For various reasons * I follow music industry news. One drum the record
industry has been beating *hard* in the past year is attempts to reduce the
DMCA "safe harbor" provisions in order to squeeze more money from YouTube.
It's been a running theme through 2016.
e.g.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/20/music-industry-battling-…http://www.billboard.com/articles/business/7624389/music-industry-congratul…
The DMCA "safe harbor" is otherwise known as "how Wikipedia is allowed to
exist".
so! Is this on our threat radar? Do they have any hope? How close are we to
another "call your Congressman" banner?
(I figure this is not a good time to say things like "well that could never
happen politically")
- d.
* well, to write schadenfreude-dripping posts on rocknerd.co.uk
It seems that the Chairman of the Board "fail[s] to see what community
input could have brought" to its decision to "delegate[] the authority to
adopt, alter, and revoke policies to the Executive Director," the purpose
of which was "making the legal team life's easier when they need to dosmall
and/or quick changes. They don't have to go through the wholeresolution
process to change a comma".
Points that members of the community might have made include:
1. The resolution as adopted is without limitation and far broader than
needed to achieve its intended effect. A limiting clause could and should
have been inserted such as "Changes shall be made only for the purpose of
clarification, or in cases of immediate necessity, and reported to the
Board at the earliest opportunity: they shall cease to have effect at the
next meeting of the Board unless approved by the Board at that meeting.
*"*
*2. *The resolution does not provide transparency as to (a) what policies
are imposed by the Executive Director or her sub-delegates or (b) who those
authorised sub-delegates are. Point (a) would have been secured by a
clause stating "The Executive Director shall maintain the details of
policies adopted, altered, or revoked under this authority and publish them
at [a suitable location] and no such policy shall be effective until so
published." Point (b) would have been secured by a clause stating "The
Executive Director shall maintain a list of persons authorised to adopt,
alter or revoke policies and publish that list at [a suitable location].
No statement by a person not on that list shall be, or claim to be, a
policy of the Foundation, and nothing shall be a policy of the Foundation
unless expressly stated to be so by a person on that list".
Presumably the Board considered these points explicitly in their own
private delberations -- I make that assumption since the Chair is confident
that it is impossible for the community to have contributed anything to the
deliberations that the Board in their own collective wisdom were not
already cognisant of.
The result is that the Board have handed unlimited authority to the
executive to make policy, and the community have no way of knowing what
that policy now is, or who is accountable for making it. We presume that
was the Board's intention. Why do they believe this is a good idea in
general, or compatible with their commitment to transparency in particular?
Rogol Domedonfors
Hi Everyone,
The next Research Showcase will be live-streamed this Wednesday,
December 21, 2016 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 (UTC).
YouTube stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmrlu5qTgyA
As usual, you can join the conversation on IRC at #wikimedia-research. And,
you can watch our past research showcases here
<https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/Showcase#December_2016>.
The December 2016 Research Showcase includes:
English Wikipedia Quality Dynamics and the Case of WikiProject Women
ScientistsBy *Aaron Halfaker
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Halfak_(WMF)>*With every productive
edit, Wikipedia is steadily progressing towards higher and higher quality.
In order to track quality improvements, Wikipedians have developed an
article quality assessment rating scale that ranges from "Stub" at the
bottom to "Featured Articles" at the top. While this quality scale has the
promise of giving us insights into the dynamics of quality improvements in
Wikipedia, it is hard to use due to the sporadic nature of manual
re-assessments. By developing a highly accurate prediction model (based on
work by Warncke-Wang et al.), we've developed a method to assess an
articles quality at any point in history. Using this model, we explore
general trends in quality in Wikipedia and compare these trends to those of
an interesting cross-section: Articles tagged by WikiProject Women
Scientists. Results suggest that articles about women scientists were lower
quality than the rest of the wiki until mid-2013, after which a dramatic
shift occurred towards higher quality. This shift may correlate with (and
even be caused by) this WikiProjects initiatives.
Privacy, Anonymity, and Perceived Risk in Open Collaboration. A Study of
Tor Users and WikipediansBy *Andrea Forte*In a recent qualitative study to
be published at CSCW 2017, collaborators Rachel Greenstadt, Naz Andalibi,
and I examined privacy practices and concerns among contributors to open
collaboration projects. We collected interview data from people who use the
anonymity network Tor who also contribute to online projects and from
Wikipedia editors who are concerned about their privacy to better
understand how privacy concerns impact participation in open collaboration
projects. We found that risks perceived by contributors to open
collaboration projects include threats of surveillance, violence,
harassment, opportunity loss, reputation loss, and fear for loved ones. We
explain participants’ operational and technical strategies for mitigating
these risks and how these strategies affect their contributions. Finally,
we discuss chilling effects associated with privacy loss, the need for open
collaboration projects to go beyond attracting and educating participants
to consider their privacy, and some of the social and technical approaches
that could be explored to mitigate risk at a project or community level.
--
Sarah R. Rodlund
Senior Project Coordinator-Engineering, Wikimedia Foundation
srodlund(a)wikimedia.org
Hi, y'all.
Coming up tomorrow, Wednesday, December 21 at 6 p.m. PDT is the monthly Bay
Area WikiSalon series. We will have a livestream and archive for the
benefit of remote Wikimedians or those unable to attend for one reason or
another. The topic will be the Wikipedia Teahouse and the presenter is well
respected Wikimedian Jim Heaphy [[User:Cullen328]]
The livestream will start at 6:30 p.m. PDT and will conclude before 7:15
p.m.
* Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeJim1n2uiY
* Details about Bay Area WikiSalon for December:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bay_Area_WikiSalon_December_2016
The full title of Jim's presentation is: Welcoming and Helping New Editors:
A Month at the Wikipedia Teahouse: an overview of the Teahouse and an
analysis of over 300 Teahouse conversations during the month of August, 2016
Jim gave a longer version of this presentation in October at WikiConference
North America 2016 in San Diego, California.
Cheers! Wayne (and Ben) - co-organizers
Wayne cell: 925-899-4051
Hello all. I had a positive experience at WikiConference North America
last weekend, where I gave a talk on transgender issues and
Wikipedia.[1] I'm posting because there's an active discussion in
Wikipedia Weekly on Facebook about choosing a host country for Wikimania
2018.[2] I am concerned that some of the suggestions are not taking into
account the safety of LGBT+ people; not just those attending the
conference, but also those living in the host country.
As a queer trans atheist in a same-sex marriage, there are a number of
places where I am considered a criminal for just existing or going about
my daily routine. This applies to some parts of the U.S. as well, by the
way; I won't be visiting North Carolina as long as it's illegal for me
to use the men's restroom there. Please keep these considerations in
mind when planning meetups and conferences. Thank you.
- Pax aka Funcrunch
[1]
http://funcrunch.org/blog/2016/10/12/making-connections-at-wikiconference-n…
[2]
https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediaweekly/permalink/1114259788621851/
--
Pax Ahimsa Gethen | http://funcrunch.org
Below are some quotes from past donors to WMF, courtesy of Megan Hernandez.
I appreciated reading these in 2014 and thought that others might
appreciate them again also:
--I consider Wikipedia one of the few (the only?) big internet company who
are actually trustworthy. I value Wikipedia and I want to support it
--I read a comic about a Wikipedia-Comcast merger. It was terrifying.
--Keep doing what you are doing. I love Wikipedia. My most visited site by
a mile. Any time I watch a new documentary, nature show, or read a book
about a topic I find fascinating, I always Wikipedia the information.
Irreplaceable!
--Very helpful! As a nursing student I frequently use Wikipedia to
reference science and engineering topics so I can get a deeper
understanding concepts and extra learning. Ilove it. As a young child in
the early 1960s I thought that computers were going to be giant machines
you could ask any question and get answers, Wikipedia is that machine! It's
wonderful! Just sharing.
--It can finish a debate in a couple of clicks
--Once upon a time far far away I wanted a set of encyclopedias, but, alas
I could not afford them. Wikipedia now fills that void.
--I visit and utilize Wikipedia multiple times every week, sometimes daily.
Going to Wikipedia has become second nature to me. It is synonymous with
knowledge - there's nothing more profound. I support it with the small
donations I can afford in the hope of setting an example, and so that
others may have the same opportunities I've had.
--There have been so many ways that the internet has disappointed me in my
hopes that it would improve the human condition. However, there is this one
shining exception, and from my least expected source. Wikipedia is that
best thing that humanity has done with the internet, contributing to both a
common knowledge set and re-learning how to find areas of agreement with
others, instead of just shouting and not listening.
--Most often I turn to Wiki in order to answer a question that my grandson
has asked about life, the universe and everything...in the old days we had
a kids' encyclopedia on the bookshelf, but it became outdated and Wiki has
taken its place.
--Knowledge is the key to so many locks. Thank you
Dear all,
A lot of people reached out to us to ask if Wikipedians and
Wikimedians in Berlin are safe. Thank you to all of you who are
thinking of us right now!
>From what we know by now, everyone around us is OK. Our thoughts are
with families and friends of those who have been affected by the
incident last night.
Take care,
Nicole
--
Nicole Ebber
Referentin Internationale Beziehungen
Adviser to the ED, International Relations
Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. +49 30 21915826-0
http://wikimedia.de
Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen
Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
http://spenden.wikimedia.de/
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.
V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig
anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin,
Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
Dear members of the Wikimedia community,
On behalf of the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, I write to
share the news that we have approved [1] the full slate of the FDC’s Round
1 2016-2017 recommendations [2] for the Annual Plan Grants. In this round,
11 organizations will be receiving a total of
roughly US$3,210,000. Grants are made in local currency, so the USD figure
is approximate.
We want to thank the Funds Dissemination Committee members and staff for
the time and effort they have put into this process, as well as all members
of the community who have participated in this round of analysis and
deliberations.
This year introduced the possibility for some organizations to apply for
multi-year funding [3] (a 2-year program) for the first time. We are glad
to see that this was taken into consideration by the FDC and are looking
forward to learn from this pilot how the Wikimedia organizations can better
support long-term programs.
Thank you to all the organizations involved in this round, and for the work
that the volunteers and staff of these organizations have put in to further
our mission.
We are glad to witness that our movement’s efforts to foster thoughtful
planning show in the annual plans of the participating organizations and
are looking forward to the next round of applications in April 2017.
Sincerely,
Dariusz, on behalf of the WMF Board of Trustees