Wikimedia-l May 2014

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

181 participants
144 discussions

FDC staff proposal assessments for 2013-2014 Round 2 are posted
by FDC Support Team 11 May '14

11 May '14

Greetings, all: Staff proposal assessments have been posted on Meta for three proposals that were submitted in 2013-2014 Round 2. At the FDC's request, FDC staff have not published an assessment for the WMF proposal; however, an assessment of the WMF proposal has been published by WMDE. The proposal assessments are each linked to from the "Proposals" page for this round: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/Proposals/2013-2014_ro…<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2013-2014_round2> . You may also visit an overview of the financial information presented in these proposals, which includes information for all proposals in this round: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Financ… . The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) makes recommendations about how to allocate Wikimedia movement funds to support an organization’s overall annual plan to achieve mission objectives. We encourage you to visit the portal if you would like more information about the FDC process, or would like to discuss the process: http://meta.wikimedia .org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal. Staff proposal assessments are but one of many inputs into the FDC process. With this round's assessments we (FDC staff) have included a more detailed explanation of our methodology. The assessments reflect the work of FDC staff who read the proposals, review past and current reports, receive internal input from WMF Finance, Programs, Legal, and Grantmaking, and consider a portfolio view across all proposals in this round. They do not reflect the analysis or views of the FDC or any of its individual members. The FDC will meet in late may to deliberate on these proposals, and will consider these staff proposal assessments along with many other inputs into the FDC process. For more information about the purpose of these assessments and how they fit into the FDC process overall, please visit: http://meta. wikimedia .org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_the_Creation_and_Initial_Operation_of_the_FDC#Process_overview . We welcome discussion about individual assessments on the discussion page of each assessment, or discussion about the process overall on the FDC portal: *https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Comments <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Comments>*. Best regards from FDC staff! Winifred -- Winifred Olliff FDC Support Team Wikimedia Foundation

7 11

Re: [Wikimedia-l] general strategic goals
by James Salsman 10 May '14

10 May '14

Nathan wrote: >... judging by the replies (and lack thereof) to your posts... > there is very little, if any, support That is not a fair assessment. The strategic goals primarily involving new rights to add more content, formulated when the editor base was growing exponentially, are not the most appropriate strategic goals for an editor and administrator base which is slowly declining on the largest projects, and nobody has been saying otherwise in the slightest. There are widespread expressions that the Foundation could be doing a lot more to support volunteers. There have been 64 respondents from about nine people on three continents to http://www.allourideas.org/wmfcsdraft in less than a month, and the resulting ranking is still a good mix of old and new goals. >... for most of your demands. None of the items on the draft proposal list are demands. I am trying to nurture a discussion of strategic goals. Others have taken issue with less than a handful of the items on the list, but to them I say: why not survey the volunteers as below and find out which ones they think are the most important to them? On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 8:46 PM, James Salsman <jsalsman at gmail.com> wrote: > Regarding > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2014-01-31#Strategy_discussion > > "The Board discussed how they will develop the process for the next > strategic plan. The Board would like the strategic planning process to > involve input from the community, but the exact process should be > flexible. Sue advised that the Board should design the process with > the next Executive Director. The Board reflected on the process for > designing the previous strategic plan, and questions, such as movement > roles, which should be addressed in the next plan. The Board agreed > that the next strategic plan need not be a five-year plan in the model > of the previous strategic plan, but agreed to settle on the plan's > form with the next Executive Director." > > 1. Does anyone contend that the general strategic goals created when > the volunteer corps was apparently growing exponentially are no longer > appropriate? > > 2. Is it appropriate to augment current strategic goals which would > allow including more content with goals designed to result in more > volunteer time for existing and potential volunteers? > > 3. Do the proposed policy additions listed at > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/2014-February/000395… > cover a sufficient extent of such potential goals for additional volunteer > time? > > 4. Is the fact that I proposed such a list the reason that I am now > unable to post to the advocacy_advisors list? If not, what is that > reason? > > 5. Is there a more appropriate way to involve the community in making > decisions about the Foundation's general strategic goals than offering > pairwise comparisons between random selections from a combined list to > active community members to produce a ranking for the ED and Board to > work from? > > 6. When creating such a ranking, should the preferences of volunteers > with many contributions be weighted more than those with fewer > contributions? Can this question be resolved by producing both > unweighted and weighted rankings for the ED and Board to discuss? > > Sincerely, > James Salsman

2 1

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.‏
by ENWP Pine 10 May '14

10 May '14

Hi Kevin, I am ok with this list being notified that a discussion is happening on Commons that is relevant to multiple wikis, and am ok with asking people from this list to contribute to the discussion on Commons. I am hoping that we can keep the discussion to a single location, and I described some ways to encourage that consolidation in my first post on this topic. You are right that there have been a number of times in the past when discussion relevant to a single wiki has moved or forked onto this list. I still think the best practice is to consolidate the discussion in a single place. Notifications about the discussion and requests for more participation can be made far and wide if that seems proportionate to the nature of the issue being discussed. I described what I feel are best practices, but I respect that you feel differently and I respect your good intentions for the projects. Pine

1 0

[Wikimedia Announcements] The Signpost -- Volume 10, Issue 17 -- 07 May 2014
by Wikipedia Signpost 10 May '14

10 May '14

In focus: Foundation announces long-awaited new executive director http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-05-07/In_foc… News and notes: New system of discretionary sanctions; Buchenwald; is Pirelli 'Cracking Wikipedia'? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-05-07/News_a… WikiCup: 2014 WikiCup enters round three http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-05-07/WikiCup In the media: Google and the flu; Adrianne http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-05-07/In_the… WikiProject report: Singing with Eurovision http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-05-07/WikiPr… Featured content: Wikipedia at the Rijksmuseum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-05-07/Featur… Traffic report: TMZedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-05-07/Traffi… Single page view http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single PDF version http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-05-07 https://www.facebook.com/wikisignpost / https://twitter.com/wikisignpost -- Wikipedia Signpost Staff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost _______________________________________________ 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

1 0

Metrics - accuracy of Wikipedia articles
by Anthony Cole 09 May '14

09 May '14

Could someone please point me to all the studies the WMF have conducted into the reliability of Wikipedia's content? I'm particularly interested in the medical content, but would also like to look over the others too. Cheers. Anthony Cole <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole>

20 66

Cracking Wikipedia
by Fæ 09 May '14

09 May '14

There seem to be emails going around about possible misuse of images to covertly promote a brand on Wikipedia. As far as I can tell, it is a hoax, perhaps to throw mud at a well known company. Discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost#Cracking_Wi… If anyone has real evidence of misuse, it would be useful to share a real example rather than pointing to hoax videos off-wiki. It would have made a good April Fool. Fae -- faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

3 3

Sue exit interview
by MZMcBride 09 May '14

09 May '14

Hi. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_exit_interview/Sue_Gardner is accepting questions until 23 May 2014, 12:01 UTC. Passing along institutional memory is important, so please participate! MZMcBride

2 1

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
by ENWP Pine 09 May '14

09 May '14

Hi Kevin, My comment here expresses my personal opinion only. I understand how bringing this issue to Wikimedia-l could seem appropriate because Commons is a project that has an unusual degree of cross-wiki influence and activity. While it's ok to notify Wikimedia-l that this issue is being discussed, the main body of the discussion should stay on-wiki on Commons [1]. Per the essay about wikidrama on English Wikipedia [2] and the "Principle of Least Drama", it is best not to make "the same point in multiple places", as split discussions are often more difficult to follow and spread the drama to more places. Also, when placing notices of discussions from other wikis to this list, I think it is best to follow the detailed guidelines for Requests for Comment from English Wikipedia [3] which ask users to write "a brief, neutral statement of the issue". In general, cross-wiki and cross-list *advocacy* (not mere notification) from anywhere else to this mailing list could be considered canvassing [4]. I think you were well-intentioned in posting a notice to this list but I would ask you to do it a bit differently in the future. Thank you for raising the issue for discussion. I think you have good points, and you should make them on Commons, where it appears that other Commons contributors agree with you that this situation could have been handled differently [1]. Pine [1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#Dead_bodies.3F [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Drama [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing

2 1

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
by ENWP Pine 09 May '14

09 May '14

I apologize for that formatting mess. Emails that look beautiful in my Hotmail editing window get mangled when I send them to lists, and this seems to happen on a regular basis. I'll try sending this again. -- Hi Kevin, My comment here expresses my personal opinion only. I understand how bringing this issue to Wikimedia-l could seem appropriate because Commons is a project that has an unusual degree of cross-wiki influence and activity. While it's ok to notify Wikimedia-l that this issue is being discussed, the main body of the discussion should stay on-wiki on Commons [1]. Per the essay about wikidrama on English Wikipedia [2] and the "Principle of Least Drama", it is best not to make "the same point in multiple places", as split discussions are often more difficult to follow and spread the drama to more places. Also, when placing notices of discussions from other wikis to this list, I think it is best to follow the detailed guidelines for Requests for Comment from English Wikipedia [3] which ask users to write "a brief, neutral statement of the issue". In general, cross-wiki and cross-list *advocacy* (not mere notification) from anywhere else to this mailing list could be considered canvassing [4]. I think you were well-intentioned in posting a notice to this list but I would ask you to do it a bit differently in the future. Thank you for raising the issue for discussion. I think you have good points, and you should make them on Commons, where it appears that other Commons contributors agree with you that this situation could have been handled differently [1]. Pine [1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#Dead_bodies.3F [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Drama [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing

1 0

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Integrating spam control
by MZMcBride 09 May '14

09 May '14

Samuel Klein wrote: >Integrating spam control more deeply into all of our tools and >services - including particularly MediaWiki - is important for many >audiences. Many MediaWiki system administrators complain about the levels of spam that their small wikis receive. Any help in this area would almost certainly be appreciated. The ever-helpful wm-bot in #mediawiki offers two links: <wm-bot> For information about combating and handling spam in MediaWiki, see <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Combating_spam> and <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Anti-spam_features>. >Is there an overview of current anti-spam tech (for MW in particular, >but related: for our preferred Ticket-handling and Mailing-list >toolchains), and projected roadmaps? I don't think any of this exists directly, but it'd probably be nice to have. For mailman (mailing lists), I believe we use SpamAssassin and mailman's built-in list moderation. OTRS (ticket handling) receives a lot of spam, but I think a good portion of it gets appropriately filtered. Rjd0060 or another OTRS admin could speak to this more precisely. MediaWiki (the Wikimedia wikis) have anti-spam bots, global and local link blacklists, global and local AbuseFilter filters, a few dedicated MediaWiki extensions, and probably a dozen or more other tools that I can't remember right now. Spam prevention often quickly gets into a discussion of CAPTCHAs, which I can briefly and vaguely recap. We have a refresh button on the CAPTCHA displayed on Wikimedia wikis now. Due to how easy they can be broken, I'm not sure we'll ever have audio CAPTCHAs, though there's continued demand. Foreign language CAPTCHAs could maybe be coming soon, if we can figure out how to not make them impossibly hard due to accented characters. And there's perennial discussion of tying in Wikisource and its manual optical character recognition (OCR) work with a CAPTCHA system, as reCAPTCHA, now owned by Google, continues to remain a non-starter. In terms of integrating spam control, I'm not exactly sure what you mean. It's largely a cat-and-mouse game involving pattern detection and recognition. I don't imagine there's any "one size fits all" solution here, though as said, I imagine any help we can give or receive in the area of spam mitigation would be welcome. It also occurs to me that you may be interested in pages such as <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FLOSS-Exchange> as well. Hope that helps. If you have more specific questions, please ask. :-) MZMcBride

1 0

← Newer
1
...
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Wikimedia-l May 2014