In regards to Fae's query about gender participation at the NYC conference.
I counted 37 females of 89 individuals in an official group photo of
participants up on Commons, or 41.6%. I offer no opinion if any of those I
counted at women were transexual. It was a simple count.
>From a very cursory peek at photos of the opening day crowd for the
keynote, it seems that total attendance was probably in the 125-ish range.
I am not sure if those who appeared in the group photo were a
representative, random sample of participants, but they were a majority of
those who were there, it would seem.
I think we could say that "about 40% of conference participants were
female."
That this is not a question asked of registrants is a bit of an absurdity
for an organization obsessed with the "gender gap" at En-WP, in my opinion.
tim
Tim Davenport /// Carrite on WP /// Randy from Boise on WPO
Corvallis, OR, USA
Hey all,
I wasn't going to comment on this on this thread, but I figured I should
since no one who has commented was there and it is turning into pure
speculation. This is what happened, in short: During a break in the
sessions, I was talking to one of the users and we sat down near Frank, who
just happened to be talking to the reporter. He ended up leaving once we sat
down with her (at no time was he even present for this discussion, contrary
to what she wrote), but Alex and I were there and got into a rather candid
discussion with her, as she seemed to show genuine interest in what we were
saying (a rarity, as most of you know). Since we were the only ones in the
room, others came and sat down next to us and joined in the discussion. The
woman editor, who many of you know but I won't place her name here just in
case she wants to remain anonymous, is a friend of mine and we get along
quite well. The reporter just happened to catch me completely making a fool
of myself, and published it in the magazine as proof that we cannot talk to
the opposite sex. At most, there were five people that she could have
interviewed alongside Alex and I, but she chose us.
In terms of how she quoted us, she liberally edited a lot of what we said,
as there are many things that both Alex and I said that were manipulated,
reworded, or were turned into outright lies in order to prove her point (for
example, I never attempted to write an article about wiki babies, as there
is no way that that is notable). I'm probably not alone in that each time I
read the article, I realized that there was another outright lie or
misrepresentation in there that I would have never said about Wikipedians
either amongst ourselves or to anyone outside of the site.
This was also not a trap or setup, as we talked to her for around half an
hour before she had to go somewhere else. Maybe we erred in ignoring her
phone which was placed on the table, but I didn't think anything of it at
the time. I also have no problem chatting with the opposite sex, but it just
so happened that there was a reporter there the moment I dug a hole for
myself, and once the exchange ended, I quickly apologized and we laughed it
off. I did not go bumbling about for a few more minutes, as she reported.
There is no way that that quote is even close to how I feel about the gender
gap (I'm a feminist), and it doesn't help that the article portrays as us
rather elitist, which is also the opposite of who we are as people.
There are currently discussions going on about what we should do about this
in terms of an official response, and I have seen multiple Wikimedians take
down the mentions of this article on Facebook and Twitter once we realized
just how misrepresentative of the movement it is. I think it should be noted
that she had a wonderful opportunity to talk to some dedicated Wikipedians,
and completely destroyed what trust we had in her. Heck, she could have even
just reported on the fact that we had a conference which had an incredible
amount of women editors, and how great of an experience it was. Instead, she
mentioned wiki babies (the love aspect) and tied it into some drama that had
nothing to do with that.
I guess it is my word against hers here, but I just wanted to chime in so
that you all could be made aware of what happened that morning, since no one
has commented who was there and this is taking on a life of its own. Others
are welcome to refute or corroborate what I just said, since there if Alex
and I wanted to, we could easily go through the article and fact-check most
of what is there. There are also others on this list who were there to
witness this whole exchange, but I'll let them chime in if they feel the
need to.
Kevin Rutherford
P.S. Sorry for the block of text, as I didn't realize until I finished how
long this all was.
On 7 June 2014 02:36, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Yep, I'm not happy with that particular quote. But you know what? It was
> a set-up. Any reporter worth her salt attending a conference like this
> knows how to spot the person in the room that will give them the story
> they
> want to tell, and this is what happened here. She came in looking for the
> geeky white guy whose talent at chatting up women was, um, not his strong
> suit, and then quoted him instead of talking to the women. Notice that?
> One would think that the people to talk to about the challenges of being a
> woman Wikipedian would be the Wikimedia women. And yet the reporter
> herself refuses to allow them their voice.
>
> I wasn't able to attend this conference, but I talked to several people
> who
> did, and I also looked at the photos. What struck me was how many women
> were there. Some of those who attended were struck by how engaged the
> women
> were, too; they were committed to being part of the "gendergap" solution.
>
> Russavia, give everyone a break here. I feel badly for the young woman,
> because she was put on the spot in a very awkward situation. I feel badly
> for Kevin, because I think he really does get the importance of expanding
> the perspectives on Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects, but he was put in a
> situation that was well outside his comfort level. Wikipedia, Wikimedia
> and
> the conference itself were inaccurately portrayed by a media outlet. We
> all know it happens all the time; it's why we look for multiple reliable
> sources in our articles.
>
> Risker
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
In many recent discussions in Wikimedia Commons, I noticed that many of our
media contributors are not well aware of the terms of licenses they grant.
Main confusions are in three areas:
1. Attribution: Many people think we can demand attribution near the work
used in off wiki cases. But according to CC, a mere link/hyper link to the
source is enough for attribution as we practiced in WMF projects. I don't
know whether all courts agree with it; but our contributors should be aware
of it. Anyway there is no separate agreement between the contributors and
Wikimedia; people can't expect more for off wiki uses. Moreover, many
uploads are by third parties; so no chances for such special agreements. (
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Co…
)
2. File resolution: Recently CC clarified that the license is applicable
for the copyright eligible works; so it may applicable for high quality
file of that work too. (
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Could_som…
)
3. Personality/privacy rights in case of self portraits: Here also CC
advised that such rights may affected. (
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#How_are_publicity.2C_privacy.2C_and_per…,
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Photographs_of_identifiable…
)
In most cases, people reveal such things very late, try to defend, and
ended up in edit wars and even a block. So do we have a responsibility to
educate the contributors than misusing their ignorance in such cases?
Regards,
Jee
But a step is a step. Let's see if regulators in the so-callled West grow a
conscience and do what they are supposed to do.
"Chile's telecommunications regulator, the Subsecretaria de
Telecomunicaciones, recently imposed some short-term pain on some of the
nation's internet users, hoping to ensure a long-term gain: Chileans'
ability to make their own choices about how they want to use the internet.
Mobile carriers had wanted to partner with giant internet services
(including Facebook and Google) to offer what they call "zero-rating"
connections: an increasingly common arrangement in which mobile phone
customers got no-cost mobile data as long as they used those specific
services. But the regulator instead insisted that Chile's network
neutrality law meant what it said
<http://www.subtel.gob.cl/noticias/138-neutralidad-red/5311-ley-de-neutralid…>,
and nixed those arrangements."
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/24086-a-government-ruled-for…
Regards,
Rui
_________________________
Rui Correia
Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant
Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
_______________
That article in the New York Times seems to describe the view of a curious
outsider's view on hard-core Wikipedians personally, and it does seem a bit
stereotyped, but since I wasn't at the conference I can only guess.
Some of us are discussing the idea that WMF Programs & Evaluation could
evaluate Wikimania, the Wikimedia Conference, and the annual hackathon in
the future. More info at [1]
Pine
(Trying a new email address to see if it handles discussions better)
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:Evaluation/Parlor/Dialogue#Sugg…
I am writing to ask that the new privacy policy be stopped, pending briefings of and thorough consideration by the incoming executive director Lila Tretikov. The timing of this major policy change with all its implications, including great legal implications, is at minimum discourteous to Ms. Tretikov in this the second day of her tenure, and in my judgement should additionally be viewed as alarming.
"Wikimedia is beholden to no one, yet accountable to each and every human being," she said day before last. Yet the new policy makes every effort to distance it from accountability, by attempting to force every editor to consent to the most privacy-invasive technologies known, which include, all quoted:
"You should be aware that specific data made public by you or aggregated data that is made public by us can be used by anyone for analysis and to infer information about users, such as which country a user is from, political affiliation, and gender." "Type of device you are using possibly including unique device identification numbers." "The type and version of your browser, your browser's language preference, the type and version of your device's operating system." "The name of your internet service provider or mobile carrier." "Which pages you request and visit, and the date and time of each request" (note: says "visit," not merely "edit"). "We actively collect information with tracking pixels, cookies, and local storage." "We use your email address." "We can use GPS and other technologies commonly used to determine location." "We may receive metadata." "IP address of the device (or your proxy server) you are using to access the Internet, which could be used to infer your geographical location." (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Privacy_policy).
What is the heck is all this? Editors don't know they are signing up for this! But it gets even worse, because the WMF is not only providing this to its employees, but to hundreds of anonymous "administrators" to whom it grants access to this non-public, easily personally-identifying data. This means particularly, but not limited to: checkusers, arbitrators, stewards, UTRS users, and "community developers." Who are they? While Ms. Tretikov aspires to accountability, the new privacy policy flees to "exemptions" and "we know nothing." It specifically exempts these hundreds of people from the privacy policy. The WMF's Privacy Fellow Roshni Patel said two weeks ago "the Foundation can’t control the actions of community members such as administrative volunteers so we don’t include them under the privacy policy." Is this accountability? No. She further mystifyingly continues: "however, under the access policy, these volunteers must sign a confidentiality agreement." Mystifyingly, because it's *not* *true*. That part of the privacy policy "Requirements for Community Members Applying for Access to Nonpublic Information" requires only an email address and an assertion from an anonymous individual that he or she is 18 or over. Is there requirement there somewhere for a signature? No. Shall they sign for example under the nicknames of the prominent administrators like "Beeblebrox" and "Wizardman?" This is not accountability. (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Access_to_nonpublic_information_policy#Mini….)
How can the executive director be expected to assume responsibility for this stuff in 14 hours, on her third official day on the job? Out of simple courtesy to her, it needs to be delayed, while she is briefed on it by those who most understand it, like the general counsel Geoff Brigham.
Trillium Corsage
Hi Wikimedia-l,
Just to say hello and introduce myself to the list. I'm a research professional seven years experience hoping to break into the legal field. I'm not 25 or anything like that though. I've done other stuff in my life, and I am middle-aged. How do I come here to the list? I was a Wikipedia (English) contributor for like six years before being blocked. I hope you do not infer guilt into that statement or that I'm somehow a bad person. I am not here to discuss that and would also ask you not to, of course, because it's off-topic for the list. I just say it because I'm introducing myself.
The reason I subscribe to the list is because after I couldn't edit content anymore, I became more interested and thoughtful as to the meaning of Wikipedia and its effect on the world. Because of the way people web-search for information, where Wikipedia of course is so incredibly often the top result, it has immense power on the way people think about the subjects of all its articles. The more I analyzed this, the more I became critical.
Anyhow, my interest in this Wikimedia Foundation list is really because I hold the WMF responsible for Wikipedia. I reject the notion that Wikipedia is just some separate construct owned by the WMF, like a copy machine or something. And for which it is not responsible. So I come here to be informed by all of you and also perhaps to inform all of you.
I know most on this list use their real names. I choose to maintain a pseudonym. It's not because I am scared to own my words. I want to own all my words. It's rather because I have realized that there is a value in online anonymity, because of the invasive force the Internet has become in telling any random stranger about our lives. I respect the decision though of those that sign their real name to everything, and endeavor to consider that in any interaction I have with you.
Signature: well let me see how my nickname shows up on the list. I selected "Trillium Corsage" as the name at the email service, but I typed "Cloaked Citizen" when I registered for this list. I guess I'll sign after this with whichever of those appears.
This is an interesting topic about RecentChanges and its many uses and variants. I'm copying Analytics, EE and Research lists because I hope that some of our colleagues from these lists will hop over to Wikimedia-l to participate in this discussion. [a]
In particular I would call my colleagues' attention to this section of Mingli's email:
"Content is only one aspect to observe, people are another:
* Who are the experts on some topics?
* Who are my buddies on some articles?
* Who did help me to improve an article originally I wrote?
In all, we may reshape our technical infrastructure in this direction for
new spaces of participation.
And finally, one open question for the system
designer:
* Towards better content and community, what is the most important things
we want our user to observe?"
I'll just note here some observability work on user contributions that has been done or is in progress.
1. User Analysis Tool [b], similar to the legacy tool by User:X!. Be sure to look at the "Future plans" tab.
2. Listen to Wikipedia [c] visualization tool of recent changes, mostly for aesthetics but there may be ways to adapt some of the ideas or code used here for other interesting purposes.
2. Snuggle [d] which is a tool that helps to identify good-faith and bad-faith new editors.
4. Finding a Collaborator [e] is a current research project, also see [f] a visualization example. As part of this work the researchers seem to have formulated a way of quantifying an editor's impact, although I haven't seen the formula yet. As you probably know the quality of edits and editors is a topic that gets discussed repeatedly.
5. WikiStats [g] which provides high-level statistics about Wikimedia projects.
6. WikiMetrics [h] cohort analysis, has a lot of potential for expanding its tool set.
7. For code and related technical contributions see [i].
8. There are a variety of tools next to users' requests at English Wikipedia's Requests for Permissions page [j] such as WikiChecker [k] and automated edits logs [l].
This is a good discussion and I would be happy to have an office hour meeting for live chat.
Pine
[a] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-June/072507.html
[b] https://tools.wmflabs.org/supercount/index.php
[c] http://listen.hatnote.com/
[d] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Snuggle
[e] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator
[f] https://depts.washington.edu/reflex/
[g] https://stats.wikimedia.org
[h] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimetrics
[i] http://korma.wmflabs.org/browser/
[j] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions
[k] http://en.wikichecker.com/user/?t=Jimbo%20Wales
[l] https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoedits/index.php?user=Jimbo%20Wales&lan…
Dear all,
The next WMF metrics and activities meeting will take place on Thursday,
June 5, 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
stream.
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
initiatives
* Update and Q&A with the Executive Director, if available
Please review
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.
Thank you,
Praveena
--
Praveena Maharaj
Executive Assistant to the VP of Engineering & Product Development
www.wikimedia.org
