Dear fellow Wikimedians,
As you may know Christophe Henner, the Chair of Wikimédia France, has
resigned from the board, as he is moving on to his next challenge at the
Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation. We won't even try to
summarise in a few sentences everything Christophe has brought to Wikimédia
France in his 10 years stint as a board member ; let us just deeply thank
him for his service!
Our board of trustees had a meeting last week-end, during which we elected
new officers of the board, following the resignation of Christophe.
* Samuel Le Goff is our new Vice-chair,
Samuel is 42 years old and lives in Paris. He works as a journalist, former
parliamentary assistant for many years. He has been in the board since late
2014. He helps volunteers to deal with French governmental and public
organization relationships, public consultations, and to expose Wikimedia
positions in public debates. He will be in charge of internal organization
and governance too.
* Emeric Vallespi is our new Chair,
Emeric is 29 years old and lives in Montpellier (south of France). He works
as a Branch director in a bank. He has been at the board since late 2012,
serving as Vice-chair since 2014. He's involved in internal organization,
governance and international affairs and is interested in internal control,
finance and strategy topics.
Pierre-Selim Huard, our Secretary, will be in charge of the international
affairs too. Other current officers are continuing in their functions.
Our board is now structured as follow:
* Emeric Vallespi, Chair
* Samuel Le Goff, Vice-chair
* Guillaume Goursat, Treasurer
* Sébastien Beyou, Deputy treasurer
* Pierre-Selim Huard, Secretary
* Jean-Frédéric Berthelot, Deputy secretary
* Edouard Hue, Board member
* Benoît Prieur, Board member
* Florian Pepellin, Board member
Cheers,
--
Jean-Frédéric Berthelot
Secrétaire-adjoint | Wikimédia France
jean-frederic.berthelot(a)wikimedia.fr
Awesome — thanks for the update and the work!
On May 27, 2016 21:20, "Katherine Maher" <kmaher(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm pleased to share that the Wikimedia Foundation has now posted a
> revised version of our FY2016-2017 Annual Plan. [1] This revised version
> has been updated based on feedback from community and affiliates, and in
> response to FDC recommendations [2]. For convenience, we've summarized the
> changes as an appendix, [3] and of course, you can also view the diff page
> for detailed review. [4]
>
> The Foundation's responses to the FDC's comments are available on a
> general and program-by-program basis on the FDC talk page. [5]
>
> I'd like to express my sincere thanks to everyone who provided feedback on
> the WMF's Annual Plan throughout this process, and to Foundation staff for
> their efforts responding to comments and updating the plan accordingly.
>
> Have a great weekend,
>
> Katherine
>
>
> [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2016-2017/…
> [2]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_recommendations/2015-2016_ro…
> [3]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2016-2017/…
> [4]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Pl…
> [5]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/FDC_recommendations/2015-20…
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 8:24 PM, Katherine Maher <kmaher(a)wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>>
>> The Foundation is pleased to announce that our Annual Plan is now on
>> Meta.[1] This year's plan focuses on improving support for--and
>> consultation with--community, responding effectively to changing user
>> needs, and addressing strategic challenges facing our movement. We're
>> investing in areas that we believe the Foundation is uniquely positioned to
>> address, including readership and reach, volunteer retention and
>> engagement, and support for knowledge creation.
>>
>> Thank you to everyone who contributed earlier this year to the strategy
>> consultations, which helped guide our thinking.
>>
>> We look forward to your feedback!
>>
>> Warmly,
>>
>> Katherine
>>
>>
>> [1]
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2016-2017/…
>>
>> --
>> Katherine Maher
>>
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>> 149 New Montgomery Street
>> San Francisco, CA 94105
>>
>> +1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635
>> +1 (415) 712 4873
>> kmaher(a)wikimedia.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Katherine Maher
>
> Wikimedia Foundation
> 149 New Montgomery Street
> San Francisco, CA 94105
>
> +1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635
> +1 (415) 712 4873
> kmaher(a)wikimedia.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately
> directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia
> community. For more information about Wikimedia-l:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> _______________________________________________
> WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
> WikimediaAnnounce-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
>
>
I've been surprised at the number of editors who watchlist my talk page,
but the experiences invariably been positive. In some cases my talk page
has been vandalized, and I don't think I've ever been the first to see the
vandalism, I invariably see that the TPS has reverted it. More importantly,
on several occasions I've been involved in a discussion with an editor and
a TPS has volunteered very helpful advice.
I have no idea whether it's technically possible to stop such behavior but
I don't particularly care as I am adamantly opposed to stopping it.
I get that some people might see the term "stalker" as negative, given that
it is almost always a term self invoked, it doesn't make my list of the top
1000 things to worry about.
Sphilbrick
On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 8:00 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: Community Tech survey on watchlist use (Lodewijk)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 10:06:26 +0200
> From: Lodewijk <lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community Tech survey on watchlist use
> Message-ID:
> <
> CACf6BevoFfq8PzguiahyV7hG3dk52WGmgsA5V_L1+r4Ax9KrPw(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Yeah, I don't guess this is a matter of whether it is technically possible,
> but rather if the community would like to allow such functionality (what
> would then stop a troll to selectively disable all admins to watch his/her
> talkpage?)
>
> Lodewijk
>
> 2016-05-27 6:31 GMT+02:00 James Heilman <jmh649(a)gmail.com>:
>
> > Talk pages are for communication. If people were unable to watch these
> > pages they would become less useful.
> >
> > J
> >
> > On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad(a)gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > "Talkpage watcher" would do fine.
> > >
> > > Newyorkbrad/IBM
> > >
> > > On 5/26/16, David Goodman <dggenwp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > talk-page stalker is not necessarily an unfriendly term. It's meant
> as
> > an
> > > > explanation for why the person saw the question, and posted there.
> But
> > > > perhaps we could find a better term for this, as stalker does have
> > > > unfortunate connotations.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Trillium Corsage <
> > > trillium2014(a)yandex.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> My English Wikipedia talkpage is watchlisted by a surprising number
> of
> > > >> users that I have no cooperative or friendly editing relationship
> > with.
> > > >> Some of them refer to themselves as "talkpage stalkers." Might it be
> > > >> possible for a user to prohibit such persons from watchlisting him
> or
> > > her?
> > > >> If it's not possible to selectively prohibit, how about an on/off
> > > switch,
> > > >> i.e. *no-one* may watchlist an editor's individual talkpage.
> > > >>
> > > >> Trillium Corsage
> > > >>
> > > >> 21.05.2016, 02:20, "Johan Jönsson" <email clipped>:
> > > >> > On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 1:06 AM, Danny Horn <dhorn(a)wikimedia.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >> >> Hi everyone,
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> WMF's Community Tech team is starting to work on a Cross-wiki
> > > >> watchlist,
> > > >> >> one of the top 10 wishes in the Community Wishlist Survey that
> we
> > > >> conducted
> > > >> >> at the end of last year. [1]
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> We're running a survey on how people use their watchlists, to
> help
> > > >> inform
> > > >> >> our work.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Hi everyone,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > A couple of months ago, the Community Tech team ran a survey to
> > gather
> > > >> > information on how Wikimedians use their watchlists. You can see
> the
> > > >> > results here:
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Tech/Cross-wiki_watchlist#Survey_…
> > > >> >
> > > >> > If you're interested, there are also some very early and rough
> > > >> > wireframes available on the project page:
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Tech/Cross-wiki_watchlist#Current…
> > > >> >
> > > >> > //Johan Jönsson
> > > >> > --
> > > >> >
> > > >> > _______________________________________________
> > > >> > 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>
> > > >>
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> 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>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > David Goodman
> > > >
> > > > DGG at the enWP
> > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
> > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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>
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > James Heilman
> > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> >
> > The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> > www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 146, Issue 90
> ********************************************
>
On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 1:06 AM, Danny Horn <dhorn(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> WMF's Community Tech team is starting to work on a Cross-wiki watchlist,
> one of the top 10 wishes in the Community Wishlist Survey that we conducted
> at the end of last year. [1]
>
> We're running a survey on how people use their watchlists, to help inform
> our work.
Hi everyone,
A couple of months ago, the Community Tech team ran a survey to gather
information on how Wikimedians use their watchlists. You can see the
results here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Tech/Cross-wiki_watchlist#Survey_…
If you're interested, there are also some very early and rough
wireframes available on the project page:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Tech/Cross-wiki_watchlist#Current…
//Johan Jönsson
--
Hello all,
In the past week the council of museums in Brussels started the project of
100 masterpieces in Brussels. Based on their list we have checked which
museums have an article in Wikipedia and which not.
On the Dutch Wikipedia we miss only one article at the moment, and someone
started writing it.
On the French Wikipedia we miss only 6 articles of the 40 museums with
masterpieces:
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro/25_mai_2016#100_chef…
On the English Wikipedia we miss 18 articles of the 40 museums with
masterpieces:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Romaine/100_masterpieces_from_Brussels
We now try to get at least in these three languages an article about these
museums with masterpieces from Brussels.
An article in other languages are welcome as well.
The next step will be talking to the museums to show our interest in them
and we hope they want to donate images for usage in these and other
articles.
Thanks!
Romaine
There is so much good content on Wikimedia that it's difficult to choose
what to highlight, and I try to be mindful of my number of posts to email
lists. I feel that this is worth a special mention because it's beautiful
and unusual. Courtesy of User:La Pianista, we have good quality recordings
of classical piano works:
https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikiradio/index.php?channel=La_Pianista
I particularly recommend her performance of Chopin's Scherzo No. 3:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chopin_-_Scherzo_No._3_%28re-recorded%…
<javascript:void(0)>. Quote (admittedly opinionated!) from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scherzo_No._3_%28Chopin%29
<javascript:void(0)>: "The Scherzo No. 3, Op. 39, in C-sharp minor by
Frédéric Chopin, completed in 1839, was written in the abandoned monastery
of Valldemossa on the Balearic island of Majorca, Spain. This is the most
terse, ironic, and tightly constructed of the four scherzos, with an almost
Beethovenian grandeur."
<javascript:void(0)>
Hope you enjoy,
Pine
Hi everyone,
We’ve had two Inspire Campaigns so far -- on the gender gap and on content
curation & review -- to encourage ideas and grant proposals on challenging
issues affecting the Wikimedia projects you work on. The third Inspire
Campaign, starting on May 31st, will run for one month and focus on
addressing harassment that occurs on Wikimedia projects:
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Inspire>
The 2015 Harassment Survey[1] has shown evidence that harassment is
pervasive; 38% of participants reported experiencing it, and 51% reported
witnessing harassment. These include behaviors such as name calling,
threats of violence, discrimination, stalking, and impersonation, among
others. Furthermore, available methods and systems to deal with harassment
are considered to be ineffective. These behaviors are clearly harmful, and
in addition, many individuals who experience or witness harassment
participate less in Wikimedia projects or stop contributing entirely.
Starting May 31st, everyone is invited to submit and work together in
developing ideas to prevent and handle cases of harassment. Ideas can
include research, software, events, training programs, outreach efforts,
etc. If you need funding, ideas can easily be submitted as a proposal for
a WMF grant. Ideas can also encourage discussions to consider changes in
policies, guidelines, or best practices on your local Wikimedia project(s).
An FAQ page about this campaign and Inspire Campaigns generally is
available.[2] An announcement e-mail will be sent out on the 31st. For
folks who are interested in helping translate so we can reach a wide
audience, I welcome your help on the FAQ page[2] and main landing page.[3]
If you have an idea or want to help develop ideas to address harassment, I
encourage you to join me so that we can work together in addressing this
important and difficult issue.
With thanks,
Chris "Jethro" Schilling
I JethroBT (WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:I_JethroBT_(WMF)>
Community Organizer, Wikimedia Foundation
<https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home>
--
[1] <
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Harassment_Survey_2015_-_Results_Re…
>
[2] <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Inspire/FAQ>
[3] <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Inspire>
>Stephen LaPorte <slaporte@...> writes:
>
> Hi all,
>
> The Board of Trustees has published minutes from the Board meeting on April
> 22, 2016. You can find the meeting minutes and accompanying documents on the
> Foundation Wiki: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2016-04
So the confidentiality agreement which was passed seems like it will represent
a regression in transparency. One of the things I pointed out in the last
controversy is that it wasn't clear that the non-executive session portion of
the board meeting was actually confidential. This closes that gap with 1.b.
and 1.c defining as confidential "the Foundation’s nonpublic plans, strategies,
budgets, or financial information;" and "nonpublic information shared in
connection with Board meetings, deliberations, and discussions, including
nonpublic communications on private mailing lists or private wikis". Why it is
necessary to have a blanket everything as confidential rather than narrowly
defining the scope to specifically documents and deliberations is unclear. This
seems to run contrary to the suggestions which came out of discussions in
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_transparency_gap
This effectively silences trustees from offering any information, lest they
befall what happened to James (who didn't even give any information to his
constituents, the community, only staff). Historically Samuel Klein and Phoebe
spoke to the community to some limited degree about their board involvement,
but I wonder how comfortable a trustee could feel in providing even such
limited information with this confidentiality agreement in place.
For an example of how this affects our conversations with our elected
representatives:
Last month, "Geoff and Stephen prepared a draft set of basic best-practice
recommendations [on governance]". These weren't released publicly as far as I
am aware. "Maria and Dariusz were tasked with preparing a proposal for a
lightweight structure to increase transparency" but as far as I am aware we've
received no color on what this proposal might end up looking like. Someone on
this list asked Dariuszand he declined to offer details; if I recall correctly
he said the boardshoulddo what it can internally first. I disagree with this:
if you do a bunch of work without consulting your stakeholders, there's a good
chance you'llhave to scrap all that work. In the software world we call early
feedback from the stakeholders "Agile", and it is widely viewed as a superior
process to long efforts without feedback.
Would Maria and Dariusz even be able to share thoughts on their proposal if
theyhad provided any initial information in the board room? The way this
confidentiality agreement reads, once something is discussed in the boardroom,
it becomes off-limits for public conversation until the Chair approves it.
The presentation by Geoff and Stephen also seems off-limits, and it's hard to
imagine why this should be treated as proprietary/secret. Or is it public since
we know that such a draft exists?
I really think we need to see the best-practices recommendation that Geoff and
Stephen presented.
Do we have a champion for transparency left on the board with James gone?
I did like the PDF overview. And I was happy to see that the board ended the
meeting with a no-staff executive session. That's a well-recognized best
practice which really helps the board assert itself and form a more
consistent voice.