Wikimedia-l April 2015

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

143 participants
85 discussions

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Regarding knowledge
by James Heilman 07 Apr '15

07 Apr '15

With respect to the SV medical content issue: 1) Urinary tract infections are treated with antibiotics in Sweden. I have check with a Swedish speaking medical professional 2) Asymptomatic pyuria is NOT a urinary tract infection. They are not to be treated with antibiotics in either Sweden or any were else (unless a person is pregnancy) It would be good to stop confusing the two. Something appears to have been lost in translation somewhere. -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine www.opentextbookofmedicine.com

1 0

Regarding knowledge
by Anthony Cole 07 Apr '15

07 Apr '15

(I just posted this with bad formatting. Would a moderator please delete that earlier version?) "Among my friends and acquaintances, everybody distrusts Wikipedia and everybody uses it." — Freeman Dyson, "How We Know" The New York Review of Books, 10 March 2011. (Discussing recent UK survey results.) "We're trusted slightly more than the BBC. Now, that's a little scary, and probably inappropriate. ... We all know it's flawed. We all know we don't do as good a job as we wish we could do ... People trusted Encyclopedia Britannica - I think it was, like - 20 points ahead of us." — Jimmy Wales, "State of the Wiki" Wikimania speech, 10 August 2014. The Wikimedia Foundation vision: "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment." But "knowledge" of something implies confidence in its accuracy. While Wikipedia is untrustworthy, it is purveying something other than knowledge. This is a problem for the foundation, since it is failing to realise its vision - and for humankind, who deserves an encyclopaedia it can trust. It is also a critical, existential vulnerability for Wikipedia. Google is factoring trustworthiness into its ranking algorithm.[1][2] It has already stopped using Wikipedia's medical articles in its "knowledge graph". Rightly. Soon we'll see Wikipedia's medical content (rightly) demoted from (often) the top search result to 5th or 10th - or oblivion (rightly) on page two. The recently released State of the Wikimedia Foundation 2015 Call to Action [3] lists a set of objectives. One of the items under the heading "Focus on knowledge & community" is "Improve our measures of community health and content quality, and fund effective community and content initiatives. The quality parameter that most needs measuring and improving is reliability/trustworthiness - if we take the survival of Wikipedia as an important goal. *Will the Foundation be funding any staff positions whose purpose is to measure the quality of the encyclopedia and nurture strategic initiatives specifically aimed at making Wikipedia an encyclopedia people can trust?* Five years ago the Wikimedia Movement Strategic Plan [4] resolved to measure and measurably improve the quality of our offering, and no resources were allocated and it did not happen. 1. Hal Hodson 28 February 2015 "Google wants to rank websites based on facts not links" New Scientist 2. Hal Hodson 20 August 2014 "Google's fact-checking bots build vast knowledge bank" New Scientist 3. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/State_of_the_Wikimedia_Found… 4. https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Movement_Strategic_Plan_Summa… Anthony Cole <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole>

3 4

[US media] Wikimedia on US television program 60 Minutes tonight
by Katherine Maher 06 Apr '15

06 Apr '15

Hi everyone, For the past year, the US television program* 60 Minutes*[1] has been working on a segment on Wikimedia. We learned that it will air today Sunday, April 5, at 7 p.m. EST/PST, and will be available for streaming on the* 60** Minutes* website (http://www.cbsnews.com/60-minutes/), reportedly without any geo IP restrictions, shortly after it airs. We wanted to let you know in case you are interested in watching. *60 Minutes *doesn't allow subjects to preview their scripts, but here's what we expect: *BASICS* Title: "Wikimania" Host: Morley Safer Length: 13-17 minutes Audience: ~12 million, US, general interest, mature audience. Time: Sunday, April 5, at 7 p.m. EST/PST Availability: Streaming at the* 60** Minutes*/site shortly after airdate; no geo IP restrictions *THEMES* *60** Minutes* prides itself in making complicated realities easily understandable. It will be a high-level introduction for a general audience, and may even seem simplistic for a community member. We expect the segment to be positive, focusing on how Wikipedia is created by volunteers from all over the world, and emphasizing how unusual the projects are. In terms of negatives, the feature may include some stale stereotypes about Wikimedians as socially awkward, the gender gap, and inaccuracies. The segment will feature: - Interviews with Jimmy, Sue, and Lila - A short profile of Jimmy as founder. - Storytelling from Wikimania London. - Examples of people involved with Wikipedia including: Dumi Ndubane and Bobby Shabangu of Wikimedia ZA; Dorothy Howard leading a GLAM editathon at the Frick museum in NY; and an interview with NYC Wikipedian Amanda Levendowski. - Notable facts and figures about Wikipedia, its global popularity, depth, and user support. You can currently find preview clips here: http://www.cbsnews.com/60-minutes/ Thanks to everyone for your support and participation! Katherine [1] *60 Minutes* is one of the most popular television shows in the Unites States, reaching an audience of as many as 15 million people each week. Morley Safer, the journalist, is one of the best known hosts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/60_Minutes; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morley_Safer -- Katherine Maher Chief Communications Officer Wikimedia Foundation 149 New Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94105 +1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635 +1 (415) 712 4873 kmaher(a)wikimedia.org

4 5

Request
by Pete Forsyth 06 Apr '15

06 Apr '15

There has been a protracted thread in the last couple of days that seems to amount to an escalating ego battle among 2-3 participants. I could be wrong, but I don't think this has much interest beyond those 2-3 individuals. I'd like to request that the participants or the list moderators take steps to move this discussion off list. Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]

3 2

60 Minutes episode link
by Kevin Rutherford 06 Apr '15

06 Apr '15

Hey all, Here is a link to the segment that just aired earlier tonight that Katherine mentioned earlier today. There are also some bonus bits on the side, and it lasts for under fifteen minutes, so check it out when you have a moment as it features a lot of footage from last year’s Wikimania: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wikipedia-jimmy-wales-morley-safer-60-minutes/ Kevin Rutherford Ktr101

6 6

Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice President of Strategic Partnerships
by Lila Tretikov 05 Apr '15

05 Apr '15

Dear Wikimedians, In order to encourage the expansion of knowledge, we’ve been considering new ways to support and develop the work you do. Collaboration is an essential part of the Wikimedia movement, and today, I’m excited to let you know about a new addition at the Wikimedia Foundation that will support our collaboration with like-minded organizations. For some time now, we’ve planned to hire a Vice President of Strategic Partnerships. Today, I am pleased to announce that Kourosh Karimkhany will step into this role on March 30, 2015. Kourosh will be responsible for crafting a strategy to grow long-term value for Wikimedia projects through building meaningful partnerships, projects, and relationships on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation. He will become part of the C-level team and will report to Lisa Gruwell. Kourosh will also oversee Wikipedia Zero, which will transition to the partnerships team. The Wikimedia community has many fruitful and creative partnerships that help support knowledge creation and sharing around the world. The partnerships Kourosh will support will will help us better support these partnerships and your work, as well as grow strategic initiatives we take on at the WMF. Kourosh was born in Iran and moved to the U.S. as a child with his family. Today, he is an experienced digital media professional with a passion for sharing information with the world. He started his career as a technology journalist covering Silicon Valley for Bloomberg, Reuters and Wired. He switched to the business side of media when he joined Yahoo as senior producer of Yahoo News. Later, he led corporate development at Conde Nast where he spearheaded the acquisition of Wired.com, Ars Technica and Reddit. He also cofounded Food Republic in 2009, which was acquired in 2013. He's an active angel investor and startup advisor. In light of the expanded scope of the Fundraising team and the revamped partnerships team, we’re changing the team's name to better reflect their mission. The new name is the Advancement Department. To learn more about the new role, visit the FAQ here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Partnerships_FAQ Please join me in welcoming Kourosh as the newest member of the WMF leadership team. We have many exciting projects in 2015 and I’m looking forward to all the great things we will accomplish as we work together to support our mission. ~~~~Lila

23 29

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 133, Issue 17
by Mike Godwin 05 Apr '15

05 Apr '15

Lilburne writes: "> My friends and colleagues at EFF, Access Now, and elsewhere -- as well > as individual scholars and commentators like Marvin Ammori -- know me, "Those will all be Google shills correct?" Incorrect. My work, and EFF's work, to take two example, predate Google's involvement in public policy by 15 years. I understand that for "keyboard cowboys" it may be hard to understand that mere agreement with a corporation some of the time does not equal being a "shill" and does not entail agreeing with a corporation all the time. But those of us who actually do activism and public policy work know who we are and why we do it. In those contexts, I've never heard of you before. Tell us more about your activism and public-policy work! --Mike On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 5:42 AM, <wikimedia-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org> wrote: > 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: Fwd: Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice President of > Strategic Partnerships (Cristian Consonni) > 2. Call for Election Committee candidates (Alice Wiegand) > 3. Re: Fwd: Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice President of > Strategic Partnerships (Anthony Cole) > 4. Re: Fwd: Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice President of > Strategic Partnerships (Gerard Meijssen) > 5. Re: Announcing: The Wikipedia Prize! (Lila Tretikov) > 6. Re: Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice President of > Strategic Partnerships (Lilburne) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2015 19:44:21 +0200 > From: Cristian Consonni <kikkocristian(a)gmail.com> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice > President of Strategic Partnerships > Message-ID: > <CAEs8i0h8LKHtDEMb-Erw02ZrKNnT+MdXdjYs9pGmDOGeveKvcg(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Hi Andreas, > > 2015-04-02 18:25 GMT+02:00 Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com>: >> On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Cristian Consonni <kikkocristian(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> 2015-04-02 15:16 GMT+02:00 Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com>: >> As mentioned previously, what I have seen is recent additions to >> Internet.org, describing Internet.org app launches bundling Wikipedia Zero >> and Facebook Zero (along with a small and varying number of other sites) in >> the following countries: > > I need another clarification. As far as I know (and I recall a > question in the board Q&A at Wikimania in London), it's internet.org > making available Wikipedia content (as per the license) on their app. > It is not an initiative of the Wikimedia Foundation and (therefore) it > is not related to Wikipedia Zero. Also, internet.org/Facebook can do > this thanks to our license (more below). Unless something changed in > the last months you can not say that Wikipedia Zero is bundled with > Facebook Zero. > > [...] > >> Note that Facebook actually seems to contain a complete mirror of >> Wikipedia, judging by the presence of even fairly obscure Wikipedia >> articles on its pages (selected using "Random article"). See e.g. > > This is failry old news, these pages exists since 2010: > https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/21721 > >> Given the limitations Wikipedia Zero users labour under, it is actually >> fairly immaterial to users whether they see the Wikipedia article in >> Facebook Zero or Wikipedia Zero. The key difference is that in Facebook >> Zero, they will not see Wikipedia's logo and fundraising banners. (They >> also can't see the talk pages in Facebook.) They will have a less clear >> impression of Wikipedia's brand, and the whole thing will still primarily >> be a Facebook experience to them. > > I see the problem, but this is not related at all with Net Neutrality. > > This is what you can do with any free/libre content. There is no way > to stop Facebook (or Flickr [sic et simpliciter]) from reusing our > content. Let me quote SJ (again from the Board Q&A in London) "Please > reuse our content". There should be as few limitations as possible to > reusing the content, in principle. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia > for this very exact reason after all. Even in a world with the > strongest possible Net Neutrality laws in force Facebook will be able > to do this. > > Let me weigh in another argument, I know that the idea of a "Public > space on the internet" is accepted even in the framework of Net > Neutrality. The idea is that some list of websites that offer public > services (e.g. government websites, public libraries websites, schools > and universities websites) should always be accessible with no charge. > In this view Wikipedia could be included in the list as an educational > non-profit (other projects may also be included, e. g. the Khan > Academy). Wikimedia Foundation, in this sense, is leading by example. > > C > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2015 22:28:47 +0200 > From: Alice Wiegand <awiegand(a)wikimedia.org> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Call for Election Committee candidates > Message-ID: > <CAJO1yKBSi+DgQhjf4m-Z1BtgSx1PV_F5E72vPW8=BZ=d5j8h2g(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Hi Everyone, > > 2015 is an election year for the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia > Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_of_Trustees> as well > as for the Funds Dissemination Committee > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Funds_Dissemination_Committee>. > > As you may recall the Board has three directly-elected members who serve > for two years. Currently they are Phoebe Ayers (Phoebe > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Phoebe>), Samuel Klein (SJ > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Sj>) and María Sefidari (Raystorm > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Raystorm>). As in the past years we > rely on an effective election committee to coordinate the elections for us > along with staff support and a Board liaison. Not only do they guarantee > that the election is overseen by an independent body, but they also make > sure that the tremendous amount of work that needs to be done is taken care > of. My job, as this year's Board liaison, is to coordinate the formation of > this committee and to support them in their work while serving as the > primary point of contact with the Board regarding the process.. > > This is a call for volunteers to serve on the election committee. If you > feel that you can contribute to this committee, please email James > Alexander (Jalexander(a)wikimedia.org) and give a small summary of why you > think you would be able to help out with this process. > > The Committee is responsible for planning and maintaining virtually every > aspect of the Board election. For example, the Committee plans the type of > voting, suffrage criteria, and criteria for candidacy, helps to draft and > organize all of the official election pages on Meta, verifies that > candidates and voters meet the criteria, audits votes to ensure there are > no duplicate votes or other problems, et cetera. You can expect that this > work will take an average 5-10 hours a week with a few periods of relative > quiet and a few periods of heavy work during and after each election (the > FDC and Board elections are planned to be separate this year). > > If you decide to join the committee you will have to identify to the > Wikimedia Foundation > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_handbook/email_templates#Notificati…> > because > of the personal information you have access too and must be at least 18 > years of age. In addition you cannot be part of the election committee if > you are planning to be a candidate or are planning to support any candidate > publicly. > > To ensure we get going as quickly as possible, committee members will start > to be seated as soon as we have 4-5 good candidates with an anticipated > first meeting of Friday April 10th (or soon after, depending on committee > availability). The deadline for volunteers, however, is Friday, April 17th > UTC 12:00. > > The committee and staff will be setting up the election pages soon and the > call for candidates, led by a letter from the Board, which will be going > out shortly. If you're interested in running for either the Board or the > FDC, I encourage you to read up on prior elections > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013>and > the groups themselves to prepare your statements! > > Regards, > Alice. > > > -- > Alice Wiegand > Board of Trustees > Wikimedia Foundation > > Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2015 07:52:20 +0800 > From: Anthony Cole <ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice > President of Strategic Partnerships > Message-ID: > <CADnSFR+WrE3pb06tgw3vhfxQu_VriZSDDEaLJg6eW6c=5LV7-Q(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > No one would care about Wikipedia Zero if Wikipedia was a reliable source. > > Anthony Cole <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole> > > > On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 1:44 AM, Cristian Consonni <kikkocristian(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Andreas, >> >> 2015-04-02 18:25 GMT+02:00 Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com>: >> > On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Cristian Consonni < >> kikkocristian(a)gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> 2015-04-02 15:16 GMT+02:00 Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com>: >> > As mentioned previously, what I have seen is recent additions to >> > Internet.org, describing Internet.org app launches bundling Wikipedia >> Zero >> > and Facebook Zero (along with a small and varying number of other sites) >> in >> > the following countries: >> >> I need another clarification. As far as I know (and I recall a >> question in the board Q&A at Wikimania in London), it's internet.org >> making available Wikipedia content (as per the license) on their app. >> It is not an initiative of the Wikimedia Foundation and (therefore) it >> is not related to Wikipedia Zero. Also, internet.org/Facebook can do >> this thanks to our license (more below). Unless something changed in >> the last months you can not say that Wikipedia Zero is bundled with >> Facebook Zero. >> >> [...] >> >> > Note that Facebook actually seems to contain a complete mirror of >> > Wikipedia, judging by the presence of even fairly obscure Wikipedia >> > articles on its pages (selected using "Random article"). See e.g. >> >> This is failry old news, these pages exists since 2010: >> https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/21721 >> >> > Given the limitations Wikipedia Zero users labour under, it is actually >> > fairly immaterial to users whether they see the Wikipedia article in >> > Facebook Zero or Wikipedia Zero. The key difference is that in Facebook >> > Zero, they will not see Wikipedia's logo and fundraising banners. (They >> > also can't see the talk pages in Facebook.) They will have a less clear >> > impression of Wikipedia's brand, and the whole thing will still primarily >> > be a Facebook experience to them. >> >> I see the problem, but this is not related at all with Net Neutrality. >> >> This is what you can do with any free/libre content. There is no way >> to stop Facebook (or Flickr [sic et simpliciter]) from reusing our >> content. Let me quote SJ (again from the Board Q&A in London) "Please >> reuse our content". There should be as few limitations as possible to >> reusing the content, in principle. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia >> for this very exact reason after all. Even in a world with the >> strongest possible Net Neutrality laws in force Facebook will be able >> to do this. >> >> Let me weigh in another argument, I know that the idea of a "Public >> space on the internet" is accepted even in the framework of Net >> Neutrality. The idea is that some list of websites that offer public >> services (e.g. government websites, public libraries websites, schools >> and universities websites) should always be accessible with no charge. >> In this view Wikipedia could be included in the list as an educational >> non-profit (other projects may also be included, e. g. the Khan >> Academy). Wikimedia Foundation, in this sense, is leading by example. >> >> C >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >> 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: Sun, 5 Apr 2015 07:36:48 +0200 > From: Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice > President of Strategic Partnerships > Message-ID: > <CAO53wxVusfbyBrX-pAqHgjfKYmZ97=UEXb+WUnwRW4mThy7aqw(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Hoi, > Reliable is not an absolute. Wikipedia is in the final analysis an > encyclopaedia. It is not original research. Studies have indicated that > Wikipedia is as reliable as its competitors. Wikipedia does link ever more > to the VIAF indicators by the OCLC and thereby it links to the sum of all > knowledge as it is available in libraries. > > I think you have it backward. Given that Wikipedia is best of breed, people > do care about Wikipedia Zero. It is why Wikipedia Zero is not part of any > walled garden; it is there for every company who cares to provide it free > of charge. > > For the rest I find that I am getting annoyed. > Thanks, > GerardM > > On 5 April 2015 at 01:52, Anthony Cole <ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> No one would care about Wikipedia Zero if Wikipedia was a reliable source. >> >> Anthony Cole <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole> >> >> >> On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 1:44 AM, Cristian Consonni <kikkocristian(a)gmail.com >> > >> wrote: >> >> > Hi Andreas, >> > >> > 2015-04-02 18:25 GMT+02:00 Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com>: >> > > On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Cristian Consonni < >> > kikkocristian(a)gmail.com> >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > >> 2015-04-02 15:16 GMT+02:00 Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com>: >> > > As mentioned previously, what I have seen is recent additions to >> > > Internet.org, describing Internet.org app launches bundling Wikipedia >> > Zero >> > > and Facebook Zero (along with a small and varying number of other >> sites) >> > in >> > > the following countries: >> > >> > I need another clarification. As far as I know (and I recall a >> > question in the board Q&A at Wikimania in London), it's internet.org >> > making available Wikipedia content (as per the license) on their app. >> > It is not an initiative of the Wikimedia Foundation and (therefore) it >> > is not related to Wikipedia Zero. Also, internet.org/Facebook can do >> > this thanks to our license (more below). Unless something changed in >> > the last months you can not say that Wikipedia Zero is bundled with >> > Facebook Zero. >> > >> > [...] >> > >> > > Note that Facebook actually seems to contain a complete mirror of >> > > Wikipedia, judging by the presence of even fairly obscure Wikipedia >> > > articles on its pages (selected using "Random article"). See e.g. >> > >> > This is failry old news, these pages exists since 2010: >> > https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/21721 >> > >> > > Given the limitations Wikipedia Zero users labour under, it is actually >> > > fairly immaterial to users whether they see the Wikipedia article in >> > > Facebook Zero or Wikipedia Zero. The key difference is that in Facebook >> > > Zero, they will not see Wikipedia's logo and fundraising banners. (They >> > > also can't see the talk pages in Facebook.) They will have a less clear >> > > impression of Wikipedia's brand, and the whole thing will still >> primarily >> > > be a Facebook experience to them. >> > >> > I see the problem, but this is not related at all with Net Neutrality. >> > >> > This is what you can do with any free/libre content. There is no way >> > to stop Facebook (or Flickr [sic et simpliciter]) from reusing our >> > content. Let me quote SJ (again from the Board Q&A in London) "Please >> > reuse our content". There should be as few limitations as possible to >> > reusing the content, in principle. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia >> > for this very exact reason after all. Even in a world with the >> > strongest possible Net Neutrality laws in force Facebook will be able >> > to do this. >> > >> > Let me weigh in another argument, I know that the idea of a "Public >> > space on the internet" is accepted even in the framework of Net >> > Neutrality. The idea is that some list of websites that offer public >> > services (e.g. government websites, public libraries websites, schools >> > and universities websites) should always be accessible with no charge. >> > In this view Wikipedia could be included in the list as an educational >> > non-profit (other projects may also be included, e. g. the Khan >> > Academy). Wikimedia Foundation, in this sense, is leading by example. >> > >> > C >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >> > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >> 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: 5 > Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2015 02:30:05 -0700 > From: Lila Tretikov <lila(a)wikimedia.org> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcing: The Wikipedia Prize! > Message-ID: > <CAByo0cFuwM9Sq0TY_ZUcMzVpsqKmp1NRGbkV_fz8fozj9T11FQ(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > All, > > As Tim mentioned we are seriously looking at > privacy/identity/security/anonymity issues, specifically as it pertains to > IP address exposure -- both from legal and technical standpoint. This won't > happen overnight as we need to get people to work on this and there are a > lot of asks, but this is on our radar. > > On a related note, let's skip the sarcasm and treat each other with > straightforward honestly. And for non-English speakers -- who are also (if > not more) in need of this -- sarcasm can be very confusing. > > Thanks, > Lila > > On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Cristian Consonni <kikkocristian(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Brian, >> >> 2015-03-30 0:25 GMT+02:00 Brian <reflection(a)gmail.com>: >> > Although the initial goal of the Netflix Prize was to design a >> > collaborative filtering algorithm, it became notorious when the data was >> > used to de-anonymize Netflix users. Researchers proved that given just a >> > user's movie ratings on one site, you can plug those ratings into another >> > site, such as the IMDB. You can then take that information, and with some >> > Google searches and optionally a bit of cash (for websites that sell user >> > information, including, in some cases, their SSN) figure out who they >> are. >> > You could even drive up to their house and take a selfie with them, or >> > follow them to work and meet their boss and tell them about their views >> on >> > the topics they were editing. >> >> somewhat tangentially, and to bring back this to topic to a more >> scientific setting I would like to point out that there has already >> been reasearch in the past on this topic. >> >> I highly recommend reading the following paper: >> >> Lieberman, Michael D., and Jimmy Lin. "You Are Where You Edit: >> Locating Wikipedia Contributors through Edit Histories." ICWSM. 2009. >> (PDF < >> http://www.pensivepuffin.com/dwmcphd/syllabi/infx598_wi12/papers/wikipedia/… >> >) >> >> For those of you that don't want to read the whole paper, you can find >> a recap of the most relevant findings in this presentation by Maurizio >> Napolitano: >> < >> http://www.slideshare.net/napo/social-geography-wikipedia-a-quick-overwiew >> > >> >> The main idea is associating spatial coordinates to a Wikipedia >> articles when possible, this articles are called "geopages". Then you >> extract from the history of articles the users which have edited a >> geopage. If you plot the geopages edited by a given contributor you >> can see that they tend to cluster, so you can define an "edit area". >> The study finds that 30-35% of contributors concentrate their edits in >> an edit area smaller than 1 deg^2 (~12,362 km^2, approximately the >> area of Connecticut or Northern Ireland[1] (thanks, Wikipedia!)). >> >> For another free/libre project with a geographic focus like >> OpenStreetMap this is even more marked, check out for example this >> tool «“Your OSM Heat Map” (aka Where did you contribute?)»[2] by >> Pascal Neis. >> >> This, of course, is not a straightforward de-anonimization but this >> methods work in principle for every contributor even if you obfuscate >> their IP or username (provided that you can still assign all the edits >> from a given user to a unique and univocal identifier) >> >> C >> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_degree >> [2a] http://yosmhm.neis-one.org/ >> [2b] http://neis-one.org/2011/08/yosmhm/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >> 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: 6 > Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2015 10:41:59 +0100 > From: Lilburne <lilburne(a)tygers-of-wrath.net> > To: wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice > President of Strategic Partnerships > Message-ID: <55210367.6020807(a)tygers-of-wrath.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > On 02/04/2015 02:54, Mike Godwin wrote: >> Andreas writes: >> >> "Prominent organisations campaigning for a free and open web very >> strongly disagree with your view." >> >> I said there are no facts, and you responded by citing opinion pieces. >> That's cool, but opinions are not themselves facts. >> >> Furthermore, in some circles, I've been considered from time to time >> to be someone "prominent" whose entire career has been dedicated to a >> free and open web. If you're suggesting that everyone -- or even >> everyone "prominent" -- who believes in a free and open web "very >> strongly" disagrees with me, then you are misinformed. > > No we think that there are relationships between faux advocacy and what > benefits large > multinational tech corporations to the detriment of everyone else. That > we do not see > 'citizen advocacy' groups speak out against the rape of privacy that > online web operators > engage in, that they speak mainly of governments who by and large > out-source the > surveillance to private companies. > > For example did the EFF speak out about Google using "Apps for > Education" to profile kids? > No totally silent on the vile behavour of its pay master: > http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/03/13/26google.h33.html > https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2014/04/30/google-stops-data-mining-studen… > > >> There is an >> honest difference of opinion about what the developing world needs >> first. And, in my experience, it is only individuals in developed, >> industrialized countries with very little direct knowledge about the >> infrastructural and access challenges in developing countries who >> imagine that zero-rated services are categorically a threat to "a free >> and open web. > > That "free and open" is bullshit for the entrenchment of the status quo. > That Government > turned a blind eye to the abuses in the early days, effectively allowing > monopolies to become > established and that it about time that they reigned the bastards back. > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/01/modernise_safe_harbour_for_the_tech… > > >> I've actually written about this issue at length, and will be >> publishing another article on the issue next week. I'll post the link >> here when I have it. >> >> Whether the U.S. government's Federal Communications is not itself a >> "prominent organization" that has committed itself to "a free and open >> web" is a proposition worth challenging is, of course, up to you. But >> I hope you don't expect such a challenge to be taken seriously. I know >> the FCC's new Report and Order on net neutrality is a very long >> (400-page) document, and there is of course no requirement that you >> actually have read it (much less some appreciable fraction of the >> comments that led to it). But I've done so. The FCC expressly refused >> to adopt the categorical, simplistic, binary approach you have posted >> here. > > Yeah we heard that. That despite all the supposed brouhaha > http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/05/us-usa-internet-google-idUSKBN0L9… > > The FCC came out in favour of - GOOGLE > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/03/13/net_neutrality_rules/ > > I gather that a recent FTC report is being investigated by a Senate that > is waking up to the fiddling > that is going on > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/03/senate_to_probe_obamagoogle_lovein/ > >> My friends and colleagues at EFF, Access Now, and elsewhere -- as well >> as individual scholars and commentators like Marvin Ammori -- know me, > > Those will all be Google shills correct? > http://www.scribd.com/doc/103158031/Google-Shill-List > http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/03/10/sopa_copyright_voluntary… > > In effect it is becoming clearer and clearer that the later day robber > barons, their supporters > and fellow travellers need a clear lessons in citizenship. That the rule > of law is catching up. > http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/03/us/califomia-revenge-porn-sentence/index.html > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > > > End of Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 133, Issue 17 > ********************************************

2 1

Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice President of Strategic Partnerships
by Mike Godwin 05 Apr '15

05 Apr '15

Andreas writes: "Prominent organisations campaigning for a free and open web very strongly disagree with your view." I said there are no facts, and you responded by citing opinion pieces. That's cool, but opinions are not themselves facts. Furthermore, in some circles, I've been considered from time to time to be someone "prominent" whose entire career has been dedicated to a free and open web. If you're suggesting that everyone -- or even everyone "prominent" -- who believes in a free and open web "very strongly" disagrees with me, then you are misinformed. There is an honest difference of opinion about what the developing world needs first. And, in my experience, it is only individuals in developed, industrialized countries with very little direct knowledge about the infrastructural and access challenges in developing countries who imagine that zero-rated services are categorically a threat to "a free and open web." I've actually written about this issue at length, and will be publishing another article on the issue next week. I'll post the link here when I have it. Whether the U.S. government's Federal Communications is not itself a "prominent organization" that has committed itself to "a free and open web" is a proposition worth challenging is, of course, up to you. But I hope you don't expect such a challenge to be taken seriously. I know the FCC's new Report and Order on net neutrality is a very long (400-page) document, and there is of course no requirement that you actually have read it (much less some appreciable fraction of the comments that led to it). But I've done so. The FCC expressly refused to adopt the categorical, simplistic, binary approach you have posted here. My friends and colleagues at EFF, Access Now, and elsewhere -- as well as individual scholars and commentators like Marvin Ammori -- know me, and they know why I differ with them about this stuff. What I have explained to them is that my experiences of working with in-country NGOs in the developing world (who don't, in fact, disagree with me about this) have shaped my opinion. If your own experience in working on access issues in (say) Africa or Southeast Asia is stronger than my own, I'd be more likely to be persuaded by your, uh, "original research" than by your effort to selectively adduce footnotes in support of your assertions. At least that's my inclination after a quarter of a century of working for internet freedom. (I was the first employee at EFF, where I worked for nine years.) The Access Now editorial, in particular, was drafted by someone who had not been open to discussing why it doesn't make sense to describe Wikipedia Zero as having "forged deals" with telcos. How do I happen to know this? Because, as a result of conversations with Marvin Ammori, I tried reaching out to Access Now. (The author is not among the many Access Now lawyers I know personally.) Those efforts never went anywhere--the writer wasn't interested in discussing it. What you may not know, if you are not based in Washington, DC, policy circles, is that very many (although not all) network-neutrality activists are afraid that if there is *any* exception to a categorical prohibition on zero-rated services, this will somehow undermine network neutrality forever. I do not share their predisposition (or yours) to understand the issue in such simplistic, binary terms. Please forgive me for not re-reading the Access Now editorial again, even though you quote it so heavily here. I've discussed the editorial face-to-face, however, with my Access Now friends in DC, and again at the Internet Governance Forum in Istanbul last year, and just last week at RightsCon in Manila, where I was a guest speaker and moderator of a panel on internet-rights initiatives in Southeast Asia. I didn't happen to see you at any of those events, but they were quite busy and crowded, so perhaps I missed you. Perhaps your own labors on behalf of a free and open internet were so demanding that they prevented you from attending. If so, I understand entirely. I'll be back in Phnom Penh working on the Great Charter for Cambodian Internet Freedom for a couple of weeks in June--if you can find your way there, I'd be happy to introduce you to activists who, like me, believe that Wikipedia Zero is the kind of project that helps citizens more immediately and pervasively than a commitment to charging for mobile internet access by the byte. Fortunately, my heterodoxy on the issue of net neutrality has not prevented the prominent organizations you mention from continuing to work with me on issues like NSA reform, copyright and patent reform, and updating the U.S. Electronic Communications Privacy Act. That stuff is going to be my major work obligation in April and May. I guess I'm lucky that the prominence of those organizations has not led them to being so casually dismissive of me as you have chosen to be. Best regards, --Mike Godwin On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 8:02 PM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 12:05 PM, Mike Godwin <mnemonic(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> It should be noted that the Federal Communications Commission, in its >> recent Report and Order requiring network neutrality for American >> telcos and service providers, expressly refused to draw a categorical >> conclusion whether zero-rated services (including Wikipedia Zero) >> harmed competition. Instead, the Commission said it would make >> case-by-case determinations based on the particular services each >> zero-rated service is providing. If it were shown that Wikipedia Zero >> is suppressing competition from other encyclopedic knowledge bases or >> suppressing sharing of knowledge, that would be something for the >> Commission to consider -- but of course there are no facts that >> support this argument, at least not yet. > > > > > Prominent organisations campaigning for a free and open web very strongly > disagree with your view. > > The anti-competitive nature of zero-rated services is the exact point Thomas > Lohninger makes in the presentation I linked to earlier.[1] (Comments on > Wikipedia Zero specifically start at time code 40.45.) > > ---o0o--- > > Imagine if Encyclopaedia Britannica had a service like this 10 years ago. > Something like Wikipedia never could have come into existence, because there > would already be one incumbent player that's hugely dominant, that has free > access to all the customer base. And it doesn't matter if it's the best > service ... but it's free. And so people will use that. And Wikipedia as a > community project never would have taken off and come to the point where > they are right now. > > ---o0o--- > > Would you really argue with that? > > Facebook Zero and Wikipedia Zero are transparently about getting to market > early, ahead of other corporate players, and establishing dominant positions > before others – including non-Western, home-grown solutions – can get a foot > in the door. > > AccessNow[2] takes the same view: > > ---o0o--- > > Wikimedia is not alone in forging “zero-rating” deals with telcos. Facebook > has also struck deals to offer low-data versions of its services in both > developed and developing countries. But Wikimedia argues that unlike > Facebook Zero, its service is non-commercial, and therefore deserves a > special Wikipedia carve-out because no money is changing hands in exchange > for prioritization over other services. No money, no net neutrality > violation. > > This reasoning fails to pass the smell test. The company’s own recently > updated terms of service recognize that payment and benefit need not be > monetary. In fact, Wikimedia is using its well-known trademarks as currency > in deals with telecom partners as it seeks to acquire more users via > Wikipedia Zero. > > Current users understand that the revolutionary nature of the internet rests > in its breadth and diversity. The internet is more than Wikipedia, Facebook, > or Google. But for many, zero-rated programs would limit online access to > the “walled gardens” offered by the Web heavyweights. For millions of users, > Facebook and Wikipedia would be synonymous with “internet.” In the end, > Wikipedia Zero would not lead to more users of the actual internet, but > Wikipedia may see a nice pickup in traffic. > > As the Wikimedia Foundation claims to know, the diversity and plurality of > knowledge the internet can deliver is, in essence, what makes net neutrality > so important; equal treatment of data results in equal access to all. It’s > hard to see how zero-rated services can comport with this principle. > > In addition, suggesting that free access to Wikipedia or Facebook is the > solution to limited internet access in the developing world is like putting > a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. It leaves the underlying, complex causes of > the digital divide untreated. Moreover, offering services that don't count > against data caps, in developed and less-developed countries alike, tips the > balance in favour of zero-rated services, effectively salting the earth of > low-cost net neutral alternatives in the future. The long-term effect of > these services will be a decline in innovation and competition online — with > a particular bias against homegrown services in favor of companies based > thousands of miles away in Silicon Valley — and, ironically, a reduction in > access to information and knowledge. > > ---o0o--- > > "Fails to pass the smell test." > > "Salting the earth." > > The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which you used to work for before you > took your job at Wikimedia, makes the same point about the anti-competitive > nature of zero-rated services, specifically with reference to Wikipedia > Zero:[3] > > ---o0o--- > > It goes without saying that users will be much more inclined to access a > zero rated service than one for which they need to pay, and that this tilts > the playing field in favor of the zero rated content owner. On its face, > this isn't neutral at all. Yet some have argued that it is worth allowing > poor consumers to access at least part of the Internet, even if they are > shut out from accessing the rest of it because they can't afford to do so. > > However, we worry about the downside risks of the zero rated services. > Although it may seem like a humane strategy to offer users from developing > countries crumbs from the Internet's table in the form of free access to > walled-garden services, such service may thrive at the cost of stifling the > development of low-cost, neutral Internet access in those countries for > decades to come. > > ---o0o--- > > These organisations have excellent credentials, and they all argue that > developing countries are taken advantage of, in line with a centuries-old > tradition. It's internet colonialism. > > Wikimedia is behaving like an exploitative corporate player here, striking > deals with other first-world corporate players interested solely in their > bottom line. Since the beginning of the year, at least three Facebook > Zero/Wikipedia Zero bundles have appeared on Facebook's Internet.org > website. > > Plus ça change ... > > > [1] > http://media.ccc.de/browse/congress/2014/31c3_-_6170_-_en_-_saal_g_-_201412… > [2] > https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/08/08/wikipedia-zero-and-net-neutrality… > [3] > https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/net-neutrality-and-global-digital-div… >

8 14

Announcing: The Wikipedia Prize!
by Brian 05 Apr '15

05 Apr '15

I'm sure many of you recall the Netflix Prize <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netflix_Prize>. This is that, for Wikipedia! Although the initial goal of the Netflix Prize was to design a collaborative filtering algorithm, it became notorious when the data was used to de-anonymize Netflix users. Researchers proved that given just a user's movie ratings on one site, you can plug those ratings into another site, such as the IMDB. You can then take that information, and with some Google searches and optionally a bit of cash (for websites that sell user information, including, in some cases, their SSN) figure out who they are. You could even drive up to their house and take a selfie with them, or follow them to work and meet their boss and tell them about their views on the topics they were editing. Here, we'll cut straight to the privacy chase. Using just the full history dump of the English Wikipedia, excluding edits from any logged-in users, identify five people. You must confirm their identities with them, and privately prove to me that you've done this. I will then nominate you as the winner and send you one million Satoshis (the smallest unit of Bitcoin, times 1 million), in addition to updating this thread. I suspect this challenge will be very easy for anyone who is determined. Indeed, even if MediaWiki no longer displayed IP addresses, there would still be enough information to identify people. Completely getting rid of the edit history would largely solve the problem. In the mean time, this Prize will serve as a reminder that when Wikipedia says "Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits." what they mean is, "People will probably be able to figure out where you live and embarrass you." An extra million Satoshis for each NSA employee that you identify. A full bitcoin if you take a selfie with them. Let the games begin! Brian Mingus

13 12

Call for Election Committee candidates
by Alice Wiegand 04 Apr '15

04 Apr '15

Hi Everyone, 2015 is an election year for the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_of_Trustees> as well as for the Funds Dissemination Committee <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Funds_Dissemination_Committee>. As you may recall the Board has three directly-elected members who serve for two years. Currently they are Phoebe Ayers (Phoebe <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Phoebe>), Samuel Klein (SJ <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Sj>) and María Sefidari (Raystorm <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Raystorm>). As in the past years we rely on an effective election committee to coordinate the elections for us along with staff support and a Board liaison. Not only do they guarantee that the election is overseen by an independent body, but they also make sure that the tremendous amount of work that needs to be done is taken care of. My job, as this year's Board liaison, is to coordinate the formation of this committee and to support them in their work while serving as the primary point of contact with the Board regarding the process.. This is a call for volunteers to serve on the election committee. If you feel that you can contribute to this committee, please email James Alexander (Jalexander(a)wikimedia.org) and give a small summary of why you think you would be able to help out with this process. The Committee is responsible for planning and maintaining virtually every aspect of the Board election. For example, the Committee plans the type of voting, suffrage criteria, and criteria for candidacy, helps to draft and organize all of the official election pages on Meta, verifies that candidates and voters meet the criteria, audits votes to ensure there are no duplicate votes or other problems, et cetera. You can expect that this work will take an average 5-10 hours a week with a few periods of relative quiet and a few periods of heavy work during and after each election (the FDC and Board elections are planned to be separate this year). If you decide to join the committee you will have to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_handbook/email_templates#Notificati…> because of the personal information you have access too and must be at least 18 years of age. In addition you cannot be part of the election committee if you are planning to be a candidate or are planning to support any candidate publicly. To ensure we get going as quickly as possible, committee members will start to be seated as soon as we have 4-5 good candidates with an anticipated first meeting of Friday April 10th (or soon after, depending on committee availability). The deadline for volunteers, however, is Friday, April 17th UTC 12:00. The committee and staff will be setting up the election pages soon and the call for candidates, led by a letter from the Board, which will be going out shortly. If you're interested in running for either the Board or the FDC, I encourage you to read up on prior elections <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013>and the groups themselves to prepare your statements! Regards, Alice. -- Alice Wiegand Board of Trustees Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

1 0

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Older →

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Wikimedia-l April 2015