I am ACTUALLY PANIC when reading this.
Normally I would say please don't go,
but realizing myself I am not on the Local Chapter board already
and even myself start to feel don't know what to do next
And I am sorry to say, the decision had totally stir up the emotion of the
whole Wikimania Local Team
I frankly don't know whether if it will lead to a melt down of our
after frustrations of all these years as Deryck said, as I was on the Board
and knew most of the stories.
Jeromy-Yu Chan, Jerry
(on Facebook, Twitter, Plurk & most sites)
Tel (Mobile): +852 9279 1601
Οὔτε τι τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων ἄξιον ὂν μεγάλης σπουδῆς
As mentioned in a variety of places (mostly, it looks like, on Commons
Village Pump) Creative Commons is revising their licenses to produce a
new 4.0 version. The changes include a variety of things relevant to
Commons and other WM projects, most importantly attribution, but also
improved translations, database rights, and general improvements in
CC is nearing their final version, and have asked me to ask our
community for one last round of review and comment. Consider this that
A few relevant links:
* The best way to comment is through their mailing list:
* The actual drafts, including side-by-side comparisons to 3.0:
* Their complete wiki: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0
This is *not* a call for comments on the adoption of CC 4.0 by WM
projects. That discussion, if it happens, would be after 4.0 has been
finalized, so that we're not speculating about the final terms.
Deputy General Counsel
415.839.6885 ext. 6810
NOTICE: This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you
have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about
the mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for
legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a
lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Romaine Wiki <romaine_wiki(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hello Tilman,
> Thanks for composing the report and sending it.
> In section 9.2.6 I saw the Wikipedia Signpost. Perhaps it is also possible and interesting to add another newsletter that describes a mayor field of interest for Wikimedias in the world. For two years and three months now we publish every month a newsletter about what happened in the Wikimedias regarding GLAM in the past month. Each month the new edition can be found on http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter
thanks for you suggestion. I am a regular reader (and infrequent
copyeditor) of "This Month in GLAM"; I think it is a great resource.
The scope of these monthly WMF reports is, roughly, the work of
Foundation staff during that month. Recall that they started out as
Sue's reports to the Board; they are a basic instrument of
transparency and accountability for the Foundation. As such, their
main focus is not on the kind of work by volunteers and chapters
that's covered in the GLAM newsletter - these are often the topic of
other posts on https://blog.wikimedia.org/ . The Communications
section of the WMF report includes a list of external media coverage
from that month, because that relates to the job of the Communications
team, and the Signpost issues from each past month are listed there
for similar purposes, and also because it reports a lot on the work of
WMF staff ("lots of detailed coverage and news summaries").
That said, the separate monthly "Wikimedia Highlights" do indeed cover
non-WMF work too, and have featured a lot of news from the GLAM
newsletter - with a link back to the corresponding full story - in the
past. (Admittedly a bit less often in recent months, but I seem to
recall we had up to three TIMG-sourced highlights at one point.) These
also get translated into various language each month. If you have
suggestions for/from the upcoming April issue, feel free to leave them
here before the metrics meeting on Thursday afternoon UTC:
>> Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 11:55:48 -0700
>> From: Tilman Bayer <tbayer(a)wikimedia.org>
>> To: wikimediaannounce-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> Cc: Staff All <wmfall(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
>> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia
>> Report, March 2013
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>> Hi all,
>> please find below the WMF report for March 2013, in plain
>> As always, the editable and formatted version has been
>> published on Meta:
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
IRC (Freenode): HaeB
Dear Readers, dear Nemo,
in my last emails, which where objects
I did not complain about my
right wing student-groups in germany
(f.e. Frank Schulenburg),
which was taken as harassment.
But I did, do and will complain in
public about the blockage
of people, complaining about corruption in
the german wikipedia. Writing for
2003, I do not accept, abusing buttons by
incompetent or right-biased people.
My indef-blockage is an ad-hominem argument
by you. My indef-blockage is unvalid, since
the election (the fifth) gave not enough
for my blockage. The blockers
abusing his buttons. 2 and 2 is not 5
Am 30.04.2013 18:40, schrieb
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 16:44:05 +0200
> From: "Federico Leva (Nemo)" <nemowiki(a)gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] censorship in the german mailing list
> Message-ID: <517FD8B5.8050402(a)gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
> Complaining about blocks on mailing lists is rarely useful for anything
> but taking something out of your chest, I suggest you complain on Meta
> if you really need... oh wait, you're indef-blocked for harassment, too bad.
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 16:23:38 +0200
> From: Thomas Sieben <camolxis(a)web.de>
> To: wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] censorship in the german mailing list
> Message-ID: <517FD3EA.3010207(a)web.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
> Dear Readers,
> the german mailing mist is suffering from
> censorship by one of the list of
> Kurt Jansson, Daniel Baur, Arne Klempert.
> I could not send several Mails to the list.
> This is very irritating because of the
> discussion about corruption in the
> german chapter.
> Reiner S., long time writer in the
> german wikipedia,
> was blocked today for one month by user
> because of Reiners strong questions in
> this context.
> Tsor is famous for his sport-arguments
> against democracy
> in wikipedia.
> Blocking of Reiner S.:
> Kind Regards,
Here is a question that came up during today's US GLAM consortium meeting:
what's the current status of the 'movement partners' affiliation?
Is recognition of movement partners something that AffComm will be taking
on in future, or will it rest with WMF/Chapters for now? Not sure what the
latest discussions have been.
* I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers <at>
As you know, the Wikimedia Foundation elections is approaching. As always,
the voters will be the community, developers, current board member and..
WMF staff and contractors. Nothing changed. same as two years ago.
But I wonder - we had this policy when the chapters and others recognized
Wikimedia organization doesn't been really part of the equation.
Yes, many of the chapters board and staff are community members and have
the right the vote - but this is also the case with many of the WMF
employees, but still we giving some of them the right to vote even if they
hardly ever edit on the projects. But we not giving the same right to our's
board and chapters staff, who are also part of the movement.
I'm raising this issue, and asking if should chapter (and
thematic organization) staff and board members should be granted the right
to vote in the movement elections, in the same way as Foundation staff and
board members have right now? To me it's making sense.
Last November, I started to clean up on the Glossary page on meta, as
an attempt to revive it and expand it to include many technical terms,
notably related to Wikimedia Engineering (see e-mail below).
There were (and are) already many glossaries spread around the wikis:
* one for MediaWiki: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Glossary
* one for Wikidata: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Glossary
* one for Labs: https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Terminology
* two for the English Wikipedia:
My thinking at the time was that it would be better to include tech
terms in meta's glossary, because fragmentation isn't a good thing for
glossaries: The user probably doesn't want to search a term through a
dozen glossaries (that they know of), and it would be easier if they
could just search in one place.
The fact is, though, that we're not going to merge all the existing
glossaries into one anytime soon, so overlap and duplication will
remain anyway. Also, it feels weird to have tech content on meta, and
the glossary is getting very long (and possibly more difficult to
maintain). Therefore, I'm now reconsidering the decision of mixing
tech terms and general movement terms on meta.
Below are the current solutions I'm seeing to move forward; I'd love
to get some feedback as to what people think would be the best way to
* Status quo: We keep the current glossaries as they are, even if they
overlap and duplicate work. We'll manage.
* Wikidata: If Wikidata could be used to host terms and definitions
(in various languages), and wikis could pull this data using
templates/Lua, it would be a sane way to reduce duplication, while
still allowing local wikis to complement it with their own terms. For
example, "administrator" is a generic term across Wikimedia sites
(even MediaWiki sites), so it would go into the general glossary
repository on Wikidata; but "DYK" could be local to the English
Wikipedia. With proper templates, the integration between remote and
local terms could be seamless. It seems to me, however, that this
would require significant development work.
* Google custom search: Waldir recently used Google Custom Search to
created a search tool to find technical information across many pages
and sites where information is currently fragmented:
. We could set up a similar tool (or a floss alternative) that would
include all glossaries. By advertising the tool prominently on
existing glossary pages (so that users know it exists), this could
allow us to curate more specific glossaries, while keeping them all
searchable with one tool.
Right now, I'm inclined to go with the "custom search" solution,
because it looks like the easiest and fastest to implement, while
reducing maintenance costs and remaining flexible. That said, I'd love
to hear feedback and opinions about this before implementing anything.
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 7:55 PM, Guillaume Paumier
> The use of jargon, acronyms and other abbreviations throughout the
> Wikimedia movement is a major source of communication issues, and
> barriers to comprehension and involvement.
> The recent thread on this list about "What is Product?" is an example
> of this, as are initialisms that have long been known to be a barrier
> for Wikipedia newcomers.
> A way to bridge people and communities with different vocabularies is
> to write and maintain a glossary that explains jargon in plain English
> terms. We've been lacking a good and up-to-date glossary for Wikimedia
> "stuff" (Foundation, chapter, movement, technology, etc.).
> Therefore, I've started to clean up and expand the outdated Glossary
> on meta, but it's a lot of work, and I don't have all the answers
> myself either. I'll continue to work on it, but I'd love to get some
> help on this and to make it a collaborative effort.
> If you have a few minutes to spare, please consider helping your
> (current and future) fellow Wikimedians by writing a few definitions
> if there are terms that you can explain in plain English. Additions of
> new terms are much welcome as well:
> Some caveats:
> * As part of my work, I'm mostly interested in a glossary from a
> technical perspective, so the list currently has a technical bias. I'm
> hoping that by sending this message to a wider audience, people from
> the whole movement will contribute to the glossary and balance it out.
> * Also, I've started to clean up the glossary, but it still contains
> dated terms and definitions from a few years ago (like the FundCom),
> so boldly edit/remove obsolete content.
Technical Communications Manager — Wikimedia Foundation
This situation is regrettable. My impression is that the FDC ombudsperson should review the handling of WMHK's grant application, including the earlier investigations and communications regarding the determination of whether or not WMHK should have been disqualified from this FDC round. The ombudsperson may have access to information such as emails and accounting documents that are not public. I hope the ombudsperson's review will be reasonably speedy and thorough, and the results made public. One possible determination of an ombudsperson review is that the FDC's final determinations were right but that there are opportunities for improvement in communications with the chapter so that there aren't surprises late in the process which result in a high level of frustration for chapter volunteers.
Several interesting comments have been made in this thread regarding the value of a more holistic evaluation of the FDC and GAC processes with regards to chapters especially regarding the hiring of a chapter's first full time employee. There have also been comments made regarding the "heavy" nature of the FDC grant application process. Would the WMF staff please indicate whether a review of these concerns is under consideration, if so, how they plan to conduct the review?
We have replied multiple times that we want the remaining funds from the
2010-11 grants to be considered in conjunction with the FDC proposal. (ie.
the FDC proposal is the reallocation request.) This is because it is
logistically impractical for us to return any funds to WMF before the end
Winifred informed us of the "out of compliance" well after the grant report
was accepted and the FDC eligibility of WMHK was announced. *There was no
indication whatsoever that this late notice of "out of compliance" may lead
to retrospective disqualification.*
(cc. Patricio and Jan-Bart as the official contacts for FDC complaints.
Yes, I'm accusing WMF grants staff of foul play with the FDC rules.)
On 29 April 2013 12:50, Thehelpfulone <thehelpfulonewiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Deryck please could you confirm what happened with regards to the unused
> funds - did WMHK request a reallocation?
> Sent from my iPhone
> On 29 Apr 2013, at 12:43, Deryck Chan <deryckchan(a)wikimedia.hk> wrote:
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: "Deryck Chan" <deryckchan(a)gmail.com>
> > Date: 29 Apr 2013 12:42
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark
> > to everyone
> > To: <cfranklin(a)halonetwork.net>
> > Cc: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> > See the footnotes on the FDC decision page. Both WMHK and WMCZ were
> > declared eligible at the time of submission, but the WMF subsequently
> > new faults during the review period which they chose to use as convenient
> > excuses to disqualify these 2 chapters.
> > On 29 Apr 2013 12:33, "Craig Franklin" <cfranklin(a)halonetwork.net>
> >> I'd like to come back to this - if the entity was told they were
> >> (which certainly looks to be the case from the public documents), when
> >> it discovered they were not? Obviously, putting together an FDC
> >> application is a tremendous amount of work for a chapter, and if the
> >> was futile from the start, then the time that Deryck and WMHK put into
> >> could have been better spent on useful programme work instead.
> >> Cheers,
> >> Craig Franklin
> >> On 29 April 2013 17:25, Thehelpfulone <thehelpfulonewiki(a)gmail.com>
> >>> On 29 Apr 2013, at 07:52, Tilman Bayer <tbayer(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >>>> I'm not familiar with the case, but reading that page, it seems that
> >>>> might also have played a role for the FDC's recommendation?
> >>> Indeed, yet it looks like there has been no (public) follow up by the
> >> paid
> >>> WMF grants staff for over a month. In addition,
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikim… still be an eligible entity.
> >>> Winifred/Asaf, please can you clarify whether WMHK is still an eligible
> >>> entity and what follow up was done after that message a month ago?
> >>> ---
> >>> Thehelpfulone
> >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l