>>> The people who are loudest in their demands for consensus
>>> do not represent the Wikimedia movement.
>> The voices loudest for the WMF doing something against the
>> Trump administration are not representative of the Wikimedia
>> movement either....
> Is the Community Process Steering Committee currently
> prepared to "engage more 'quiet' members of our community"
> with a statistically robust snap survey to resolve this question?
Anyone can go to Recent Changes and send a SurveyMonkey link to the
most recent few hundred editors with contributions at least a year
old, to get an accurate answer.
Will a respected member of the community please do this? I would like
to know what the actual editing community thinks of the travel ban and
their idea of an appropriate response. I don't want to see community
governance by opt-in participation in obscure RFCs.
I would offer to do this myself, but I value keeping my real name
unassociated with my enwiki userid.
I was asked by a volunteer for help getting stats on the gender gap in
content on a certain Wikipedia, and came up with simple Wikidata Query
Service queries that pulled the total number of articles on a given
Wikipedia about men and about women, to calculate *the proportion of
articles about women out of all articles about humans*.
Then I was curious about how that wiki compared to other wikis, so I ran
the queries on a bunch of languages, and gathered the results into a table,
(please see the *caveat* there.)
I don't have time to fully write-up everything I find interesting in those
results, but I will quickly point out the following:
1. The Nepali statistic is simply astonishing! There must be a story
there. I'm keen on learning more about this, if anyone can shed light.
2. Evidently, ~13%-17% seems like a robust average of the proportion of
articles about women among all biographies.
3. among the top 10 largest wikis, Japanese is the least imbalanced. Good
job, Japanese Wikipedians! I wonder if you have a good sense of what
drives this relatively better balance. (my instinctive guess is pop culture
4. among the top 10 largest wikis, Russian is the most imbalanced.
5. I intend to re-generate these stats every two months or so, to
eventually have some sense of trends and changes.
6. Your efforts, particularly on small-to-medium wikis, can really make a
dent in these numbers! For example, it seems I am personally
responsible for almost 1% of the coverage of women on Hebrew Wikipedia!
7. I encourage you to share these numbers with your communities. Perhaps
you'd like to overtake the wiki just above yours? :)
8. I'm happy to add additional languages to the table, by request. Or you
can do it yourself, too. :)
 Yay #100wikidays :) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/100wikidays
Wikimedia Foundation <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
In November 2016, I presented the result of a joint research that
helped us understand English Wikipedia readers better. (Presentation
at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIaMuWA84bY ). I talked about how
we used English, Persian, and Spanish Wikipedia readers' inputs to
build a taxonomy of Wikipedia use-cases along several dimensions,
capturing users’ motivations to visit Wikipedia, the depth of
knowledge they are seeking, and their knowledge of the topic of
interest prior to visiting Wikipedia. I also talked about the results
of the study we did to quantify the prevalence of these use-cases via
a large-scale user survey conducted on English Wikipedia. In that
study, we also matched survey responses to the respondents’ digital
traces in Wikipedia’s server logs which enabled us in discovering
behavioral patterns associated with specific use-cases. You can read
the full study at https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.05379 .
==What do we want to do now?==
There are quite a few directions this research can continue on, and
the most immediate one is to understand whether the results that we
observe (in English Wikipeida) is robust across languages/cultures.
For this, we are going to repeat the study, but this time in more
languages. Here are the languages on our list: Arabic, Dutch, English,
Hindi, Japanese, Spanish (thanks to all the volunteers who have been
helping us translating all survey related documents to these
==What about your language?==
If your language is not one of the six languages above and you'd like
to learn about the readers of Wikipedia in it (in the specific ways
described above), please get back to me by Monday, April 24, AoE. I
cannot guarantee that we can run the study in your language, however,
I guarantee that we will give it a good try if you're interested. The
decision to include more languages will depend on: our capacity to do
the analysis, the speed at which your community can help us translate
the material to the language, the traffic to that language, a couple
of sentences on how you'd think the result can help your community,
and your willingness to help us document the results for your language
(Quite some work will need to go to have readable/usable
documentations available and we are too small to be able to guarantee
that on our own for many languages.)
Senior Research Scientist
I am glad to share a recent collaboration of Odia Wikipedia community with
the Government of Odisha.
After releasing the content of 2017 Asian Athletics Championships (
) another initiative by the Government of Odisha to bridge the dearth of
Information about Odisha on Wikipedia by releasing its social media
accounts under CC-BY 4.0.
Earlier this week, the community members met the Government officials
regarding this, and after understanding the value of Open Content, it took
only 24hrs to release the social media channels under CC-BY 4.0 license.
As a pilot project, 8 social media accounts from Government of Odisha are
under CC-BY 4.0,Now, the content is free for everyone to use, share, and
build upon their work.
The community is also planning to take the collaboration further and
relicense some of the websites under CC-BY 4.0.
*Sailesh Patnaik* "*ଶୈଳେଶ ପଟ୍ଟନାୟକ "*
Community Advocate, Access To Knowledge Program
Centre for Internet and Society
*LinkedIn* : https://www.linkedin.com/in/sailesh-patnaik-551a10b4
I am Adele Vrana, Director of Strategic Partnerships at the Foundation.
We have contacts at Amazon and will seek to clarify the questions raised on
this thread. I will make sure to circle back with you once we have an
All the best,
On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Simon Poole <simon(a)poole.ch> wrote:
> Am 27.07.2017 um 18:37 schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
> > Edward Joseph "Ed" Snowden ...
> > I will not spend an hour trying to identify the exact article version
> > matches Alexa's output in that video best, but it's safe to assume that
> > this inserted "Ed", too, came from Wikipedia, even though it had gone by
> > the time the video was uploaded to YouTube.
> The current (full) answer is
> 'Edward Joseph "Ed" Snowden, the American computer professional former
> CIA employee, and government contractor who leaked classified
> information from the U.S. National Security Agency in 2013.'
> Now obviously there could be -lots- going on behind the scenes, for
> example long term caching of search results (difficult to believe that
> Bing would allow that if it is really from them, but who knows) and so on.
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
*Strategic Partnerships - Global Reach*
+1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6773
*Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment. Donate.
Hi list members,
The list admins (hereafter 'we', being Austin, Asaf, Shani and I, your
humble narrator) regularly receive complaints about the frequent
posters on this list, as well as about the unpleasant atmosphere some
posters (some of them frequent) create.
It is natural that frequent posters will say specific things that more
frequently annoy other list members, but often the complaints are due
to the volume of messages rather than the content of the messages.
We are floating some suggestions aimed specifically at reducing the
volume, hopefully motivating frequent posters to self-moderate more,
but these proposed limits are actually intending to increasing the
quality of the discourse without heavy subjective moderation.
The first proposal impacts all posters to this list, and the last
three proposals are aimed at providing a more clear framework within
which criticism and whistle-blowing are permitted, but that critics
are prevented from drowning out other discussions. The bandwidth that
will be given to critics should be established in advance, reducing
need to use subjective moderation of the content when a limit to the
volume will often achieve the same result.
Proposal #1: Monthly 'soft quota' reduced from 30 to 15
The existing soft quota of 30 posts per person has practically never
been exceeded in the past year, and yet many list subscribers still
clearly feel that a few individuals overwhelm the list. This suggests
the current quota is too high.
A review of the stats at
https://stats.wikimedia.org/mail-lists/wikimedia-l.html show very few
people go over 15 in a month, and quite often the reason for people
exceeding 15 per month is because they are replying to other list
members who have already exceeded 15 per month, and sometimes they are
repeatedly directly or indirectly asking the person to stop repeating
themselves to allow some space for other list members also have their
Proposal #2: Posts by globally banned people not permitted
As WMF-banned people are already banned from mailing lists, this
proposal is to apply the same ‘global’ approach to any people who have
been globally banned by the community according to the
This proposal does not prevent proxying, or canvassing, or “meat
puppetry” as defined by English Wikipedia policy. The list admins
would prefer that globally banned people communicate their grievances
via established members of our community who can guide them, rather
than the list admins initially guiding these globally banned people on
how to revise their posts so they are suitable for this audience, and
then required to block them when they do not follow advice. The role
of list moderators is clearer and simpler if we are only patrolling
the boundaries and not repeatedly personally engaged with helping
globally banned users.
Proposal #3: Identity of an account locked / blocked / banned by two
Wikimedia communities limited to five (5) posts per month
This proposal is intended to strike a balance between openness and
quality of discourse.
Banned people occasionally use the wikimedia-l mailing list as a
substitute of the meta Request for comment system, and banned people
also occasionally provide constructive criticisms and thought
provoking views. This proposal hopes to allow that to continue.
However people who have been banned on a few projects also use this
list as their “last stand”, having already exhausted the community
patience on the wikis. Sometimes the last stand is brief, but
occasionally a banned person is able to maintain sufficient decorum
that they are not moderated or banned from the list, and mailing list
readers need to suffer month after month of the banned person
dominating the mailing lists with time that they would previously have
spent editing on the wikis.
Proposal #4: Undisclosed alternative identities limited to five (5)
posts per month
Posting using fake identities allows people to shield their real life
*and* their Wikimedia editing 'account' from the repercussions of
their actions. This provision to allow fake identities on wikimedia-l
is necessary for whistle-blowing, and this mailing list has been used
for that purpose at important junctures in the history of the
However it is more frequently abused, especially by some ‘critics’ who
have used incessant hyperbole and snark and baiting to generally cause
stress to many readers. Sometimes this is also accompanied with many
list posts on various unrelated threads as the ‘critic’ believes their
criticism is so important that all other discussions about Wikimedia
should be diverted until their problem has been resolved to their
satisfaction, which is unlikely anyway.
Note this explicitly does not include anyone posting using their real
world identity, whether or not they have a Wikimedia account.
Where a poster does not clearly link to either Wikimedia account, or
does not appear to be using a real identity, and only after it is
exceeding the five post limit, the list admins will privately ask the
poster to either verify their identity or stop posting until the end
of the month. Very frequently a whistle-blower is able and even
prefers to be documenting the problem on meta, but needs the high
profile of this list to spark the discussion and draw attention to
their meta page.
The five post allowance for proposals 3 and 4 are to ensure that
anyone who has not been globally banned can post criticisms without
repercussions, which is vital for whistleblowing and transparency
generally, but they need to use their five posts per month wisely.
Once they have used their five posts, community members can reply with
less concern about being drawn into a direct argument with the poster.
It aims to force the poster to listen to others in the community once
their limit of five posts has been reached.
If there is support for these proposals, the list admins would not
immediately add moderation or bans, but would implement them as
needed, when we notice someone has exceeded one of these limits, and
we would make a note on a meta page where the community can review
these actions without allowing moderation meta-discussion to dominate
the discourse on the mailing list. Refinements to the list moderation
limits can then occur organically as we see how these rules plays out
The RFC is at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/wikimedia-l-post-limits
However please also feel welcome to reply on-list if you wish to
express explicit support or opposition to any of the four proposals
above (please identify them by number, to ease counting). We will
count votes (here and on the meta RFC) after two weeks, and post a
more refined final version back to this mailing list.
The list administrators will default to *enacting* all four proposals,
but will refrain from enacting any proposal receiving more opposition
Those of you running Windows 10 will be familiar with the
regularly-changing "lockscreen" images showing things like beautiful
scenery and scenes from nature:
The last one I just saw was labelled "copyright [photographer name]
Is there someone at WMF, with contacts at Microsoft, who could
persuade them to use some featured images from Commons, with a small
piece of text explaining that people may upload their own images?
That would seem to be a simple way to do a massive piece of outreach,
to a new audience.
We would like to specifically address the allegations related to harassment
in this thread’s original email. We take all allegations of harassment
seriously. Earlier this year, the Board of Trustees was informed that
allegations of harassment had been made against the Wikimedia Foundation
Board Chair dating back to his time as chair of Wikimédia France. We
immediately directed the Foundation to investigate. The Foundation employed
independent, external experts and conducted an investigation. Based on the
information presented, the investigation found no support for the
allegations. That conclusion was conveyed to the Wikimedia Foundation Board
as well as the chair of Wikimédia France.
The Wikimedia Foundation remains committed to independent investigation if
presented with new information. Absent such information, we consider the
allegations to be without merit.
On behalf of the Board,
El 8 oct. 2017 5:20, "John Erling Blad" <jeblad(a)gmail.com> escribió:
When I first saw the posts I thought it would probably be more opinions to
them than the very clear blame-game that were going on. Having a partly
anonymous community and a chapter that only represents some of the users
are an invitation to fierce battles.
Whatever going on at WMFR, I believe it is time for reevaluating the role
of WMF in this. I'm wondering if there should be a new board for WMF,
unless they get a new chair themselves asap. Reorganize, solve the
problems, and move on.
No, I do not know any of the people involved.
John Erling Blad
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Marie-Alice Mathis <
> Hello all,
> I haven’t had a real opportunity to introduce myself: I am Marie-Alice
> Mathis, 32, a now ex-member of the Board of Wikimédia France.
> The transition with the newly elected members of the Board is now complete
> and I gladly step down to get away from the violence, exhaustion and
> frustration of these past few months.
> I was a Board candidate because after completing my PhD I finally had more
> time to contribute to the projects and serve the community through the
> French chapter: after watching my husband Rémi Mathis do it for years I
> a pretty good idea of what it meant. I did not know our ED Nathalie Martin
> or our chair Émeric Vallespi before working with them, and now that I have
> I can vouch for their hard work and attachment to the movement’s values.
> Today, I have lost friends or people I thought were friends because I
> defended Nathalie and Émeric in good faith during the smear campaign based
> on the community’s assumption that they were the source and cause of all
> the chapter’s problems, real or perceived. Although I have worked with
> closely for a year, I have been repeatedly informed that I’ve been
> manipulated by Nathalie from the start and should not have blindly
> everything Émeric was saying. I’ve been personally attacked on WMF sites,
> email lists, and social media for weeks, my every word scrutinised,
> questioned and mocked assuming I was either ignorant or lying. I’ve been
> told by so-called feminists who were endorsing a particularly sexist rant
> against me to “stop making inflammatory comments”. I’ve been called a
> conspiracy theorist because I questioned the role of our former chair
> Christophe Henner, now chair of the Board at the WMF, in the threats to
> withdraw our chapter agreement and the cutting of half our FDC funding.
> People close to Christophe who have resigned from the WMFR Board early in
> the crisis rather than take responsibility for their mistakes now call
> themselves victims and whistleblowers. The WMF, who is perfectly aware of
> the charges of sexual harassment filed by Nathalie against Christophe for
> facts dating back to when he was her boss at Wikimédia France, is
> pretending WMFR leadership has used the threat of legal action to
> intimidate chapter members and silence opposition.
> Some unfounded allegations have been made on this very list by prominent
> members of the community (and what is a newbie’s word worth in that case,
> right?): from extremely serious accusations of misuse of chapter funds for
> personal gain (that strangely enough never made it to the French justice
> system despite a so-called “rather convincing rationale”), to gratuitous
> ones that Nathalie was making the Board’s decisions for us and dictating
> our communication (I am old enough to write my own emails, thank you very
> much), to ever vague ones of “quite generous expenses reimbursement“. None
> of this has been supported by proof or tangible facts, but the goal of
> spreading distrust and dissent in the chapter and the wider community has
> clearly been reached. Even now that Nathalie has left her position and the
> Board has resigned, some are still defaming her in the French media in the
> hopes of winning the stupid argument of who were the bad guys in the
> I am also extremely disappointed that no one from this list asked us (the
> Board) what was happening when these allegations were made, with only a
> handful of people suggesting to wait before all the facts were known.
> Instead, you took for granted the very short and extremely biased English
> summaries of the Board’s communications (which were instantly circulated
> this list without our consent and in violation of our chapter’s bylaws),
> and joined in the chorus of outrage, condemnation and verbal abuse.
> But worse to me than all this, I am actually terrified at how easily the
> Wikimedia community can turn on a person, with no regard whatsoever for
> decency or legality, when it has made up its mind about who has no place
> there. I have personally experienced what it means to disagree with this
> angry mob: questioning the dominant opinion or calling out individuals’
> toxic behaviour makes you in turn acceptable collateral damage and a “fair
> game” target for harassment.
> Speaking of this, the movement as a whole needs to address the issue of
> staff-volunteers relations exemplified by the rapid turnover of executive
> staff across chapters. Nathalie stayed at WMFR an almost record breaking 4
> years, but at what cost? I’m being extremely serious in adding that this
> conversation needs to take place before something irreversible happens as
> result of harmful group behaviour within the community.
> Marie-Alice Mathis // AlienSpoon
> PS: for your information about my position regarding the WMF’s role in
> crisis and their recent unilaterally added conditions [
> for payment of our FDC-attributed grant, I attach my email to Katy Love
> from Sept 20.
> Katy, (Cc WMFr Board and Rémi)
> In the WMF "Grant expectations" document sent to the Board of WMFr, you
> mention as a condition for APG funds payment that I do not resign from my
> position on the Board until the governance review is complete, and that
> Board member planning to resign must report and justify it to WMF.
> You also mention that you retain the right to cease funding WMFr if you
> consider that legal threats are being used inappropriately to stifle civil
> and appropriate participation in the chapter. Moreover, you condition
> payment to being informed if the chapter leadership feels that legal
> is appropriate to take against current or former board members or staff.
> Let me be clear: these conditions are outrageous and unacceptable.
> First of all, my legitimacy as a Board member of WMFr does not come from
> any commitment to WMF but from being democratically elected by French
> chapter members. WMF has no say in who stays or not on the Board, and
> trying to intervene on such governance issues is, again, putting both
> organisations at risk of being legally recognised as co-employers.
> Second, as a (volunteer) Board member I have been subjected to harassment,
> sexist abuse, and unjustified allegations of misconduct by community
> members, that have impacted my health and mental well being to the point
> where I was no longer able to do my (paid) job in cancer patient care and
> my GP put me on medical leave. A large volume of this abuse took place on
> WMF property (fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:Le_Bistro
> <http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro> and the
> publicly archived mailing lists wikimedia-l and wikimediafr).
> You personally and on behalf of WMF encouraged French community members to
> challenge chapter leadership citing governance issues, without a word
> mentioning the violence suffered by the Board and executive staff at the
> hands of some French members during this crisis. Worse, you presented the
> Board's email condemning the harassment as inaccurate and problematic,
> which made the community feel all the more legitimate in their harmful
> When I reported the abuse in person to WMF employees during the site visit
> you personally empathised with my distress at the time, and thanked me for
> being honest about how your email to the wikimediafr list had made our
> already precarious situation untenable. And then you did nothing.
> My husband Rémi, who witnessed first hand the effects of the harassment on
> my health, called on you to release the site visit report so the
> allegations would stop. You didn't, until 3 days before our General
> Assembly (where the allegations were repeated), on the same day you asked
> that I stay on as a Board member. Even your choice of words in the "Grant
> expectations" document is telling: "egregious incivility" is not what we
> are talking about here. We are talking about unacceptable and illegal
> defamation and harassment with serious real life consequences.
> Rémi also called on the wikimedia-l list to stop the unfounded
> and was attacked in turn because of "his conflict of interest as the
> husband of a Board member". He also reported the abuse to the WMF
> governance committee, to the Suport and Safety team and mentioned it to
> Christophe Henner and Katherine Maher on Twitter, to no avail. To this day
> we haven't received any support or acknowledgement whatsoever. All the
> while the sexist abuse continues, and French editor MrButler was moderated
> on the wikimediafr maling list for his continued personal attacks against
> me. This is exactly the kind of behaviour the Board's email to the members
> was calling out, yet you continue to deliberately ignore it and refuse to
> do anything about it.
> Finally, your asking to be informed of any legal action against chapter
> members or staff is yet another example of the WMF taking sides while
> posing as a neutral arbitrator. Calling someone out on their toxic
> behaviour or actually filing a complaint are no legal threats or
> intimidation, but by claiming they are you are trying to silence victims
> denying them their basic rights to legal protection. At least two
> complaints have been filed against community members and more may be
> coming, including on my behalf. You will not be informed because it is not
> for WMF to decide whether they are justified or frivolous.
> For all these reasons I am deeply shocked and hurt by your payment
> conditions and will not abide by the terms of your grant expectations.
> most of WMFr funding hanging in the balance your unilaterally revised
> conditions amount to blackmail but I will not stay in harm's way at the
> request of the organisation who has failed me in every aspect when I came
> in good faith to work for the community. I will resign when I see fit to
> protect my health, and continue to speak honestly and publicly about your
> actions and empty words of safety and inclusivity.
> Marie-Alice Mathis, vice chair of WMFr
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org