1 ip4:91.198.174.0/24 ip4:208.80.152.0/22
> ip6:2620:0:860::/46 include:_spf.google.com ip4:74.121.51.111 ?all"
>
> The record is a list of subnets that we identify as senders (all wmf
> subnets, google apps, and the fundraiser mailhouse). The "?all" is a
> "neutral" policy--it doesn't state either way how mail should be handled.
>
> Eventually we'll probably bump "?all" to a stricter "~all" aka SoftFail,
> which tells the receiving side that only mail coming from the listed
> subnets is valid. Most ISPs will route 'other' mail to a spam folder
> based on SoftFail.
I was under the impression that ~all softfail is not an assertion that
something is not authorized and the only way to actually assert that is
with -all hardfail.
> Please bug me with any questions/comments!
--
~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://daniel.friesen.name]
Hi all,
The straw poll [1] for the name of the new travel guide project has closed.
While there's been strong support for the name Wikivoyage, there have also
been strong arguments expressing the desire for a more open-ended process
and no overall consensus to go forward without it. The Wikimedia Foundation
therefore would like to invite participation in an open process, which is
described at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Travel_Guide/Naming_Process,
and begins immediately with the submission of suggested names (please note
the submission process). Thank you for your participation.
Thanks,
pb
[1] - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Travel_Guide/Naming_straw_poll/en
___________________
Philippe Beaudette
Director, Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
415-839-6885, x 6643
philippe(a)wikimedia.org
(also posted on the WMF blog:
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/09/27/update-on-recent-legal-activities/)
Yesterday, Ryan Holliday, one of the community members sued by Internet
Brands, filed a motion to strike and dismiss Internet Brands’ complaint
(you can access the filing here
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:2012-09-26_Notice_of_Defendants%27…)
. Ryan’s motion argues that Internet Brands’ lawsuit is a SLAPP (Strategic
Lawsuit Against Public Participation) — a meritless case brought not to
win, but to punish him and frighten others from exercising their free
speech rights to discuss the creation of a new travel project. Ryan is also
seeking an award of attorneys’ fees, meaning that if he wins, Internet
Brands will be required to pay the legal costs incurred to prepare the
motion. The court will hear the motion on November 5, 2012.
We fully agree with Ryan’s position, and we hope his motion is successful.
We think community volunteers like Ryan deserve our thanks, not meritless
lawsuits. You can read about the original suit filed by the Wikimedia
Foundation in a blog post (
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/09/05/wikimedia-foundation-seeks-declaratory…)
from September 5, 2012.
on behalf of
Kelly Kay, Deputy Counsel
--
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 Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
_______________________________________________
WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
WikimediaAnnounce-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
Ten years ago we actually tried to create an online scholarly journal
(for profit) process with rapid publication.Unfortunately there was no
interest from investors as the dot com bust had left them shy on
anything online...
> "eventualism" and our reliable sources model are probably a very poor
> match to time-sensitive original research in the sciences or
> engineering, which is what journals are all about.
>
> That is not to say that a pure open-content and organization model
> could not work, but I don't think ours does.
>
> If you want to help figure out and organize one...
>
I know how to do it and adapt it to open content provided there are
sufficient editorial volunteer personnel to guide the process.
See my archive of hype for investors at:
http://www.siliconmirror.com/adtechpub/index.html
If anyone is interested in pursuing this, email me privately and I'll
send you the link to the flash presentation. (all the people involved
have gone off to other activities so I don't want to give a public link).
Not bad
VIDEL Wallis
videl.wallis(a)aol.com
-----Original Message-----
From: wikimedia-l-request <wikimedia-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
To: wikimedia-l <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Wed, Sep 26, 2012 3:17 pm
Subject: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 102, Issue 49
Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
wikimedia-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
wikimedia-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: (semi-OT) Open access "catastrophic" for Elsevier (emijrp)
2. Fwd: Re: FUD&Chilling Effects&Filters&Outlawing (Deryck Chan)
3. Page Curation launch on English Wikipedia (Fabrice Florin)
4. Re: (semi-OT) Open access "catastrophic" for Elsevier
(Andrea Zanni)
5. Re: Page Curation launch on English Wikipedia (PARNALL Perry)
6. Re: Page Curation launch on English Wikipedia (PARNALL Perry)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 00:08:06 +0200
From: emijrp <emijrp(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] (semi-OT) Open access "catastrophic" for
Elsevier
Message-ID:
<CAPgALA6vBYvc87RgEar2YeQwqkWWmD7yvTEW8Dvj0x=4SizEVg(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Coordinating people to write encyclopedias was expensive. Well, until 2001.
2012/9/25 George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com>
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Mark <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote:
> > On 9/25/12 12:32 AM, George Herbert wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Richard Farmbrough
> >> <richard(a)farmbrough.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 24/09/2012 03:49, Risker wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> the costs of peer review
> >>>
> >>> I have academics complaining to me that they don't get paid for peer
> >>> review,
> >>> so I'm not sure what these costs are.
> >>
> >> Someone has to edit the magazine, pre-accept papers, and handle the
> >> peer reviews.
> >>
> >
> > The actual organization of peer reviews generally isn't paid even at
> > for-profit journals, at least in my field. The editor-in-chief and
> editorial
> > board are usually responsible for finding and assigning reviewers, and
> then
> > making a decision based on their reviews, and those aren't paid
> positions.
> > There are indeed editing/layout costs at some journals, though it varies
> > widely. In computer science, the costs are typically lower to
> nonexistent,
> > because of an expectation that authors will be able to deliver
> > publication-ready PDFs, using LaTeX and a template provided by the
> journal.
> >
> > The two top journals these days in my field (artificial intelligence)
> both
> > run on fairly low budgets, one a rounding error away from $0, and the
> other
> > a modest nonprofit:
> >
> > * http://jmlr.csail.mit.edu/ -- donated server space from MIT, and a
> > completely volunteer editorial process
> > * http://jair.org/ -- nonprofit organization with a small budget
> (funded by
> > donations and grants) pays for server space and a small staff
> >
> > -Mark
>
> Computer Science seems to have taken the lead there, but my
> understanding (as an outsider, interested, but not participating much)
> is that physical and biological sciences, and most other engineering,
> usually pay a staffer and the editor-in-chief, but usually not
> reviewers or the editorial board.
>
> I'm sure it's wildly across the map from field to field and
> publication to publication, though...
>
> The important part of the discussion is to get on the table that there
> are real production EFFORTS involved in all of these journals; it's
> not just an email balancing act, a large part of people's work time is
> dedicated to coordination and reviewing reviews and finding reviewers
> and the like. Authors are asked to review. Lots of effort is
> happening.
>
> Whether most of that is "free" - supported by institutions or done by
> people out of the goodness of their heart (or for prestige) - or paid,
> it's happening.
>
> If I'm paying $1,000 a year for a journal I darn well expect that
> they're both paying the coordination and production staff and also
> exercising not academic interference, but having an organizational
> review board to make sure the editor and editorial committee aren't
> running off the rails (as has been known to happen in lesser known
> journals).
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> george.herbert(a)gmail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
--
Emilio J. Rodr?guez-Posada. E-mail: emijrp AT gmail DOT com
Pre-doctoral student at the University of C?diz (Spain)
Projects: AVBOT <http://code.google.com/p/avbot/> |
StatMediaWiki<http://statmediawiki.forja.rediris.es>
| WikiEvidens <http://code.google.com/p/wikievidens/> |
WikiPapers<http://wikipapers.referata.com>
| WikiTeam <http://code.google.com/p/wikiteam/>
Personal website: https://sites.google.com/site/emijrp/
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 00:00:34 +0100
From: Deryck Chan <deryckchan(a)wikimedia.hk>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Re: FUD&Chilling
Effects&Filters&Outlawing
Message-ID:
<CA+F5PQ84CT3g7zpfU9310Yo2tJsEAzJ5jZpFkaWkcet7Ns0=KA(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Deryck Chan" <deryckchan(a)gmail.com>
Date: Sep 25, 2012 11:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] FUD&Chilling Effects&Filters&Outlawing
To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
This is old news. This is what we've been protesting against all throughout
the SOPA/ACTA related actions. Yes it is alarming, but we've been aware of
them for years.
On Sep 25, 2012 9:22 PM, "ENWP Pine" <deyntestiss(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> Some of what that article describes is absurd and would run counter to
> principles that I think Europe generally supports. I think most of us would
> agree that the internet can be used for dangerous and fraudulent purposes
> and that governments have a role in protecting the public from genuine
> danger and fraud, but those efforts need to be done in a reasonable and
> balanced way that respects important liberty principles that underpin
> governments that are "of the people, by the people, for the people."
>
> I hope that WMF Legal takes a look at this article and evaluates how much
> of it is truthful. Hopefully that article is more rumor than truth.
>
> Pine
>
> -
>
> Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 10:52:30 +0300
> From: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro(a)gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.**org<wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> >
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] FUD&Chilling Effects&Filters&Outlawing
> Anonymity&Unrestricted Surveillance of the Nets 'Alive and Well in the
> European Union'!!!
> Message-ID:
> <CAJ9-**EKJNS9T7tCdFBe4aOYEHQfPuQpYaoO**AiWVVRYYEnV5ZmoA(a)mail.gmail.**com<CAJ9-EKJNS9T7tCdFBe4aOYEHQfPuQpYaoOAiWVVRYYEnV5ZmoA(a)mail.gmail.com>
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> http://www.edri.org/cleanIT
>
> I challenge any knowledgeable and clueful person to peruse that above
> link and not reel back in horror and incredulity... Can somebody either
> confirm that people in WMF are aware of the above Charlie Foxtrot;
> or failing that, bump it up to people who are qualified and empowered
> to consider how WMF should approach the situation. Would be nice to
> hear that the above report is inaccurate, unwarrantedly alarmist, or that
> the proposals will come to nothing in any case, but...
>
> --
> --
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
>
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.**org <Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 18:02:18 -0700
From: Fabrice Florin <fflorin(a)wikimedia.org>
To: wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Page Curation launch on English Wikipedia
Message-ID: <783FD815-62BC-4839-83A1-FDF66E533F6F(a)wikimedia.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Hi folks,
I am happy to announce that the Wikimedia Foundation has just launched Page
Curation, a new suite of tools for reviewing articles on Wikipedia.
Current page patrol tools like Special:NewPages and Twinkle can be hard to use
quickly and accurately, and have led to frustration for some users. Page
Curation aims to improve that page patrol experience by making it faster and
easier to review new pages, using two integrated tools: the New Pages Feed and
the Curation Toolbar.
Read the Page Curation announcement on our blog:
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/09/25/page-curation-launch/
To learn more, visit our introduction page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Page_Curation/Introduction
If you are an experienced editor, please give Page Curation a try:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:NewPagesFeed
We are also holding IRC office hours on Wednesday, September 26 at 4pm PT (23:00
UTC), during which we will be happy to answer any questions you may have. Please
report any issues on our talk page or to our Community Liaison, Oliver Keyes
<okeyes(a)wikimedia.org>.
A number of patrollers have already started using Page Curation, and we hope
that more curators will adopt this new toolkit over time. A 'release version'
was deployed on the English Wikipedia on September 20, 2012, and we plan to make
it available to other projects in coming weeks.
This feature was created in close collaboration with editors. We would like to
take this opportunity to thank all the community members who patiently guided
our progress over the past few months. This includes folks like Athleek123, DGG,
Dori, Fluffernutter, Logan, The Helpful One, Tom Morris, Utar and
WereSpielChequers, to name but a few. We are deeply grateful for your generous
contributions to this project!
We designed Page Curation to offer a better experience, by making it easier for
curators to review new pages and by providing more feedback to creators so they
can improve Wikipedia together.
We hope that you will find this new tool useful. Enjoy!
Fabrice Florin
Product Manager, Editor Engagement Team
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Fabrice Florin (WMF)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_Engagement
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 11:39:34 +0200
From: Andrea Zanni <zanni.andrea84(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] (semi-OT) Open access "catastrophic" for
Elsevier
Message-ID:
<CAC=VxyZUxzP0Jj08ojTNLEGo+PTjJ+n4_EUZUqRhtSU71r1ZJA(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 12:08 AM, emijrp <emijrp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Coordinating people to write encyclopedias was expensive. Well, until 2001.
I'll have a tshirt with this.
Aubrey
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 05:46:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: PARNALL Perry <parnall.perry(a)aol.com>
To: wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Page Curation launch on English Wikipedia
Message-ID: <8CF69E2FE9CE00F-20E0-3E433(a)webmail-m166.sysops.aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
This is ok
PARNALL Perry
parnall.perry(a)aol.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Fabrice Florin <fflorin(a)wikimedia.org>
To: wikimedia-l <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>; wikitech-l
<wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Wed, Sep 26, 2012 6:32 am
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Page Curation launch on English Wikipedia
Hi folks,
I am happy to announce that the Wikimedia Foundation has just launched Page
Curation, a new suite of tools for reviewing articles on Wikipedia.
Current page patrol tools like Special:NewPages and Twinkle can be hard to use
quickly and accurately, and have led to frustration for some users. Page
Curation aims to improve that page patrol experience by making it faster and
easier to review new pages, using two integrated tools: the New Pages Feed and
the Curation Toolbar.
Read the Page Curation announcement on our blog:
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/09/25/page-curation-launch/
To learn more, visit our introduction page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Page_Curation/Introduction
If you are an experienced editor, please give Page Curation a try:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:NewPagesFeed
We are also holding IRC office hours on Wednesday, September 26 at 4pm PT (23:00
UTC), during which we will be happy to answer any questions you may have. Please
report any issues on our talk page or to our Community Liaison, Oliver Keyes
<okeyes(a)wikimedia.org>.
A number of patrollers have already started using Page Curation, and we hope
that more curators will adopt this new toolkit over time. A 'release version'
was deployed on the English Wikipedia on September 20, 2012, and we plan to make
it available to other projects in coming weeks.
This feature was created in close collaboration with editors. We would like to
take this opportunity to thank all the community members who patiently guided
our progress over the past few months. This includes folks like Athleek123, DGG,
Dori, Fluffernutter, Logan, The Helpful One, Tom Morris, Utar and
WereSpielChequers, to name but a few. We are deeply grateful for your generous
contributions to this project!
We designed Page Curation to offer a better experience, by making it easier for
curators to review new pages and by providing more feedback to creators so they
can improve Wikipedia together.
We hope that you will find this new tool useful. Enjoy!
Fabrice Florin
Product Manager, Editor Engagement Team
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Fabrice Florin (WMF)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_Engagement
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 05:46:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: PARNALL Perry <parnall.perry(a)aol.com>
To: wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Page Curation launch on English Wikipedia
Message-ID: <8CF69E2FDB398ED-20E0-3E432(a)webmail-m166.sysops.aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
This is ok
PARNALL Perry
parnall.perry(a)aol.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Fabrice Florin <fflorin(a)wikimedia.org>
To: wikimedia-l <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>; wikitech-l
<wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Wed, Sep 26, 2012 6:32 am
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Page Curation launch on English Wikipedia
Hi folks,
I am happy to announce that the Wikimedia Foundation has just launched Page
Curation, a new suite of tools for reviewing articles on Wikipedia.
Current page patrol tools like Special:NewPages and Twinkle can be hard to use
quickly and accurately, and have led to frustration for some users. Page
Curation aims to improve that page patrol experience by making it faster and
easier to review new pages, using two integrated tools: the New Pages Feed and
the Curation Toolbar.
Read the Page Curation announcement on our blog:
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/09/25/page-curation-launch/
To learn more, visit our introduction page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Page_Curation/Introduction
If you are an experienced editor, please give Page Curation a try:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:NewPagesFeed
We are also holding IRC office hours on Wednesday, September 26 at 4pm PT (23:00
UTC), during which we will be happy to answer any questions you may have. Please
report any issues on our talk page or to our Community Liaison, Oliver Keyes
<okeyes(a)wikimedia.org>.
A number of patrollers have already started using Page Curation, and we hope
that more curators will adopt this new toolkit over time. A 'release version'
was deployed on the English Wikipedia on September 20, 2012, and we plan to make
it available to other projects in coming weeks.
This feature was created in close collaboration with editors. We would like to
take this opportunity to thank all the community members who patiently guided
our progress over the past few months. This includes folks like Athleek123, DGG,
Dori, Fluffernutter, Logan, The Helpful One, Tom Morris, Utar and
WereSpielChequers, to name but a few. We are deeply grateful for your generous
contributions to this project!
We designed Page Curation to offer a better experience, by making it easier for
curators to review new pages and by providing more feedback to creators so they
can improve Wikipedia together.
We hope that you will find this new tool useful. Enjoy!
Fabrice Florin
Product Manager, Editor Engagement Team
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Fabrice Florin (WMF)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_Engagement
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
End of Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 102, Issue 49
********************************************