Interesting to see the drop in bytes sent to the Japan article and this
makes me think we should "fold up" article sections on desktop too for very
long articles, such as the Japan article. The benefits for mobile are
obvious, but this may be beneficial for slow desktop connections as well.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jon Robson <jrobson(a)wikimedia.org>
Date: Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 5:20 PM
Subject: [WikimediaMobile] Mobile site is now lazy loading images
To: mobile-l <mobile-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>, Wikimedia developers <
wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
FYI after much experimentation, research and testing the mobile site has
been lazy loading images [1] since Thursday 18th August. This means if you
do not see an image you will not download it. We have taken care to ensure
users without JavaScript can still view images and that most users will
barely notice the difference.
We are currently crunching the data this change has made and we plan to
write a blog post to reporting the results.
In our experiments on Japanese Wikipedia we saw a drop in image bytes per
page view by 54% On the Japanese Japan article bytes shipped to users
dropped from 1.443 MB to 142 kB.
This is pretty huge since bytes equate to money [3] and we expect this to
be significant on wikis where mobile data is more expensive. In a nutshell
Wikipedia mobile is cheaper.
As I said blog post to follow once we have more information, but please
report any bugs you are seeing with the implementation (we have already
found a few thanks to our community of editors).
~Jon
[1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Reading/Web/Projects/
Performance/Lazy_loading_images
[2] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Reading/Web/Lazy_loading_
of_images_on_Japanese_Wikipedia
[3] https://whatdoesmysitecost.com/
_______________________________________________
Mobile-l mailing list
Mobile-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
WikiConference North America 2016
7-10 October 2016, San Diego, CA, USA
SUBMISSIONS DEADLINE: August 31, 11:59pm Samoa Time!
https://wikiconference.org/wiki/Submissions
WikiConference North America (formerly WikiConference USA) is the third
annual conference on the North American continent devoted to Wikipedia and
other Wikimedia projects. The weekend will feature both academic and casual
presentations on Wikimedia-related outreach activities, workshops to
improve the skills of grassroots organizers, and discussions on the past,
present, and future of the Wikimedia projects. The conference features
offerings about community outreach, online activity, partnerships with
institutions of knowledge, and technology.
Keynote speakers are scheduled to include Katherine Maher, Executive
Director of the Wikimedia Foundation, and Merrilee Proffitt, Senior Program
Officer of OCLC Research. The last day of the conference will feature
programming coinciding with Indigenous Peoples' Day.
Registration for the conference is now open. You can register at
https://wikiconference.org.
Scholarships partially covering costs of travel and attendance are
available for active contributors to Wikimedia projects. Apply by August
23rd for scholarships at https://wikiconference.org/wiki/2016/Scholarships.
This is a volunteer run conference and volunteers are needed for any number
of tasks. If you are attending, please consider volunteering for at
https://wikiconference.org/wiki/Volunteers.
We seek presentations addressing topics related to Wikipedia or open access
and culture. Presentations may be from any discipline regarding any
relevant topic. Please submit a description of your proposed presentation
using our online submission process at https://wikiconference.org/
wiki/Submissions. If you are interested in participating in the
peer-reviewed academic track, see our call for academic submissions at
https://wikiconference.org/wiki/Call_for_Academic_Presentations.
- Sydney Poore (User:FloNight) and Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight
(User:Rosiestep), conference organizers
Hi all,
We on the Wikimedia Foundation Legal Team have been working on creating a
better and more collaborative process for organizing, streamlining, and
completing Wikimedia’s copyright-related work. We’d like to hear from you
about it in the next couple weeks, and then we’d like to work together to
identify, prioritize, and address copyright issues.
You can read more about the copyright strategy on Meta at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Copyright_strategy, and leave questions and
comments on the talk page.
Thanks!
Charles M. Roslof
Legal Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
croslof(a)wikimedia.org
(415) 839-6885
NOTICE: This message might have confidential or legally privileged
information in it. If you have received this message by accident, please
delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the
Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice
to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff
members in their personal capacity. For more on what this means, please see
our legal disclaimer
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer>.
Dear all,
The next WMF metrics and activities meeting will take place today,
Thursday, August 25, 2016, at 6:00 PM UTC (11 AM PDT). The IRC channel is
#wikimedia-office on irc.freenode.net, and the meeting will be broadcast as
a live YouTube stream.
Facilitator: Adam Wight, Fundraising Tech Lead
Meeting Agenda:
- Welcomes
- Community update
- Foundation top-level metrics
- Feature
- Research
- Research & Product update
- Questions/discussions
- WikiLove
Please review
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings for further
information about the meeting and how to participate.
We’ll post the video recording publicly after the meeting.
Thank you,
--
James D. Forrester
Lead Product Manager, Editing
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
jforrester at wikimedia.org
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l> |
@jdforrester
Dear all,
On behalf of the Affiliations Committee, I would like to present some
changes to the current chapter and thematic organisation criteria, which
we will begin piloting as we officially reopen applications for chapter
and thematic organization status. Until now, the criteria had not
clearly defined what constitutes sufficient programmatic activity to
justify chapter or thematic organisation status. To address this issue,
we have set out three new criteria:
1. Diversity of Activities: Chapters and thematic organisations are
expected to plan and conduct a variety of different programs and
events; to balance online and offline projects; to strive for
continuous activity; and to conduct programs and events at least
once every two months.
2. Planning and Evaluation: Chapters and thematic organisations are
expected to set specific goals and targets for programs, projects,
and events before executing them; to measure the results of
programs, projects, and events against those targets; and to report
on those results to the Wikimedia Foundation and the wider Wikimedia
movement.
3. External Partnerships: Chapters and thematic organisations are
expected to engage in programmatic partnerships with external groups
and organizations (for example, cultural, academic, or government
institutions, and so on) to promote the Wikimedia movement and to
add and improve content on Wikimedia projects.
In order to officially reopen the chapter and thematic organization
recognition process, the Board of Trustees has instructed the
Affiliations Committee to provisionally use these three new criteria for
all new applicants. In addition, potential chapters and thematic
organisations will continue to be assessed against the existing legal,
governance, and viability criteria; more details, including the benefits
and limitations of these affiliation models, are available on Meta.[1] [2]
Please note that the use of these three new criteria is a pilot; there
will be opportunities to share feedback about the criteria, as well as
other ways to help define the chapter and thematic organisation
affiliate models, during the upcoming strategy consultation. The
Affiliations Committee and the Board of Trustees will continue to
evaluate results and feedback during the initial pilot period and
consider potential revisions to the criteria before they are finalized.
Thank you,
M.
1:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Chapter_Summary_Matr…
2:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Thematic_Organisatio…
--
"*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua
junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."
Carlos M. Colina
Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 |
www.wikimedia.org.ve <http://wikimedia.org.ve>
Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
Phone: +972-52-4869915
Twitter: @maor_x
El logotipo y el nombre de Wikimedia, Wikimedia Venezuela, Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Incubator, Wiktionary y otros proyectos relacionados son marcas registradas usadas bajo permiso expreso de su titular, la Fundación Wikimedia, Inc., una organización sin fines de lucro. Otros nombres y marcas pertenecen a sus respectivos propietarios.
Asociación Civil Wikimedia Venezuela (Wikimedia Venezuela) | RIF.: J-40129321-2 | Los Teques, Estado Miranda. Venezuela
The pronouncement of Fri Aug 19 12:36:01 UTC 2016 states "the Board of
Trustees has instructed the Affiliations Committee to provisionally use
these three new criteria for all new applicants" and as a consequence the
Board Chair has stated, on Tue Aug 23 06:46:47 UTC 2016, "This is not a
discussion". In the interests of transparency, please could the Community
be informed of the text of the Board Resolution that laid down these
criteria?
The Board chair has also informed us (on Tue Aug 23 12:34:37 UTC 2016) that
*"*Everything is a discussion" and "our main goal for this year is to make
sure we finally have a comprehensive movement strategy". This is of course
excellent news, especially since dialogue between the Board and the
Community on these issues has been conspicuous by its absence [
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/Arch…].
Exactly how and where will this engagement take place? Perhaps
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Strategy_Alpha might be a
place to plan the mechanisms for that engagement?
"Rogol Domedonfors"
Gnangarra,
I agree with you about the vision. I think that where we see things
differently may be in the discussion of how we achieve the vision.
Individuals have a lot of freedom in the Wikimedia community, but
organizations exist in a complicated world with real money, real laws, real
people, and a variety of circumstances that can help or hinder progress. We
want to share the sum of human knowledge, and to do that effectively
requires a coordinated effort. Wikimedia is an incredibly complicated
collection of entities, of which affiliates are a part.
I am very mindful that real resources (time and money) are involved in
Wikimedia, and I would like those resources to be used wisely,
transparently, and fairly in service of the mission.
I need to depart thread so that I can focus on other projects, but I plan
to return here in a week or two.
Pine
Carlos,
I think we need to distinguish the effort from the staff, from the capacity
and accomplishments of the organization. For example, here in Cascadia, a
very small number of people do quite a lot of work related to the Wikimedia
mission. That does not make us a chapter. Valiant efforts by people working
with limited resources are commendable, but that doesn't mean that an
organization has high capacity or is highly successful.
It is true that every organization's situation is different, but if we're
going to distinguish chapters from user groups, we need to have a
meaningful, transparent, fair, objective, and easily understood way of
making that distinction. It is possible to build some flexibility into the
criteria for chapter status while also meeting these other needs, as I have
already discussed.
Another option would be to eliminate the distinction, and call every group
a chapter. While that is possible to do, the WMF Board would want to think
about that very carefully.
Pine
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Carlos Colina (Maor_X) <
maorx(a)wikimedia.org.ve> wrote:
> Hi Pine,
>
> You seem to forget that the effort the doctors, nurses and staff at a
> hospital either in after-the-hurricane Louisiana or war-torn South Sudan is
> way bigger than those working for a state-of-the art hospital in Portland,
> Zurich or Singapore, so you think they shouldn't be considered "good
> hospitals" or not even "hospitals" because they don't meet the quantitative
> and set on stone criteria you suggest?
>
> I find that divisive, discriminatory, patronizing, to say the least. Every
> chapter's situation is different, so being absolutely quantitative would be
> unfair and damaging to the movement and the efforts of many wikimedians who
> cannot contribute in the ideal conditions, yet they go the extra mile where
> others living in a paradise wouldn't do that.
>
> *hat on*
>
> Again, the idea is to collect all valuable input from the community to
> refine the criteria, so nothing is set in stone yet. But that's the general
> idea and the AffCom is there to assist as much as possible to those groups
> who wish to meet the criteria.
>
> Sent from my HTC
>
> ----- Reply message -----
> From: "Pine W" <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com>
> To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>,
> "Wikimedia Movement Affiliates discussion list" <
> affiliates(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Cc: "Wikimedia Chapters general discussions" <chapters(a)wikimedia.ch>
> Subject: [Affiliates] [Wikimedia-l] Changes to current chapter and
> thematic organisation criteria
> Date: Sun, Aug 21, 2016 4:20 AM
>
> Hi Carlos,
>
> As I mentioned previously, I would suggest that the criteria should also
> apply to existing chapters. If any chapter's status is in doubt as a result
> of the new criteria, then the chapter can be given 6 months to rise to the
> occasion. If chapters still do not meet the new criteria after that time,
> it seems to me that they should be re-classified as user groups until they
> re-apply for chapter status and are accepted by AffCom as meeting the new
> criteria.
>
> Regarding the uniformity of standards, it seems to me that there needs to
> be a common baseline throughout the world. Otherwise, the definition of
> "chapter" becomes highly subjective and is effectively at the discretion of
> the Affiliations Committee. To use an analogy: a hospital that is providing
> reasonably good care for its patients would be considered a good hospital
> whether it is in Louisiana or the Philippines. Likewise, a hospital that
> lacks essential supplies, has a shortage of health professionals, and has
> suffered hurricane damage to its surgery rooms, is a troubled hospital
> whether it is in Louisiana or the Philippines.
>
> To use another analogy, this time demonstrating the problems with
> subjective and varying standards: the criteria for high school diplomas in
> the United States vary so widely that by itself a high school diploma is a
> nearly useless credential without knowing which high school granted a
> particular diploma. It seems to me that we should avoid this kind of
> ambiguity in the Wikimedia community.
>
> While there could be a variety of ways in which a group could be deemed to
> meet the standards for a chapter, such as by saying "a chapter must meet
> four of the following six criteria" or "this particular requirement may be
> met in one or more of the following ways", it still seems to me that the
> criteria for chapter status should be transparent, objective (primarily
> quantitative), and easily understood by all affiliates that wish to be
> chapters.
>
> I realize that this is a complex issue, and I hope that this input will be
> included for consideration as AffCom continues to discuss the criteria for
> chapters and thematic organizations.
>
> Pine
>
>
> El 19/08/2016 a las 06:28 p.m., Pine W escribió:
>
>> Hi Carlos,
>>
>> In general, I like the new criteria.
>>
>> I would like to suggest making the criteria entirely quantitative, so that
>> there is minimal subjectivity about whether or not affiliates are meeting
>> these standards and therefore there is likely to be less controversy about
>> the status of affiliates.
>>
>
> The problem of making the criteria entirely quantitative is that the
> context where affiliates operate is not the same across the world. We
> cannot apply a rigid, based in fixed numbers criteria because the situation
> of Estonia or The Netherlands, to give an example, is not the same of
> Venezuela, where people need to queue for hours just to buy a loaf of
> bread, if they happen to be lucky enough to find a bakery operating, or
> where scheduled 4-hour daily blackouts are the norm across the country
> except for the capital.
>
> If all affiliates operated in the same conditions, that would be another
> story.
>
>
>
> El logotipo y el nombre de Wikimedia, Wikimedia Venezuela
> <http://wikimedia.org.ve/wiki/P%C3%A1gina_principal>, Wikipedia,
> Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Incubator, Wiktionary y otros proyectos
> relacionados <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Our_Projects> son
> marcas registradas usadas bajo permiso expreso de su titular, la Fundación
> Wikimedia, Inc. <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>, una organización
> sin fines de lucro. Otros nombres y marcas pertenecen a sus respectivos
> propietarios.
>
> Asociación Civil Wikimedia Venezuela (Wikimedia Venezuela) | RIF.:
> J-40129321-2 | Los Teques, Estado Miranda. Venezuela
>
> _______________________________________________
> Affiliates mailing list
> Affiliates(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
>
>