1. Where can I find a response from either the WMF board or WMF
funding/finance to the criticisms of a lack of transparency or the
apparent failure of the project to deliver value for the donor's money
as raised in this blog post?
2. Where can I read an officially recognized report for the outcomes
of this project in terms of value for Wikimedia projects? Obviously we
do not want to rely on second-hand analysis when reports to the WMF
are a requirement for such projects.
We know NSA wants Wikipedia data, as Wikipedia is listed in one of the
That slide is about HTTP, and the tech staff are moving the
user/reader base to HTTPS.
As we learn more about the NSA programs, we need to consider vectors
other than HTTP for the NSA to obtain the data they want. And the
userbase needs to be aware of the current risks.
One question from the "Dells are backdored"[sic] thread that is worth
separate consideration is:
Are the Wikimedia transit links encrypted, especially for database replication?
MySQL has replication over SSL, so I assume the answer is Yes.
If not, is this necessary or useful, and feasible ?
However we also need to consider that SSL and other encryption may be
useless against NSA/etc, which means replicating non-public data
should be avoided wherever possible, as it becomes a single point of
Given how public our system is, we don't have a lot of non-public
data, so we might be able to design the architecture so that
information isnt replicated, and also ensure it isnt accessed over
insecure links. I think the only parts of the dataset that are
private & valuable are
* passwords/login cookies,
* checkuser info - IPs and useragents,
* WMF analytics, which includes readers iirc, and
* hidden/deleted edits
* private wikis and mailing lists
Have I missed any?
Are passwords and/or checkuser info replicated?
Is there a data policy on WMF analytics data which prevents it flowing
over insecure links, and limits what is collected and ensures
destruction of the data within reasonable timeframes? i.e. how about
not using cookies to track analytics of readers who are on HTTP
instead of HTTPS?
The private wikis can be restricted to https, depending on the value
of the data on those wikis in the wrong hands. The private mailing
lists will be harder to secure, and at least the English Wikipedia
arbcom list contain a lot of valuable data about contributors.
Regarding hidden/deleted edits, the replication isnt the only source
of this data. All edits are also exposed via Recent Changes
(https/api/etc) as they occur, and the value of these edits is
determined by the fact they are hidden afterwards (e.g. don't appear
in dumps). Is there any way to control who is effectively capturing
all edits via Recent Changes?
to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
- Visual Editor
- Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
- Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
- Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity
I'm proposing the following initial schedule:
- Editor Engagement Experiments
- Visual Editor
- Mobile (Contribs + Zero)
- Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
- Funds Dissemination Committee
We’ll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
metrics meetings , since the team(s) will give a presentation on
their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.
My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
which we can use to discuss the concept further:
The internal review will, at minimum, include:
Team members and relevant director(s)
So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.
I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:
- Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
compared with goals
- Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
- Review of challenges, blockers and successes
- Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
- Buffer time, debriefing
Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.
In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
to the departments. We’re slowly getting into that habit in
As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
help inform and support reviews across the organization.
Feedback and questions are appreciated.
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
could wmf please extend the mediawiki software in the following way:
1. it should knows "groups"
2. allow users to store an arbitrary number of groups with their profile
3. allow to select one of the "group"s joined to an edit when saving
4. add a checkbox "COI" to an edit, meaning "potential conflict of interest"
5. display and filter edits marked with COI in a different color in history
6. display and filter edits done for a group in a different color in
7. allow members of a group to receive notifications done on the group page,
or when a group is mentioned in an edit/comment/talk page.
currently it is quite cumbersome to participate as an organisation. it is
quite cumbersome for people as well to detect COI edits. the most prominent
examples are employees of the wikimedia foundation, and GLAMs. users tend
to create multiple accounts, and try to create "company accounts". the main
reason for this behaviour are (examples, but of course valid general):
* have a feedback page / notification page for the swiss federal archive
for other users
* make clear that an edit is done private or as wmf employee
this then would allow the community to create new policies, e.g. the german
community might cease using company accounts, and switch over to this
system. this proposal is purely technical. current policies can still be
applied if people do not need something else, e.g. wmf employees may
continue to use "sue gardner (wmf)" accounts.
what you think?
I just wanted to let you know, so you could mark your calendars if
interested, that there are two IRC office hours scheduled to discuss
VisualEditor in March and one in April.
The first will be held on Monday March 17 at 1500 UTC and the second will
be held on Wednesday March 19 at 0100 UTC. (See
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours for time conversion
Logs will be posted on meta after each office hour completes. You'll find
them, along with logs for older office hours on the topic, at
The April office hour is scheduled for Saturday April 19 at 2000 UTC.
Please see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours for more
information on what office hours are and how to join in.
Senior Community Advocate
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
The discussion on the proposed amendment is now closed [1) and it is up
to the Board will review the community comments. And with almost 5,000
edits in the discussion - with more than 2,000 editors and 320,000 words
in various languages and with very different opinions on the subject, it
will be a challenge for the Board to come to a common standpoint if it
as all is possible
Stephen LePorte writes: /The !vote is one strong indicator of the
importance of addressing this topic/, in which I fully agree
I would like suggest that the issue of paid editors should become one
area to look when we start the work with the next version of our
In our last strategy it stated "more editors" which in reality became
about the same number but where a few became semi-professional who make
an increasing percentage of all edits. And I believe we should instead
of "more editors" had stated "more, better articles with higher quality"
and then been more open to means to reach that goal (where more editors
could had been one mean)
In the same way I would like something like "more, better articles with
higher quality" to be a goal for next five year strategy plan and where
paid edits could be one mean to reach that goal, but which then need to
be supported with proper guidelines recommendations etc.
Personally I am a bit concerned that we introduce more and more
elaborate rules for qualified editing at the same time the base
technique is getting more complicated (wikidata is great but it puts
higher demand on skill for editors). I do not see that this trend
necessary means higher treshhold for new beginner, as other tools like
visual editors make it easier to start. But I do beleive the treshhold
to become a qualified a "semi-professional editor" IS becoming higher.
And perhaps the receipt for last five years - more semiprofessional - is
not a viable option for next five years
Sorry for crossposting.
In past days Wikimedia Mexico had its first general assembly of members. In
that assembly we elected a new board for our non-profit association,
therefore we want to introduce you the new authorities. In advance, I tell
you that Ivan Martínez is WMMX president newly but now with a definitive
Please, make the changes that you consider pertinent in Meta pages, mailing
lists and your personal directories.
*WMMX's first Annual General Assembly of Members*
As it is written in our bylaws we must hold an annual members general
assembly. Since our legal founding our board was and temporary one. On
March 1, 2014 we celebrate our first assembly where our president Iván
Martínez gave to members an inform of activities, we receive new members,
we vote the amount of the membership fee and we elect new board.
We have an excerpt of the act of that assembly which is in spanish:
As results of that assembly we have a new board which is definitive and
will serve two years, that is, till March 2016. You probably know some of
them and we hope you will know the rest of them soon. The appointment of
some of us just changed. So, this is the structure of our new definitive
*- President: Iván Martínez. *
ivan(a)wikimedia.mx / galaver(a)gmail.com
*- Vicepresident: Gustavo Sandoval.*
*- Secretary: Carmen Alcázar*
carmen(a)wikimedia.mx / wotancito(a)gmail.com
*- Treasurer: Salvador Alcántar Morán*
salvador.alcantar(a)wikimedia.mx / salvador1983(a)gmail.com
*- Board member: Alan Lazalde*
*- Board member: José Flores*
Wish us good luck in this new stage as chapter as we hope you have the same
in your projects.
The next WMF metrics and activities meeting will take place on Thursday,
April 3, 2014 at 6 PM UTC (11 AM PDT). The IRC channel is #wikimedia-office
on irc.freenode.net and the meeting will be broadcast as a live YouTube
The current structure of the meeting is:
* Review of key metrics including the monthly report card, but also
specialized reports and analytic
* Review of financials
* Welcoming recent hires
* Brief presentations on recent projects, with a focus on highest priority
* Update and Q&A with the Executive Director, if available
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings for further
information about how to participate.
We'll post the video recording publicly after the meeting.
Executive Assistant to the VP of Engineering & Product Development
+1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6689
On 2 January 2014 04:24, James Forrester <jdforrester(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I would like to invite submissions proposing presentations, panels,
> tutorials and workshops for Wikimania 2014 in London this coming August.
> Note that the deadline is the end of March; we hope to have final
> decisions about the programme by the end of April.
 – https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions
A reminder that this deadline is just over *one week away* – by the end of
Note that a complete submission is required, including an abstract of 300
words or more that explains to the Programme Committee why you think your
proposal should be accepted over others.
(For the curious, we will accept submissions up to 23:59 UTC−12:00 on 31
March 2014, which is 11:59 UTC on 1 April 2014, but not later.)
James D. Forrester
Chair, Programme Committee
[[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] (speaking purely in a personal