Wikimedia-l December 2015

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

165 participants
113 discussions

Congratulations to the first four organizations to receive Simple Annual Plan Grants!
by Winifred Olliff 05 Jan '16

05 Jan '16

Dear Wikimedia colleagues: In response to feedback about the grants process <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Reimagining_WMF_grants/Outcom…> that identified a gap in support for organizations and groups with annual plans that are not part of the FDC process <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG>, we on the WMF's Community Resources Team created a new pilot process for Simple Annual Plan Grants <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Simple>. These grants are for groups and organizations that need funds for operating and program expenses up to US$100K (or its equivalent in another currency). This process has been developed in partnership with a committee of eight volunteers <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Simple/Committee>, who make recommendations about each grant application, which are then approved by WMF staff. I would like to recognize the outstanding work of our inaugural committee: Addis Wang, Anders Wennersten, Kiril Simeonovski, Kirill Lokshin, Ido Ivri, Nataliia Tymkiv, Pete Ekman, and Sydney Poore. Besides producing four quality recommendations this month (found on the discussion pages of the four applications <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Simple/About#applications>), they've done invaluable work to define how this new funding option will work, and offered constructive and supportive feedback to the applicants. I also want to recognize and congratulate our first four grantees: Wikimedia Czech Republic, Wikimedia Eesti, Wikimedia Espana, and Shared Knowledge (user group in Macedonia). Each grantee did an outstanding job engaging during every phase of the grants process, and we are confident that each is preparing for an amazing year in 2016. Many thanks to all of the dedicated volunteers and staff at each organization that made these quality applications happen, including Bojan Jankuloski, Jan Loužek, Kiril Simeonevski, Kaarel Vaidla, Luis Ulzurrun, Santiago Navarro, Vojtěch Dostál and the volunteer boards and supportive community members at each of these organizations. Finally, thank you to our colleagues Janice Tud, Siko Bouterse, Stephen LaPorte, and the WMF finance team, for supporting these grantees behind the scenes. Thanks to Katy Love, Kacie Harold, and the entire Community Resources Team, past and current Funds Dissemination Committee members, current and past APG applicants, and particularly Ravishankar Ayyakkannu, for sharing their ideas and experiences leading up to this idea. Special thanks also to Tony Souter and Bence Damokos for their substantial feedback during the early phases of the pilot's development. Are you interested in learning more about how the new funding option could work for your group or organization? Please Email me to start a discussion about your organization's application, and read more about how to apply <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Simple/Eligibility>. Applications will be accepted throughout 2016. Best wishes and congratulations to all our colleagues who received grants in 2015, or helped to improve the grants process! Winifred Helpful links for Simple Annual Plan Grants: *Apply here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Simple/Eligibility *About the program: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Simple/About *Committee: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Simple/Committee -- Winifred Olliff Program Officer Wikimedia Foundation

4 3

Decentralised Wikipedia
by Erik Aas 04 Jan '16

04 Jan '16

Hello, this is my first post to this list. I think Wikipedia is a great project and am impressed by how well it works. It seems the (lack of) funding of the project is one of the more severe threats to its continued success. Since (I assume) the biggest cost is the maintenance of servers, I wonder if there are there any plans of making Wikipedia decentralised. Let me elaborate. I'm thinking of a system where many users each would store a small part of the encyclopedia. A user wanting to look up or edit an article connects to another user who has a copy of that article. When an article is updated the update is sent to all other users (that are online) responsible for storing that article. Are there any efforts to accomplish this? Would it be feasible? Best, Erik

9 9

Database administration support (was Re: IRC office hours: Shared hosting)
by James Salsman 04 Jan '16

04 Jan '16

On Sunday, December 20, 2015, Brian Wolff <bawolff(a)gmail.com> wrote: > If you want to get Dispenser his hard disk space, you should take it > up with the labs people, or at the very least some thread where it > would be on-topic. > The labs people are so understaffed that two extremely important anti-spam bots recently had to be taken offline for much longer than in recent years. I propose Foundation management allocate the necessary resources and recommend the hiring of sufficient personnel and purchasing of sufficient, non NSA-compatible (i.e., discount and homebrew style) equipment to properly support both existing infrastructural bots and similar projects such as Dispenser's reflinks cache. I would also like to propose that the Foundation oppose the TPP provisions deleterious to our interests, and that this position be endorsed on the Public Policy list. > Then by definition it wouldn't be a third-party spam framework if WMF > was running it. I am not proposing that the WMF take the bots over, just meet their necessary service level requirements. Sincerely, Jim

2 2

Free Basics
by Milos Rancic 02 Jan '16

02 Jan '16

Today I've learned about it. And I think WMF is the perfect prey for such initiative. I hope nobody sane is taking that seriously.

7 9

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board
by olatunde isaac 01 Jan '16

01 Jan '16

I'm very disappointed to know that the board meeting was still ongoing as at the time James revealed that he was ejected from the board. It is a silly idea! Perhaps he felt the community can stop the meeting or override the decision of the board of trustee. The WMF BoT is not a parliament where the house do not have the veto power to remove an elected member. Section 7 (remover) of the WMF's bylaws clearly stipulated that “Any Trustee may be removed, with or without cause, by a majority vote of the Trustees then in office in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 617.0808(1), or other relevant provisions of the Act”. Based on this bylaw, James remover is justified! I understand that majority of the community members who elected James are likely not to be aware of this provisions but James is aware of it and will probably have an answer to (1) the reason for his remover (2) why his remover was supported by eight members and (3) why the third community-elected trustee, Denny Vrandečić, lost confidence supported his removal. The fact that James never stated the reasons why he was ejected from the board as at the time he disclosed his remover is worrisome. James, I'm sorry if I'm too factual here. Best, Olatunde Isaac. Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN -----Original Message----- From: wikimedia-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org Sender: "Wikimedia-l" <wikimedia-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org>Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:10:11 To: <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Reply-To: wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 141, Issue 104 Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to wikimedia-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org You can reach the person managing the list at wikimedia-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Nathan) 2. Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Fæ) 3. Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Thomas Goldammer) 4. Wikimedia Argentina Memorial 2015 (Anna Torres) 5. Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Pine W) 6. Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Lodewijk) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 09:44:38 -0500 From: Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board Message-ID: <CALKX9dQc9PDXSWOixWPYMZBOjgagTEiB0hwTZ=HVWPys6NU=YQ(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 "Well, tell that to James. He's the one who went public without warning in the middle of the meeting. You are 100% wrong that this is a decision *against* the community. I know why I voted the way I did - and it has to do with my strong belief in the values of this community and the responsibilities of board members to uphold those values. If a board member fails the community in such a serious way, tough decisions have to be made about what to do.--Jimbo Wales <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales> (talk <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#top>) 20:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)" Comment from Jimmy, both implicitly criticizing James Heilman for revealing that he was ejected from the board and suggesting that James failed to uphold the values of the community in a serious way. Later on Jimmy tries to walk back the criticism as "merely stating a fact." James responded by pointing out that he was removed from the board and then told to leave the room, at which point he posted to the mailing list. The complaint that he published the decision while the meeting was ongoing is silly, although I can certainly see why the remaining members would have preferred to control the narrative themselves. ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 15:10:33 +0000 From: Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board Message-ID: <CAH7nnD1W3NzvgPkVm=VWU9Gvb+_SvH=E0fcj95mmAOhCeRNhcQ(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I'm sure that board members would have preferred for the WMF Chairperson to make a statement, rather Jimmy publishing personal opinions as "facts". The comments about James are disappointing for many reasons, but should be given appropriate weight... probably a lot less weight than James' own comments, in the light of how several past WMF political non-successes played out. Fae ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 16:47:29 +0100 From: Thomas Goldammer <thogol(a)gmail.com> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board Message-ID: <CAL0e-KWJ6L=L4BF4Fhp9OogppEQCBFp_+SXeuOEQtJPnp1jgTA(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 @Jimmy Wales: The problem is not that James was too fast to publish the fact that he was ejected. I'm pretty sure if the Board decided to boot you out, you would have posted something, too. And that's absolutely natural. The problem is merely that the Board is too slow to publish the reasons for the decision. If you make such a sweeping decision, even if not planned ahead at all, you do have the obligation to sit down together immediately and write that statement - you know that there is that community out there, and you knew very well what would happen on this mailing list. And it's really not as if you were a magician who was asked to explain his trick. Th. 2015-12-30 15:44 GMT+01:00 Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com>: > "Well, tell that to James. He's the one who went public without warning in > the middle of the meeting. You are 100% wrong that this is a decision > *against* the community. I know why I voted the way I did - and it has to > do with my strong belief in the values of this community and the > responsibilities of board members to uphold those values. If a board member > fails the community in such a serious way, tough decisions have to be made > about what to do.--Jimbo Wales > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales> (talk > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#top>) 20:57, 29 > December 2015 (UTC)" > > Comment from Jimmy, both implicitly criticizing James Heilman for revealing > that he was ejected from the board and suggesting that James failed to > uphold the values of the community in a serious way. Later on Jimmy tries > to walk back the criticism as "merely stating a fact." > > James responded by pointing out that he was removed from the board and then > told to leave the room, at which point he posted to the mailing list. The > complaint that he published the decision while the meeting was ongoing is > silly, although I can certainly see why the remaining members would have > preferred to control the narrative themselves. > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 14:02:24 -0300 From: Anna Torres <de(a)wikimedia.org.ar> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Argentina Memorial 2015 Message-ID: <CAGOz6s2zsonRp3=-BGfVmWEc08CdE1t75M=at5EkL3mv2U_x3A(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Dear all, Even though is in spanish, please find in the following link the Anual Memorial 2015 <http://wikimedia.org.ar/memorial2015/> regarding WMAR programs and activities. In there, you can find activities' descripctions and results for our main programs and actions taken during 2015. Hope you all enjoy it! Hugs and happy new year! -- Anna Torres Adell Directora Ejecutiva *A.C. Wikimedia Argentina* ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 09:51:13 -0800 From: Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board Message-ID: <CAF=dyJjegoDF4nrUizCSs+RhfQ_HWM54V=23zVZWdvA2mzjvKg(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Depending on what all we learn as this goes forward, some action items that may emerge from this situation as it seems to be evolving so far: (1) the board may need to work on its communication strategies (2) this may be an opportunity for another discussion about Board composition and structure, including the role of Jimmy (3) this situation may inform a review of the bylaws concerning how board members are appointed and removed, particularly community-elected members (4) this situation is an opportunity for a significant increase in the transparency of WMF Board activities. I still am of the view that far more of what happens at the WMF Board should be public and transparent. This includes how they handle allegations against one of their own. If government entities like city councils and national legislatures can do this, I think that the WMF Board should hold itself to at least that level of transparency. Yes these are uncomfortable discussions to have in public, but as we can see from how this situation is developing, handling them in private has its own downsides. I don't know how other affiliates work, but here in Cascadia Wikimedians there is very little that the Board does that can't be made public. I would hope that the WMF Board would hold itself to similarly high expectations for openness and transparency, even when it's uncomfortable. The controversial nature of information, by itself, is not a sufficient reason for keeping information private. So I hope that the WMF Board will consider new levels of openness about its deliberations. Something that I suggested awhile ago was live broadcasts of Board meetings (with a limited exception for executive sessions) and I still think that level of openness is appropriate for the Board of an open-source organization. It will be interesting to see what more we learn as this situation evolves. Pine ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 20:09:49 +0100 From: Lodewijk <lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board Message-ID: <CACf6BesausXMnn40D8OTP+kiaZvDE01MS3i+synN=1WVUMtQnQ(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I think that your 'lessons' are quite premature. We still don't know the what, the why and the how. We don't know the context of everything that happened. It may very well be that the process as it is, worked perfectly. It may also be that it was disastrous. transparency and good communication don't necessarily go hand in hand with 'quick', as was pointed out by some. Some other points that you touch, may very well be good material for discussion, but not necessarily relevant to this specific event. The transparency of board deliberations and the role of board members in the board (not limited to jimmy) is /always/ good to reconsider, and keep an open mind for. A more fundamental reconsideration may be the (formal) membership of the Wikimedia Foundation. But, while this would have influenced the current situation, it is not necessarily related. They often say that incidents make bad policy. At the same time, please keep in mind that Cascadia Wikimedians are not quite comparable with the Wikimedia Foundation. The budget if three (if not more) orders of magnitude higher, and the involvement of staff this large also makes a different organisational structure. Lodewijk On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 6:51 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Depending on what all we learn as this goes forward, some action items that > may emerge from this situation as it seems to be evolving so far: > > (1) the board may need to work on its communication strategies > (2) this may be an opportunity for another discussion about Board > composition and structure, including the role of Jimmy > (3) this situation may inform a review of the bylaws concerning how board > members are appointed and removed, particularly community-elected members > (4) this situation is an opportunity for a significant increase in the > transparency of WMF Board activities. I still am of the view that far more > of what happens at the WMF Board should be public and transparent. This > includes how they handle allegations against one of their own. If > government entities like city councils and national legislatures can do > this, I think that the WMF Board should hold itself to at least that level > of transparency. Yes these are uncomfortable discussions to have in public, > but as we can see from how this situation is developing, handling them in > private has its own downsides. I don't know how other affiliates work, but > here in Cascadia Wikimedians there is very little that the Board does that > can't be made public. I would hope that the WMF Board would hold itself to > similarly high expectations for openness and transparency, even when it's > uncomfortable. The controversial nature of information, by itself, is not a > sufficient reason for keeping information private. So I hope that the WMF > Board will consider new levels of openness about its deliberations. > Something that I suggested awhile ago was live broadcasts of Board meetings > (with a limited exception for executive sessions) and I still think that > level of openness is appropriate for the Board of an open-source > organization. > > It will be interesting to see what more we learn as this situation evolves. > > Pine > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ------------------------------ End of Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 141, Issue 104 *********************************************

7 8

Wikimedia Mailing List Barnstar?
by Tito Dutta 31 Dec '15

31 Dec '15

Just now I was talking to User:Pine on-wiki and I informed him that I thoroughly enjoyed some of his posts on this mailing list. I also thought to give him a barnstar for this. But, we do not have any "Wikimedia Mailing list barnstar" Should we create one? What do you think? If it sounds okay, someone of us can go ahead and create Template:Wikimedia Mailing List Barnstar on En WP (and preferably on Meta also).

2 1

We need to talk about the WMF Board Pledge of personal commitment
by Cristian Consonni 31 Dec '15

31 Dec '15

Hi all, This discussion is somewhat inspired by what recently happened with WMF Board of Trustees[1]. Please note that I was to respect the request from the board (and James himself) to have some more time to review the situation before providing more details about the recent resolution. In some sense, I am following what James said in an email[2]: --- I have done what I believe is in the best interest of our movement. --- The Wikimedia Foundation requires every board member to sign a "Pledge of personal commitment"[3], in one passage it says: «In every instance in which I represent the Wikimedia Foundation, I will conduct my activities in a manner to best promote the interests of Wikimedia Foundation.» Compare this with the "FDC Pledge of Personal Commitment" signed by FDC members[4]: «I, [name], pledge to faithfully pursue the mission and goals of the Wikimedia movement, namely to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally. The FDC makes recommendations to the Board of Trustees regarding the allocation of funds to support the mission goals of the Wikimedia movement, and I therefore recognize my responsibility to maintain the highest level of public confidence and trust.» As a former FDC member I very much prefer the formulation adopted in the FDC pledge rather than in the BoT pledge. I think (and I have been thinking this for a while) that the Pledge of commitment for trustees of WMF should mention the movement as well. In some sense I am stating the obvious, but I would like the idea that what constitutes "the best choice for the movement" takes priority over "the best choice for the WMF", and this is board members pledge to do. I know that "doing what is best for the WMF" may be a legal requirements for WMF board members, but I honestly do not think that what is the best interest for the movement and what is the best interest for WMF would ever be actually in conflict. In other words, I would take the discussion of what constitutes a decision made with the best interest of the movement in mind to be a debatable choice over difference of views rather than a case of breaching the pledge because some action may produce short term harm to the WMF (and thus be breaching the pledge of commitment for BoT as it is written now) but greater good in the middle/long term. Thank you, Cristian [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-12-30/News_… [2] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-December/080502.html [3] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Pledge_of_personal_commitment [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Pl…

2 1

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Mailing List Barnstar? (for Pine?)
by Richard Ames 31 Dec '15

31 Dec '15

And he is well under the soft limit! https://stats.wikimedia.org/mail-lists/wikimedia-l.html Happy New Year, Richard. On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Tito Dutta <trulytito(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Just now I was talking to User:Pine on-wiki and I informed him that I > thoroughly enjoyed some of his posts on this mailing list.

1 0

Wikimedia Argentina Memorial 2015
by Anna Torres 30 Dec '15

30 Dec '15

Dear all, Even though is in spanish, please find in the following link the Anual Memorial 2015 <http://wikimedia.org.ar/memorial2015/> regarding WMAR programs and activities. In there, you can find activities' descripctions and results for our main programs and actions taken during 2015. Hope you all enjoy it! Hugs and happy new year! -- Anna Torres Adell Directora Ejecutiva *A.C. Wikimedia Argentina*

2 1

Quality issues
by Gerard Meijssen 30 Dec '15

30 Dec '15

Hoi, At Wikidata we often find issues with data imported from a Wikipedia. Lists have been produced with these issues on the Wikipedia involved and arguably they do present issues with the quality of Wikipedia or Wikidata for that matter. So far hardly anything resulted from such outreach. When Wikipedia is a black box, not communicating about with the outside world, at some stage the situation becomes toxic. At this moment there are already those at Wikidata that argue not to bother about Wikipedia quality because in their view, Wikipedians do not care about its own quality. Arguably known issues with quality are the easiest to solve. There are many ways to approach this subject. It is indeed a quality issue both for Wikidata and Wikipedia. It can be seen as a research issue; how to deal with quality and how do such mechanisms function if at all. I blogged about it.. Thanks, GerardM http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2015/11/what-kind-of-box-is-wikipedia.ht…

28 162

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Wikimedia-l December 2015