Dear fellow members of the community,
Following is the board agenda for next weeks meeting. As usual we have tried to make room for more substance rather than process. After a thorough consultation period the board will be discussing the amendment to the terms of use with regards to undisclosed paid editing and we will spend a significant amount of time in an executive session thinking about different aspects of our board and its role in different processes of the movement. We will also be reflecting on the Wikimedia Conference 2014, where 6 board members were present.
Jan-Bart de Vreede
Chair
Wikimedia Board of Trustees
PS: As always I would ask you to discuss the agenda and other board related topics at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard rather than on the mailing list
== Thursday, April 24, 2014 ==
Executive Session
Strategy Considerations (Open Discussion)
Board Development
Chapters Dialogue
Update Transition Team
== Friday, April 25, 2014 ==
Housekeeping Items
Status update on the Annual Plan
News from AffCom and FDC
News from committees
Investment Policy
Privacy policy
Amendment to the Terms of Use on undisclosed paid editing
Discussion on user groups
Open and Action Items
Executive Session
For those who care, I'm back.
My absence wasn't related to Wikimedia. It was about first world
problems, which hit me quite hard. I never thought that the transition
from the second to the first world problems would be painful. Few
years ago I'd have called it "decadence".
So, lesson learned.
Anyway, I thought that I would see something completely different here
and was worried a bit about my ability to adapt. But, I see that
everything is as it was. Good old heated debates. And known [virtual]
faces :D
I feel I am home again :)
Hello everyone!
So, to change the subject entirely, I just discovered that this is the 10
year anniversary of foundation-l/wikimedia-l!
Foundation-l was founded in April 2004, and was renamed to wikimedia-l two
years ago:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/
Foundation-l was originally an offshoot from wikipedia-l, which is where
the first discussions about policies and issues on the projects were held.
It was proposed as a separate list in order to discuss "Wikimedia-wide
issues".
Over the years, we have had debates on every subject under the sun. We've
gone through high points, hammering out constructive policies and debates,
sharing our experiences as encyclopedists and free culture enthusiasts; and
we've gone through low points, with allegations of bad behavior flying left
and right and people belaboring points beyond all reason. Sometimes --
usually, in fact -- it's both at once, in different threads. The list has
been a place to send ideas, manifestos, and information as well as a place
to discuss with others who share our passions.
We've debated the list and its place a lot over the years. We have talked
about moderation, but rarely done anything with it. We've implemented
posting limits (still in place: 30 posts/person/month); enforced posting
limits; forgotten to enforce posting limits; talked about stricter or
weaker limits. We've split sub-topic lists out; we've merged lists back
together. We've debated the cost in time and energy of each email, the
burden that being subscribed to the list means, how impossible to keep up
it is. We've tried summaries, filters, translations. We've talked about
languages, and tried many times (unsuccessfully to date) to make the list
truly multilingual. We've called each other out on bad behavior, and every
once in a while we've remembered to praise each other too.
The list has chronicled the growth of the Wikimedia Foundation from the
days when we celebrated raising $50,000 in the fundraiser and held the
first board elections to today. And it has chronicled the growth of the
Wikimedia movement, across languages and communities, and of the projects,
as they changed from rather odd novelties to a core part of the internet.
People on the list have come and gone. Sometimes, for months or years at a
time, someone will post on nearly every thread and every subject. Usually
they eventually taper off, and then someone new will take their place,
making the rest of the subscribers wonder "how do they have so much time?!"
For those who have been subscribed for a long time, these names are
recognizable because of their many posts and their (in)famous dedication to
the list. (Wouldn't it be fun if we could get those folks all together in
person, for a Wikimania panel or something?) Many subscribers never post;
others are able to find a balance. It is a truism that those who rarely
post often send the most thoughtful mails.
People have used the list to join the movement, to get to know others.
They've also used the list to quit the movement, sometimes loudly and
angrily, sometimes thoughtfully, sometimes silently; it is always sad when
this happens. Sometimes, people have used the list to return (welcome back!)
The list can be endlessly irritating. It's a source of conversation: "wow,
the list is blowing up right now, can you believe it?!" It also can be a
source of connection with other people who we may only know through their
emails, and a source of joy and inventive new ideas. It is disconnected
from the on-wiki communities, but is connected too. It serves as a place to
share with people across our movement, when there are few general channels
to do so. It is thousands of mails in thousands of in-boxes, over many
years.
The list is ours, our commons, ours to take care of and to try to make
better. Happy anniversary, Wikimedia-l.
-- phoebe
--
* I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers <at>
gmail.com *
Hi all,
I just wanted to find out what the stance of the WMF is on the issue
of WMF employees and contractors editing articles on themselves, or
fellow employees, in direct contravention of COI guidelines? Is this a
practice that is officially frowned upon?
Whilst researching the Belfer fiasco I came across User:Wikitedium.
The contributions[1] lead me to believe that isn't just a normal
editor but one who has an ingrained conflict of interest, and it is
pretty clear that the editor is Zack Exley, who is the former WMF
Chief Financial Officer.
In April 2006, Exley added links to rootsprimary.org to the 2008 US
Presidential election article.[2] Whilst rootsprimary.org no longer
exists, it's archived version states: "Who's doing this?: Just me,
Zack Exley, and a couple of friends."[3]
In August 2006, Exley created the article on himself.[4] Over the
years, Exley made numerous edits to this article. In December 2009,
Exley created the article on Argentine Middle School[5], which is in
Argentine, a community of Kansas City, Kansas. Exley at the time (so
it appears) lived in Kansas City, Missouri.[6] In March 2010, Exley
wrote himself into the "Smart mob" article.[7]
In March 2013, Exley created a "nice little article about a notable
Springfield coffee shop"[8] -- the coffee shop being in Springfield,
Missouri, which is another place that Exley appears to have
resided.[9]
Whilst the edits relating to himself were done before he joined the
WMF, his article looks like a standard puff piece which is discouraged
-- it uses WMF press releases, articles on ThoughtWorks which only
mention him in passing[10], a self-authored article on
motherjones.com[11]. Exley's only real claim to fame is that George W.
Bush once called him a "garbage man".[12]
I had a look at Exley's Linkedin profile[13] which appears to begin in
1987-1988 when he was at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and is
current up to the present time, and correlated these to Wikitedium's
other edits, and couldn't see anything else of major concern.
What does concern me, however, is that there was a steady stream of
WMF staffers/contractors who have edited Exley's wikibio. Although,
the edits themselves may not seem to be worrisome, the fact that the
puff nature of the article was not picked up on by these staffers is
troubling. Also, given that the WMF and the community in general is
against COI editing, these edits, as innocent as they are, should not
be done by WMF staffers, but rather by others who don't have any
perceived COI.
Could the WMF and the BoT perhaps clarify whether COI editing amongst
WMF staff/contractors is officially discouraged/forbidden, and whether
there is something official in writing which lays out guidelines for
how and when WMF staff/contractors should be editing articles relating
to their fellow WMF'ers.
Cheers
Russavia
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wikitedium
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_presidential_elect…
[3] http://web.archive.org/web/20060423010423/http://rootsprimary.org/
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zack_Exley&action=history
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Argentine_Middle_School&action=h…
[6] http://keywiki.org/index.php/Zack_Exley
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Smart_mob&diff=prev&oldid=347706…
[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Coffee_Ethic&action=history
[9] https://clarity.fm/zackexley
[10] http://www.chicagobusiness.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=9999100029386
[11] http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2000/12/organizing-online
[12] http://web.archive.org/web/20060704033659/http://www.tjcenter.org/past2000.…
[13] http://www.linkedin.com/in/zackexley
Welcome back :-)
Sent from Samsung Mobile
-------- Original message --------
From: Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com>
Date: 17/04/2014 23:47 (GMT+02:00)
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] I'm back
For those who care, I'm back.
My absence wasn't related to Wikimedia. It was about first world
problems, which hit me quite hard. I never thought that the transition
from the second to the first world problems would be painful. Few
years ago I'd have called it "decadence".
So, lesson learned.
Anyway, I thought that I would see something completely different here
and was worried a bit about my ability to adapt. But, I see that
everything is as it was. Good old heated debates. And known [virtual]
faces :D
I feel I am home again :)
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
I would love to see the Foundation support archive.org and
webcitation.org. I have seen dozens of community members express hopes
for Foundation monetary support of both continued survival and faster
response time for both. But I am not aware of any acknowledgement from
the Foundation other than Jimmy saying that he hoped someone would
help them apply for grants. Did anyone in the Foundation ever do that?
And in line with my hopes that the Foundation will some day start
acting in direct support of the volunteer community, I would love to
see some direct financial support for e.g. paywatch.org and
healthcare-now.org.
Systematic polling of the community is the correct way to decide the
allocation of scarce resources. We need more than the goals that were
set back when the community was growing apparently exponentially. We
need something that proves to editors, would-be editors, and former
editors that the Foundation is trying to improve their lives.
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
strategy plan
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
Anders
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment
Hi Wikimedians,
on behalf of the Documentation Team of the Wikimedia Conference 2014 I'm
happy to announce that we published all the minutes and photos of all
sessions, as far as they were available and ready. Check them out on https
://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2014/Documentation.
We tried to summarise the sessions ("too long, didn't read"). However,
sometimes this was not possible due to the most different opinions.
Furthermore, you find most of the presentation slides and photos of the
Conference on Wikimedia Commons (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki
/Category:Wikimedia_Conference_2014)
Any comments, any questions, drop me a line.
Best regards
Cornelius
on behalf of the Documentation Team of the conference
(Benjamin, Conny, Lukas and Cornelius)
----
Cornelius Kibelka
Twitter: @jaancornelius
An editor wrote this on Jimbo's talk page. I hope you will appreciate this as much as I do.
"Because you don't hear it enough"
"I love it here. I love Wikipedia. It's got its problems - lots of them. It has its issues. It's not perfect. But that, in its way, is the point. It's not a complete encyclopedia, it's an encyclopedia that you, and I, and everyone else on the planet (and maybe people not on it) are welcome to edit, as long as we're trying to make it a better encyclopedia. It is flawed, but that is the essence of humanity's works. So I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for making this magical, wonderful, flawed, human endeavor. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)"