On Sep 13, 2016 12:00, "Milos Rancic" <millosh(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> He died yesterday. As he was an important member of our community, I
> think we should make something appropriate so he would be remembered.
So sad to hear :(
It was great to know him since meeting him at Wikimania 2007 and to see him
As member of the chapters committee, he was supportive of us when we were
establishing Wikimedia DC in 2011.
Will greatly miss him.
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
The Wikimedia Foundation Project Grants program launches its second open
call today, September 12. We will be accepting proposals through October
11 for new ideas to improve Wikimedia projects.
Funds are available to support individuals, groups and organizations to
implement new experiments and proven ideas, whether focused on building a
new tool or gadget, organizing a better process on your wiki, researching
an important issue, coordinating an editathon series or providing other
support for community-building.
Ideas from the current Inspire Campaign on addressing harassment are very
Do you have have a good idea, but would like some feedback before
applying? Put it into the IdeaLab, where volunteers and staff can give you
advice and guidance on how to bring it to life. <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab> Once your idea is ready,
it can be easily migrated into a grant request.
Marti Johnson and I will also be hosting weekly proposals clinics via
Hangouts for real-time discussions about the Project Grants Open Call.
We’ll answer questions and help you make your proposal better. Dates and
times are as follows:
* Fri, Sep 16, 1400- 1500 UTC
* Tues, Sep 20, 0100 - 0200 UTC
* Wed, Sep 28, 1400 - 1500 UTC
* Tue, Oct 4, 2200 - 2300 UTC
* Tues, Oct 11, 0200 - 0300 UTC
* Tue, Oct 11, 1600 -1700 UTC
Links for Hangouts are available here: <
We are excited to see your grant ideas that will support our community and
make an impact on the future of Wikimedia projects. Put your idea into
motion, and submit your proposal between September 12 and October 11! <
Please feel free to get in touch with me (mjohnson(a)wikimedia.org) or Alex
Wang (awang(a)wikimedia.org) with questions about getting started with your
*Marti JohnsonProgram Officer*
*Wikimedia Foundation <http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home>*
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share
<http://youtu.be/ci0Pihl2zXY> in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it
Support Wikimedia <https://donate.wikimedia.org/>
*TL;DR*: Communities using Flow are invited to fill out a survey about what
they want to see from Flow,[Y]. It is administered by a third-party
service. It will not require an e-mail or your username. See our privacy
We in the Collaboration Team have currently paused major development of
Flow. We continue to maintain it, fixing urgent bugs and adding minor
features, but we're not planning to put large-scale efforts into improving
it further in the current fiscal year (until June 2017). Flow is currently
enabled on ten wikis as a beta feature, which allows intrepid users to
convert their user talk page to Flow.[X] Some other communities are trying
it in various ways. We plan to support these communities in the future, and
we need their input to build a strategy.
This survey is so that you can help us make decisions about the way forward
in this area by sharing your thoughts about Flow — what works, what
doesn't, and what should be improved? We remain interested in the
structured discussions that the Flow project provides, and have a list of
five big areas we think are most needed (based on community requests and
user feedback) to make it more useful: searching, categorising, moving,
watching activity, and dealing with history.
This survey will help us to prioritise future development of Flow. However,
there are lots of other things on which we could instead work, and we hope
that through this survey we will identify the key areas for everyone so
that it is as useful as possible for those that wish to use it.
There are some areas in which Flow is currently weak for some use cases,
and we don't advocate its active use by wikis which lack the expertise on
how to use it. Because of this, we're not actively looking for further
wikis to get the beta feature at this time, but if your wiki wants it, you
can request it on this page.[X]
Please fill out the survey,[Y] which is administered by a third-party
service. It will not require an e-mail or your username. See our privacy
James D. Forrester
Lead Product Manager, Editing
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
jforrester at wikimedia.org
This is a topic that deserves its own thread. Citations are problematic on
so many levels it is hard to decide where to begin.
When the question is can we get a lot of citations in Wikidata, relevant
citations, the answer is yes. It takes a lot of work and a lot has been
done by the lovely people of DBpedia. They have data ready to link
citations from Wikipedia to statements and it is fairly easy to gamify
this. It means that it will be people who judge if a citation actually fits
an existing statement.
When this is to be done with a high level of confidence, it helps when
links and red links get the same treatment as interwiki links. They would
all be associated with Wikidata. It will improve the quality of all
Wikipedias measurably and it will also do a lot to improve disambiguation.
The improvement may not be that much in the wiki links compared with the
interwiki links but the red links will bring us the confidence what
articles exist in other Wikipedias that have many red links in "your"
Citations are part of the quality issue. When Wikidata is to improve its
quality there are several other approaches that will increase the
confidence of the quality of Wikidata. When multiple sources agree on a
statement, the statements where there is no agreement are the best targets
for attention. With a relation between citations in both Wikipedia and
Wikidata (the DBpedia link), it will be easy to signal to a Wikipedia for
help with such issues. This may bring our communities more together as well.
Citations itself have a problem of their own. What do we do with debunked
sources. Do we agree that a program of a conference is a source. How do we
signal unease about sources when an author proves to be "problematic". What
to do with the inherent conflict of interest that is pushed by people in an
industry who want to include their data in Wikidata..
A fringe benefit of providing links and red links with Wikidata items is
that it becomes easy to update the lists in use by "Women in Red". Many
more of the subjects they want to write about will become available and,
when an article is written it is easily removed from the lists. They
already use this approach by using the Listeria lists.
When you read all this, you may ask yourself is this technically hard to
do. It is not. Much of the software / functionality / data already exists
in an embryonic way. BUT it works. There is only one question left: Are we
ready to fix these quality issues?
Back in February of 2015, the fundraising team engaged Lake Research
Partners (LRP) to conduct a detailed survey of English language Wikimedia
we look to continue to improve our efforts fundraising in non-EN languages
we decided to conduct a similar fact finding exercise in one of our larger
fundraising countries. Japan, being an affluent country with a large
population and where our projects have had a large reach, has in some ways
under-performed and seemed ripe to deliver the greatest impact for such
With that in mind we again partnered with Lake Research Partners to run two
focus groups consisting of readers and donors, and an online survey of 1000
Wikipedia readers and I am pleased to provide the findings of these
We found the results show mostly favorable attitudes toward Wikipedia, with
positive ratings on quality, look and feel, and readability, while accuracy
is rated lower and mentioned as a concern among focus groups participants.
We found a more urgent, direct translation was perceived as better than a
more natural translation. This may be because Japanese readers are less
likely to donate spontaneously than some of our Western audiences; donors
are generally motivated by significant events like natural disasters. We
will have to balance an urgent tone with frank politeness when crafting our
appeals, and are still working to find the right balance of direct and
natural translation. Soon there will be a follow up survey of
the Japanese Wikimedia community to help further our understanding and one
of several means by which we are improving and strengthening the community
involvement in movement fundraising.
Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)
I wanted to share an announcement that I’ve posted to the Wikimedia blog
Wikimedia Endowment Advisory Board has appointed Peter Baldwin as the third
founding member of the Endowment Advisory Board.
Peter and his wife Lisbet Rausing have been longtime supporters of the
Wikimedia Foundation and the Wikimedia vision. He has supported a number of
free knowledge and open access projects throughout his work with Arcadia,
the nonprofit he and Lisbet founded in 2002, dedicated to preserving
cultural heritage, the environment, and supporting open access resources. We
are thrilled to have his expertise in nonprofit Board management and shared
passion for free knowledge on the Board.
Please join me in welcoming Peter!
Marc H. Brent
(617) 416-4624 <16174164624>
I think Pine's message rather illustrates my point. Pine seems to assume
that the alternative is between people experienced in the WMF ways of doing
things and novices. Actually, there are plenty of people in the world with
experience in being trustees of non-proft organisations, and technical
expertise, and experience of knowledge representation and dissemination,
and the robustness to hold senior employees to account, who are not closely
connected with the WMF or its affiliates. They mainly live a long way from
Silicon Valley, too.
For the avoidance of doubt, I have never been a candidate for, let alone
held, any position, paid or voluntary, in or related to the WMF or any