Jan-Bart de Vreede wrote:
>...
> we are trying to reach potential candidates in a different way....
Does Leonie Haimson want to interview to be co-director?
http://www.classsizematters.org/about-us/
She started editing in the past year, after suffering from a paid
advocacy-introduced inaccuracy contrary to the peer reviewed secondary
literature, many examples of which still exist in the English
Wikipedia.
Best regards,
James Salsman
Hi folks,
I've just uploaded the wiki and PDF versions of the Foundation's most
recent, 2012-13 Annual Report, a project I was invited to work on after my
departure as comms director back in September. You can access a wiki and
PDF version here:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Annual_Report
As in previous years, we will also have a printed version. Hopefully some
of you will be able to see those copies in the coming months.
It's been fun to work on this project again - as in previous years we
welcome your comments or feedback. There's a comment section on the meta
wiki page.
You can also find a blog post announcing the release of the report here:
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/01/21/wikimedia-foundation-annual-report/
Thanks!
jay walsh (on behalf of Communications for WMF)
_______________________________________________
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
Hi! George Mason Univeristy is taking on a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar.
It's a position where you gain full and free remote library access to work
on Wikipedia articles by being granted 'research affiliate' or 'visiting
scholar' to do so.
GMU is looking for someone with an interest in history and new media, but
this is history very broadly construed and could include 'recent history'.
I'd encourage anyone to apply and explain what your area of focus is.
There are not a lot of applicants yet, so if you're just clear and honest
in your application you have a good shot.
If you're interested, please fill out the application by January 27th.
Application: http://enwp.org/WP:TWL/WVS/GMU
Visiting Scholarinfo: http://enwp.org/WP:TWL/WVS
Cheers, Jake (Ocaasi)
Hello everybody,
I have just posted an extensive feedback from WMDE on the FDC process here
on meta:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/Comments/Extensive_fe…
The statement was drafted by WMDE's Supervisory Board and myself.
We are very much looking forward to a discussion and I would like to
encourage everybody to share their thoughts. At the same it would be great
if we could keep the discussion on meta so that we have everything in one
place.
All the Best,
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Pavel Richter
Vorstand
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
Tel.: +49 - 30 - 219 158 260
Twitter: @pavel
Hi Erik,
Thanks for the charts,
The pattern though not the quantity of declining reverts since the 2007
peak certainly fits the theory that as the anti vandal bots and edit
filters have got more efficient so our level of vandalism has fallen. As
well as the theory that the drift to mobile is turning us from an
interactive medium to a broadcast one. But I don't buy the idea that
reverts are less than 1% of mainspace edits. Looking at a few random
screens of recent changes in recent days I always see at least 1 revert in
far fewer than a hundred mainspace edits. Is it possible that your stats
are only picking a subset of them such as not including reverts by bots, or
those that using undo rather than rollback?
One of the changes in EN Wikipedia has been the increase in non-mainspace
article edits, in particular the promotion of Articles for Creation and in
future the draft namespace as places for creating new articles. Also
userspace, when I train newbies I always advise them to start new articles
in sandboxes rather than run the gauntlets of NPP or AFC, I doubt I'm the
only one who does this. Am I correct in assuming that these statistics
look at edits according to their namepace at the time when the statistics
run? If so it would be more accurate if we could include articles for
creation within mainspace. Otherwise one of the skews that will be in the
data will be the extent to which we steer new article creators towards AFC,
and of course the stats at any one moment in time will be skewed towards
some very recent edits being in AFC or sandboxes, whilst the same edits
from earlier months will now count in mainspace.
It would also be good to know whether these are surviving edits or total
edits. We have a very large number of articles deleted on the English
language wikipedia every day, and the de facto standards for deletion are
probably rather more deletionist than in 2007. The only big policy change I
can remember that effects this is the decision to make unreferenced new
BLPs a 7 day deletion criteria, but if these are surviving edits as opposed
to raw ones then one of the factors in the change will be the extent of
deletionism
PS I really like the way those charts show the bot spike in early 2013 when
the intrawikis moved to Wikidata
Regards
Jonathan
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 23:07:08 +0100
> From: Mark <delirium(a)hackish.org>
> To: wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users
> Message-ID: <52D9A98C.8070201(a)hackish.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> On 1/17/14, 3:55 AM, Erik Zachte wrote:
> > Here are some charts which breakdown edits into several categories,
> reverts are counted separately. Of course edits is not editors, but it
> could be indicative of changed behavior patterns/policies. In the ongoing
> reassesment of metric definitions one thing discussed is whether we should
> count productive editors separately (I think we do), and if so on what
> basis (e.g. x edits per week/month which survived y days of not being
> reverted).
> >
> > http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/PlotsPngEditHistoryAll.htm
> >
>
>
Dear Community Members,
I am happy to let you know that the Affiliations Committee has finished the
selection process for the 2014-2015.
The six sitting members of the Committee will be joined by four very
experienced Wikimedians:
- Cynthia Ashley-Nelson
- Kirill Lokshin
- Galileo Vidoni (re-appointment)
- Lodewijk Gelauff (re-appointment)
Along with the vast Wikimedia experience they bring to the Committee, we
really appreciate the organisational development, governance and language
skills that are being brought on-board (and stays on-board with the
re-appointments).
I would like to thank everyone who has applied to a position in the
Committee. While due to practical reasons, we could not accept everyone,
but anyone who has considered applying and helping other volunteers through
this Committee are a huge asset to this movement, and I really hope they
will all find places and roles where they can help our movement grow.
I would also like to thank our vice-chair, Carlos, who has run much of the
selection process behind the scenes ensuring that both the applicants and
the Committee members have a smooth experience.
The appointing resolution has been published at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Resolutions/Membersh…
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Resolutions/Membersh…>
If you are considering on becoming a member in the future, please sign up
here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Affiliations_Committee#Future_members.
The next call for candidates is expected in November 2014, with new members
joining in January 2015.
Best regards,
Bence Damokos
Chair,
Affiliations Committee