I think it very clear that these allegations were the last gasp of an
ancient regime, mired as it was in nepotism and other unsavoury practices.
The criminal allegations can be left to the police. The description of the
steps taken by the WMF in this case seems to be of a very sensible
handlingerie of a difficult situation.
On 20 Oct 2017 12:22 am, "Emeric VALLESPI" <emeric.vallespi(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Katherine,
Your answer is particularly shocking. Which right has the Foundation to
feel legitimate in order to describe the situation experienced by Nathalie
Martin or by other people? Only a judge can.
The movement organization does not take precedence over the laws of the
countries.
You rely on a single document (a letter) to judge that there is no moral or
sexual harassment?
What about the criminal complaint? And the medical leaves? And the
testimonies attached to the complaint? These other elements were not taken
into account, why?
The Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation ridiculed himself in the press [0]
when he said that he had discovered yesterday the reproaches that were
addressed to him as well as the complaint. His lawyer even tried to make it
appear that the complaint had never been filed.
Even though this whole situation has been known by the Wikimedia Foundation
for months!
Mockery reaches its top with your so-called measures. In case you do not
know Katherine, in France independent lawyers do not exist. Judges are
independent, not lawyers.
The lawyers you have appointed have been paid by the Foundation. They
*only* interviewed the defendant. In these conditions, how could the
outcome not be favorable to his version?
You did not answer any of my previous questions:
Why did not the Wikimedia Foundation hear Nathalie Martin at her request?
Just to have her version of the facts, it would have been - maybe ... - a
good idea.
Why did the experts who were supposed to conduct an adversarial
investigation not discussed with Nathalie or Marie-Alice? Would not that
have been the least of the things? Why did not they hear the board of
trustees’ member? Why did you refuse to organize, as you (or your
representatives) were offered, a confrontation between
complainant/defendant?
Why fear so much to hear the version of Nathalie?
You have witnessed what Marie-Alice and Nathalie have experienced with
social media as well as on the mailing-list you're hosting. You've done
absolutely nothing to protect them.
You're mentioning complaints that have been filed to the Support and Safety
committee, which has no legal existence in the real world (outside of the
movement). I am talking about real criminal complaints in a police station.
Whether you can compare the two shows your total unconsciousness.
Again, the role of the Wikimedia Foundation is not to determine whether the
current Chair is guilty or innocent. Nor whether the acts are sexual or
moral harassment.
Your role, as an organization, is, to a minimum, to hear the victims and to
ensure their protection. You have undertaken everything to mask this
situation in order to guarantee your tranquility. It is a shame for a
movement that wants to be humanistic.
Regards,
--
Emeric Vallespi
2017-10-19 23:19 GMT+02:00 Katherine Maher <kmaher(a)wikimedia.org>:
> Everyone,
>
> The past six months have been a complex and troubling time for our
> community in France. Let me be absolutely clear, with no confusion or
> ambiguity, that the Wikimedia Foundation condemns harassment. We take all
> harassment claims seriously, investigate them promptly, and take the
> appropriate action to enforce our policies whenever necessary. My goal
here
> today is to provide more information about the actions of the Wikimedia
> Foundation, the principles to which we adhere, and the situation in which
> our movement finds itself.
>
> As many of you know, there have been months of discussion within the
French
> Wikimedia community, independent committees and governance bodies, and the
> Wikimedia Foundation about the governance and operations of Wikimédia
> France. During this time, we have seen growing tensions between a number
of
> the former leaders of Wikimédia France and some members of the French
> Wikimedia community. This situation created great strain on the French
> community, former and current staff of Wikimédia France, and concerned
> Wikimedia volunteers around the world. Much of this was documented by
> community members[1] and in the press.[2] Over the past months the
> Foundation has received formal and informal complaints alleging harassment
> and other harmful behaviour, and we have enforced existing policies
> whenever applicable.
>
> Recently, an individual associated with our movement published an essay
> about the events in France on the blogging site Medium and shared that
> essay with this list. It contained a number of deeply concerning
> allegations of harassment. Let me first address the most troubling claims
> of the recent essay—those regarding the Foundation’s handling of
> allegations against the Wikimedia Foundation’s current Board Chair.
>
> In May of 2017 the Wikimedia Foundation was informed, in a letter and for
> the first time, that the then-Executive Director of Wikimédia France was
> alleging claims of harassment against the current Board Chair of the
> Wikimedia Foundation, dating back to his tenure as former Chair of
> Wikimédia France. In this letter the Executive Director described a number
> of interactions with the Foundation’s Board Chair when he was Chair of
> Wikimédia France, and went on to accuse him of using his position as
> Foundation Board Chair to to turn the Wikimedia Foundation’s sentiment
> against the French chapter.
>
> Contrary to the assertion in the Medium essay, while the former Wikimédia
> France Executive Director’s letter detailed tense and disagreeable
> interactions between the two individuals, it did not characterize those
> interactions as sexual harassment. Also contrary to the essay’s
assertions,
> the Wikimedia Foundation took immediate and appropriate action after
> receiving the complaint.
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation, under clear direction from our Board, responded
> promptly:
>
> - We notified the Vice Chair and Board Governance Chair immediately
> after receiving the then-Executive Director’s letter.
> - Under their direction and supervision, we promptly hired expert
French
> legal counsel to conduct an investigation on this issue.
> - The Foundation Board Chair was informed of the investigation and
> recused from all relevant discussions. The Board Chair was also recused
> from any discussion regarding Wikimédia France and the French Wikimedia
> community, including any participation in funding decisions.
> - The investigation by the experts found that the French chapter’s
> Executive Director’s detailed statements of facts, in addition to not
> being
> characterized by her as sexual harassment, also did not support a
> finding
> of sexual harassment.
> - Based on the information provided, French counsel also looked at
> whether the allegations supported a finding of “moral” harassment,
> ultimately concluding that they did not.
> - The findings were conveyed to the then-chair of the board of
Wikimédia
> France. The chapter leadership was asked on more than one occasion if
it
> had any additional evidence or wished to further discuss the
> conclusions.
> No additional information was provided.
> - Under these circumstances, the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation
found
> no merit to the charges.
>
>
> *As has been repeatedly stated, the Foundation remains fully committed to
> reviewing and investigating additional information, if presented, of
sexual
> or other harassment allegedly committed by any Wikimedia Foundation staff
> or board member. We fully condemn harassment in the Wikimedia movement.*
>
> The essay in Medium also references experiences of a number of former
> Wikimédia France Board members who reportedly left their posts because of
> alleged harassment from French Wikimedia community members. In the
majority
> of these cases, the Wikimedia Foundation has not received complaints and
> has no further information about these allegations.
>
> We are aware that some people working at the Foundation for some months
> have received comments from a number of community members through informal
> channels about alleged intra-community harassment. These included
> complaints and allegations of harassment made against the former Wikimédia
> France Executive Director and then-Board Chair by Wikimédia France staff
> and community members, as well as counter-complaints from former Wikimédia
> France board members against members of the French community. In each
> instance of which we are aware, the individual raising the complaint was
> directed to the Wikimedia Foundation’s Support and Safety team, which is
> trained and equipped to independently investigate and assess these
matters,
> particularly where members of the larger Wikimedia community are
concerned.
>
> In total, the Foundation received roughly a dozen of these complaints.
Each
> of these complaints received by the Foundation was investigated and
> responded to promptly, enforcing the relevant anti-harassment policies
> whenever appropriate. In some cases, and when appropriate, our response
> resulted in content (for example, content that identified Wikimedia
> community members who guarded their anonymity) being removed from public
> websites or the Foundation contacting users who posted inappropriate
> material. In others, we found that while certain comments at times crossed
> the lines of civility, the actions did not meet the threshold of sanction
> under our policies or constitute intentional or sustained patterns of
> harassment.
>
> As a cumulative result of these complaints, the Wikimedia Foundation has
> recommended to Wikimédia France that they take immediate steps to
implement
> a friendly space policy. At the chapter’s exceptional September general
> assembly, the motion to develop and implement a friendly space policy
> passed with overwhelming support, with 98% of the membership voting in
> favor.[3] The Wikimedia Foundation has offered Wikimédia France our
> assistance with this policy’s composition and implementation.
>
> We are committed to working with the new Wikimédia France conseil
> d’administration (governing board) to support the French community as they
> work to address and resolve these and other outstanding issues. The
> Wikimedia Foundation and the new leadership of Wikimédia France are
already
> cooperating to address the governance-related concerns raised by the
> volunteer Funds Dissemination Committee in the first half of 2017. As part
> of this work, we have encouraged them to review how they will
independently
> handle claims of harassment in the future. The Wikimedia Foundation and
> Wikimédia France share a common goal: a healthy, welcoming, respectful,
> inclusive Wikimedia community in France.
>
> I know I am not alone in my dismay for how these events have unfolded.
Many
> dedicated, good-faith members of the French community, including current
> community members and present and former Wikimédia France board and staff
> members, have experienced distress and anxiety over recent months. Those
> outside of the community have watched with dismay as our peers and friends
> have found themselves disoriented, distressed, alienated, or at odds with
> one another. And yet we also know that many in France now feel a renewed
> sense of purpose for building the healthy and welcoming community we all
> desire.
>
> Situations such as the recent events in France provide us with an
> opportunity to learn from the past in order to do better in the future. We
> have seen this time and again in our communities, as organizations
> (including the Wikimedia Foundation) have emerged from governance and
other
> challenges stronger, with deepened commitments to openness, collaboration,
> and humility.
>
> Today is another such opportunity.
>
> Katherine
>
> [1] https://www.mathisbenguigui.eu/wikimedia-timeline/
>
> [2]
> http://www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2017/09/11/vers-une-
> sortie-de-crise-a-wikimedia-france_5184101_4408996.html
>
> http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/rue89/rue89-nos-vies-
> connectees/20170718.OBS2248/exclusions-menaces-budget-
> recale-c-est-la-crise-chez-wikimedia-france.html
>
>
> [3]
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/
> WMFR_AG_2017-09-09.pdf/page1-2550px-WMFR_AG_2017-09-09.pdf.jpg
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Caroline Becker <carobecker54(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Emeric,
> >
> > I am very pleased that you take mental health seriously. I remember, not
> so
> > long ago, that your actions while you were in Wikimedia France had
> serious
> > impact on the mental health of at least two of your members.
> >
> > In January, someone had a meltdown just in front of you. Could you
remind
> > us what you did after that ?
> >
> > In April, you learnt that your actions as a chair caused me a medical
> > leave. What can the Foundation and the movement as a whole learn about
> how
> > you dealt with the situation ?
> >
> > Warmly,
> >
> > Caroline
> >
> > 2017-10-12 12:39 GMT+02:00 Emeric Vallespi <emeric.vallespi(a)gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Dear Maria,
> > > Dear all,
> > >
> > > The Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees, the executive and the
legal
> > > management of the Wikimedia Foundation have been informed of Nathalie
> > > Martin's complaint against her former employer now member of your
> board,
> > > and then of the criminal complaint against this same person (facts
from
> > his
> > > time in Wikimédia France and other from his time in your Board).
> > >
> > > It would have been logical for a board of trustees member to gather
her
> > > testimony. No one has sought to make contact with her. Why?
> > > At the very least, the Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees could
> have
> > > requested a copy of the complaint, as well as the various testimonies,
> so
> > > that they could study them and make their opinion. We had no
> > solicitation.
> > > Why?
> > > From what I see, the Wikimedia Foundation has done everything to
stifle
> > > the problem. Here is the only initiative WMF has taken: paid
> "independent
> > > lawyers" (a concept unknown to me…) to "question Christophe". He
> > responded,
> > > to the general surprise, that there was no problem.
> > > Do you really feel that this is a serious investigation? Honestly?
> > > Why did not these lawyers also hear Nathalie?
> > > Why did these lawyers not ask questions to the Wikimédia France Board
> of
> > > trustees members? Only with the testimony of the defendant himself,
the
> > > Wikimedia Foundation today states that there is no problem. ...
> > > During the site visit, Nathalie proposed to the Wikimedia Foundation
> > > representatives to organize a confrontation. Not only did she have a
> flat
> > > denial, but, moreover, it was replied that it must not be addressed.
> > > Why did the Wikimedia Foundation not accede to this request for
> > > confrontation? Not to know the truth which can be too embarrassing to
> > > assume?
> > >
> > > We have a movement employee who brilliantly held management
> > > responsibilities for 4 years (great longevity for an Executive
> Director…)
> > > who asked for help. And what is the answer of the movement, of the
> > > Wikimedia Foundation? Nothing. Nothing was undertaken to give her any
> > kind
> > > of listening or help.
> > >
> > > Marie-Alice Mathis, who courageously expressed disapproval of the
> sexist
> > > harassment of Nathalie, was also harassed by community members.
> Nathalie
> > > and Marie-Alice suffered health damages and had medical leaves issued
> by
> > > real general practitioners. The Wikimedia Foundation was informed and
> > what
> > > did you do? Nothing, or worst: two messages from your staff
> legitimizing
> > > the harassment and one from a member of your board who publicly stated
> > > against Wikimédia France without any prior contact with us.
> > > What kind of help or support did you offer to Marie-Alice?
> > >
> > > The outcome of the complaints is not even the issue at this stage and
> > this
> > > is not my point (I’m not a judge as you or other community member
think
> > > they are).
> > > The real problem is that today a man in the movement, if he has power
> > > position, can do absolutely everything he wants without any control.
> The
> > > problem is, despite all the empty values you’re communicating on, you
> > > legitimize whatever the community does. Because the community is the
> > > measure of all things.
> > > No objective process is foreseen to protect women (and more generally,
> > > people) or at least to hear them.
> > > Do you find this normal for a movement that advocates inclusiveness
and
> > > respect?
> > >
> > > I’ve read an ardent defender of epicene style of writing who is
> accusing
> > > of lying other women because of their private then public
declarations.
> > > Having no clue of what is in the procedure. Thank you for enlightening
> me
> > > about true fight with feminism.
> > >
> > > I’m glad that « We take all allegations of harassment seriously », but
> I
> > > can not endorse this functioning which goes against legality and
simply
> > > against human values.
> > >
> > > N.B: English is not my native language, may you be as tolerant of my
> > > selected words or sentences construction as with harassing behavior.
> > Thanks
> > > for your understanding.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > --
> > > Emeric Vallespi
> > >
> > > > On 11 Oct 2017, at 19:54, María Sefidari <kewlshrink(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dear all,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > María Sefidari
> > > >
> > > > 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
> > > > /jeblad
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Marie-Alice Mathis <
> > > > mariealice.gariel(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> 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
> > > > had
> > > >> 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
> > > > them
> > > >> closely for a year, I have been repeatedly informed that I’ve been
> > > >> manipulated by Nathalie from the start and should not have blindly
> > > > believed
> > > >> 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
> > > >> crisis.
> > > >>
> > > >> 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
> > > > on
> > > >> 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
> > > > a
> > > >> result of harmful group behaviour within the community.
> > > >>
> > > >> Sincerely,
> > > >> Marie-Alice Mathis // AlienSpoon
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> PS: for your information about my position regarding the WMF’s role
> in
> > > > this
> > > >> crisis and their recent unilaterally added conditions [
> > > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grant_expectations_for_
> > > >> Wikimedia_France_-_2017-2018]
> > > >> 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
> > > > any
> > > >> 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
> > > > action
> > > >> 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>
> <http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro>
> > <http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro>
> > > <http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro>
> > > > <http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro>
> > > >> <http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro>
> > > >> <http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro> and the
> > > >> WMF-hosted,
> > > >> 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
> > > >> attacks.
> > > >> 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
> > > > misconduct
> > > >> 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
> > > > allegations,
> > > >> 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
> > > > by
> > > >> 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.
> > > > With
> > > >> 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.
> > > >>
> > > >> Sincerely,
> > > >> 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/
> > > >> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > >> 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > 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>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Katherine Maher
> Executive Director
>
> *We moved! **Our new address:*
>
> Wikimedia Foundation
> 1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
> San Francisco, CA 94104
>
> +1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635
> +1 (415) 712 4873
> kmaher(a)wikimedia.org
> https://annual.wikimedia.org
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l
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>
Some ideas:
* Add topical forums to Wikipedia, by a rough count around eighty different topics. The encyclopedia article (primarily the one in the current global common language of American English) is the central document which contains the facts around any particular issue, and forums serve not just as a centralized discussion place around the article, but serve as more general discussion places and a way of coordinating article development. Currently discussion about article development tends to be spread out across too many talk pages and WikiProject pages tend to be too development oriented. * Integrate Wiktionary and Wikidata entries in Wikipedia searches. As a technical idea where the problem is one of "'this particular data belongs in an encyclopedia, while this other nuancedly-different set belongs in a dictionary." Specifically dealing with Wiktionary and Wiktionary because together with Wikipedia these should cover the whole Semantic Field.* Similar to above: Clicking on links is like doing a specific search.. deliver similar Wikidata and Wiktionary entries at top in addition to going to article. Clicking on links has that pidgeon-holing problem as well, of this topic (a link is basically a search entry already filled-out for you). Solution.. show a little related metadata at the top, and as a consequence.. continued:* Formalize the way disambiguation links are handled. An approach to developing Wikipedia is simply covering all possible topics. Including Wiktionary and Wikidata entries in Wikipedia searches is a technical idea that helps develop these other two projects and also lets them and their different handling help Wikipedia build and integrate articles, and Wikidata allows the idea of including.. continued:* Categorical language to cover the whole Semantic Field of ideas (building a dictionary of ideas, in term and phrase forms, which formalize "talking generally"): Talking about a thing might receive suppression (from either or both governments in the World) because talking about a thing along would (or in some legalistic arguments "might") reveal secrets about people. But news and history still have to be documented based on a reporting of events, and talking categorically is a way to say what's going on without being "defaming," because we aren't being specific. * Update opinion/policy regarding Machine translation-transformation and its implementation. The idea of each language getting its own wiki was the open ended approach, and was successful even though it has had some drawbacks the other is using the big languages to receive users into more and more assisted arenas, where machine translation (contract with Army/Google) is mature enough to integrate into the editing and discussion form. * Political: Fortify against the slippery slope that lets defamation arguments receive automatic or near-automatic legal suppression. The standard cartoon is where the lawyers argue that something a nation state does in the way of a crime has to be suppressed from news and history "because" its of a "defamation" to the unelected or elected leaders. The idea of "suppression" (was called "oversight," really..) as permissible gets to that issue much debated about what kind of world are we going to have.. does it have too much suppression in it, such that there are things which we are categorically forbidden from reporting, even though we in the United States and other non-monarchial regions do not live by an anti-democratic philosophy of government.
Steven Cooneyfrom 2002
Congratulations to the team!!!
This is long overdue.
Best Regards
Olushola
Olaniyan Ishola Olushola|MD, Data Access Systems Ltd|Treasurer,FOSSFA|Skype:ozo734
Tweeter:@oluwanishola73|www.facebook.com/olaniyan.shola|Alt email : treasury(a)fossfa.net|Team Leader Wikimedia Community User Group, Nigeria (WCUGN)|
Phone: 2348154876844;2348167352512
--------------------------------------------
On Sat, 10/14/17, Nurunnaby Hasive <nch(a)nhasive.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Recognition of Open Foundation West Africa
To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Cc: "Wikimedia Movement Affiliates discussion list" <affiliates(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Date: Saturday, October 14, 2017, 10:31 AM
Great! Congratulations Open
Foundation West Africa!
Hasive
WMBD
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:09 AM, Kirill Lokshin
<kirill.lokshin(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi
everyone!
>
> I'm
very happy to announce that the Affiliations Committee has
recognized
> Open Foundation West Africa
[1] as a Wikimedia User Group. The group aims
> to extend the reach of Wikimedia movement
activities in West Africa through
> open
education programs, digitizing open resources, preserving
cultural and
> heritage items for
educational purposes, and promoting content about the
> West African region.
>
> Please join me in
congratulating the members of this new user group!
>
> Regards,
> Kirill Lokshin
> Chair,
Affiliations Committee
>
> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Open_Foundation_West_Africa
>
_______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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>
--
*Nurunnaby
Chowdhury (Hasive) **:: **নুরুন্নবী
চৌধুরী (হাছিব)*
User:
Hasive <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Hasive>
|
GSM/WhatsApp/Viber: +8801712754752
Administrator | Bengali
Wikipedia <http://bn.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:Hasive>
Board Member | Wikimedia Bangladesh <http://www.wikimedia.org.bd/>
fb.com/Hasive <http://fb.com/NCHasive> | @nhasive
<http://www.twitter.com/nhasive> |
www.nhasive.com
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
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>
Dear Wikipedians,
I'm leaving Wikimedia France, after 5 years at the board, 3 as chair, 3 as
chair of the Scientific Committee. The violence which took place this
summer and the way the Foundation behave (or rather, did nothing against
it) are not acceptable.
Here is a short explanation of my departure in English. The longer one, in
French, is here:
https://medium.com/@mathis.remi/la-toxicit%C3%A9-violence-sexisme-dune-part…
Various dissensions and various oppositions have combined in recent months
within Wikimedia France, culminating in some members questioning its
governance. On this occasion, the community showed a behaviour which is not
suitable for a democratic association.
Some members behave like a pack of hounds, leading to the departure of the
executive director Nathalie Martin, after such a harassment on lists and
social media that she filed a complaint against 12 people. That makes 13
with the complaint she already filed against the ex-chair Christophe Henner
– now chair of the Wikimedia Foundation – for sexual harassment at the time
they worked together. Other members of the board have been systematically
harassed, sometimes with incredibly chauvinistic statements, leading to the
departure of all the board but one member.
I continuously sent messages, from July to October, to the Foundation to
warn them of what was going on. I even met its Legal Director, LaPorte, and
its Chair, Henner. They did nothing to counter these violence, part of
which took place on the lists and websites of the Foundation – they did
nothing to protect these women. On the contrary, they continuously
questioned the words and deeds of Wikimedia France board, providing
legitimacy to those who spread obnoxious rumours and committed violence and
abuse. Their sole preoccupation was to avoid a scandal, silence the
victims, and protect their Chair.
Within an organization which struggles to find new members, which
endeavours to be women-friendly and which communicate on their desire to be
more inclusive, it raises a lot of questions. Even Hollywood begins to
react and denounce people such as Weinstein: it is properly unbearable that
the digital world – and not anyone, but one committed to the greater good –
still hides the dust under the rug and refuse to take their responsibility
against morbid, dangerous, violent or sexist behaviours.
Given all that, and after losing all hope to be heard – after months
talking to a blank wall – I’m leaving Wikimedia France, resigning from it
Scientific Committee, and strongly condemn the toxic and irresponsible
strategy of the Wikimedia Foundation.
I also inform you that
*Frédéric Martel, culture and media journalist and author (France Culture)
*Laurent Le Bon, president of the Picasso Museum
*Cédric Villani, mathematician, Fields medallist
are also resigning from their position on the scientific committee.
Best,
Rémi Mathis
Chair 2011-2014
Chair of the Scientific Committee 2014-2017
Global Wikipedian of the Year 2013
Hi everyone,
Over the past year, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees has been
reviewing and evolving our appointment and onboarding process for new Board
members. While that has resulted in some lingering vacancies, we knew it
was important to update these processes to help maintain a cordial and
productive Board.
The updated appointment process provides the entire board with more
detailed (albeit private) information about each candidate’s background,
public profile, past professional and volunteer work, and ability to
contribute to the Board. The updated onboarding process is meant to help
Board members learn about the processes and expectations of our Board more
quickly to help reduce productivity lost to transitions. Special thanks to
everyone serving on the Board Governance Committee and Nataliia for the
work they have put into these improvements!
I am also incredibly excited to share that these efforts have helped us
identify and appoint an amazing addition to the Wikimedia Foundation Board
of Trustees! At our October meeting, the Board appointed and welcomed Raju
Narisetti to fill one of the vacant expert seats.
Raju is a veteran media executive and journalist and brings a wealth of
communications experience to the board. He is also a veteran of nonprofit
governance and currently serves on the board for the International Center
for Journalists and Institute for International Education. I am confident
he will be a very valuable addition to the board and thrilled that he has
agreed to join us!
We will continue to make improvements to our governance processes, for
example with the learnings from the on-going governance review, and apply
what we have learned to future appointments and filling our remaining
vacancy. Thank you for everyone’s patience as we took a pause and worked on
recruiting the best possible candidates, rather than simply rushing to fill
the seats.
In the meantime, below (and on the Wikimedia Blog) you will find the
official announcement about Raju Narisetti and please join me in warmly
welcoming him to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees and to the
Wikimedia movement!
Christophe
Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
Raju Narisetti joins Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
Media veteran brings nearly three decades of global strategic experience in
digital media and audience development to the Wikimedia Foundation Board
Image:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Raju_Narisetti_-_International_Jour…
San Francisco, CA, October 16, 2017 — The Wikimedia Foundation today
announced the appointment of Raju Narisetti, a veteran media executive and
journalist, to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees.
Raju brings more than 29 years of media experience across three continents.
He is currently CEO of Univision Communications Inc’s Gizmodo Media Group,
the publisher of websites including Gizmodo, Jezebel, Lifehacker and The
Root.
“Raju has dedicated his life’s work to information as a public service. His
commitment to editorial integrity, independence, and inclusion is deeply
aligned with Wikimedia values. His passion and expertise in digital
strategy and international growth will be invaluable to our movement’s
future as we advance our global free knowledge mission,” said Wikimedia
Foundation Executive Director, Katherine Maher.
Prior to joining the Gizmodo Media Group, Raju served as Senior Vice
President, Strategy, at News Corp, one of the largest media companies in
the world and the publisher of The Wall Street Journal and The Times of
London. In that role, Raju was responsible for identifying new digital
growth opportunities globally for News Corp.
“There has never been more urgency in Wikipedia's 16-year history than now,
for upholding the values of free exchange of information and knowledge,”
said Raju. “Despite mounting challenges around the world, rapid innovation
is creating tremendous opportunities for the Wikimedia Foundation. I have
much to learn, but am also looking forward to lending my nearly three
decades of global media experiences to the movement, to help engage more
digital and mobile audiences, particularly diverse young people, and
harness their energy to benefit from—and support—the vital values that
underpin all Wikimedia initiatives.”
Before joining News Corp, Raju spent nearly 25 years as a journalist and
editor. He started at The Economic Times in India before moving to The
Dayton Daily News (Ohio), The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), and The Washington
Post. Starting out as a summer intern at WSJ, he eventually became Editor
of The Wall Street Journal Europe and later Managing Editor of WSJ’s
digital newsrooms. At The Washington Post, he was the Managing Editor who
led the Post’s rethinking of its separate digital and print newsrooms and
operations.
A native of Hyderabad, India, Raju is also the founder of Mint, currently
India’s second-largest daily business newspaper by circulation.
“Raju's extensive international and journalistic experience will add
valuable perspective to the Board as we look to bring new voices from
around the world into our movement. I am impressed by his willingness to
learn about and embrace the values behind the Wikimedia movement, and look
forward to working with him to support our free knowledge mission,” said
Nataliia Tymkiv, Governance Chair for the Board.
Raju is currently the Vice-chair for the Board of Directors of the
International
Center for Journalists
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Center_for_Journalists>, as
well as a member of the Board of Trustees for the Institute of
International Education
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_International_Education>, which
administers the Fulbright Scholarship
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulbright_Scholarship> programmes. He lives
in Brooklyn, New York.
Raju joins eight other Foundation Trustees
<https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_of_Trustees> who collectively
bring expertise in the Wikimedia community, financial oversight,
governance, and organizational development; and a commitment to advancing
Wikimedia’s mission of free knowledge for all.
He was approved unanimously by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees.
His term is effective October 2017 and will continue for three years.
Please see the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
<https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_of_Trustees> for complete
biographies.
###
About the Wikimedia Foundation
The Wikimedia Foundation is the non-profit organization that supports and
operates Wikipedia and its sister free knowledge projects. Wikipedia is the
world’s free knowledge resource, spanning more than 45 million articles
across nearly 300 languages. Every month, more than 200,000 people edit
Wikipedia and the Wikimedia projects, collectively creating and improving
knowledge that is accessed by more than 1 billion unique devices every
month. This all makes Wikipedia one of the most popular web properties in
the world. Based in San Francisco, California, the Wikimedia Foundation is
a 501(c)(3) charity that is funded primarily through donations and grants.
Christophe HENNER
Chair of the board of trustees
chenner(a)wikimedia.org
+33650664739
twitter *@schiste* skype *christophe_henner*
Greetings,
The certified results of the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
election are now available on Meta-Wiki: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2017/Results
Congratulations to María Sefidari (User:Raystorm), Dariusz Jemielniak (User:pundit), and James Heilman (User:Doc James) for receiving the most community support. Subject to a standard background check, they will be appointed by the Board at their August meeting at Wikimania.
These results have been certified by the elections committee, the Wikimedia Foundation staff advisors to the committee, and the Board of Trustees.
There were 5,581 votes cast, with 5,120 of those being valid. The 461-vote difference comes from recast ballots, where eligible voters recast ballots to change their votes, and struck votes, of which there were 34. (Some of the recast votes were also struck.)
Additional information is available on the Wikimedia Blog: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/05/20/board-of-trustees-elections-2017/
More statistics on the elections and a post-mortem from the committee will be published in the coming days. In the meantime, we would appreciate your input—what went well for you in this election? What could we do better next time? These reports are crucial to helping future elections be even more successful, and we hope that you will offer your feedback and ideas: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2017/Post_mo…
The committee would like to thank everyone that participated in this year’s election for helping make it, again, one of the most diverse and representative in the movement’s history.
Sincerely,
– Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee
_______________________________________________
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
Why is my message to this thread getting rejected? It says "Message
rejected by filter rule match"?
Cheers
Yaroslav
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Yaroslav Blanter <ymbalt(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I guess we are discussing this contest:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_
> in_Red/The_World_Contest
>
> because this is the one which starts in two weeks.
>
> For the full disclosure, I have absolutely no relation to the contest and
> will likely not participate.
>
> First, this is an internal affair of the English Wikipedia. I am not sure
> why it should be discussed on wikimedia-l.
>
> Second, we have seen many writing contests and drives and personal
> initiatives on Wikipedia. Some were successful, some were complete
> disaster. Whether the contest/drive is successful depends on the
> organizers, and, in particular, on whether the goals are set properly.
>
> This one aims at 10K (not 100K) new articles in two months. This is
> realistic and, even if some articles are substandard, will not disturb the
> flow of Wikipedia. I recognize a lot of people who signed up as established
> editors who certainly know how to source articles. The rules of the contest
> establish 1K of pure prose (it indeed stated in one place 0.75K, which I
> changed to align with what is written in the rules of the contest.) They
> also specify that the articles must be properly sourced. A fully sourced 1K
> prose is a solid stub, and I do not see how it could harm Wikipedia. The
> organizer is Dr. Blofeld, who previously organized events of similar scope
> which were successful. (I for example participated in the Arfica destubaton
> last year and won a prize; I closely monitored the quality and I saw how
> Dr. Blofeld handled the quality control, I have no issues with that).
>
> To summarize, at this point I do not see any reasons for alarm.
>
> I would like, however, to address two more points which were raised in
> this topic. First, the monetary prizes. I personally oppose giving monetary
> prizes for writing Wikipedia articles. When I participated in the Africa
> destubaton I mentioned above, I made it very clear that I am not going to
> accept a monetary prize. After I won the contest in the nomination of the
> articles on Mozambique, I had an Amazon voucher sent to me, which I spent
> to buy an article on the history of Mozambique. So I am definitely not a
> fan of monetary prizes, on the other hand, this is not the first contest
> which offers monetary prizes, the prizes are of a scope comparable to what
> what offered at similar contests previously, and if the issue has to be
> discussed, it has to be discussed in a broader scope, not in relation to
> this particular contest.
>
> Second, I am not sure how I should interpret the opinions that the
> articles about women should be sourced worse than the articles about men,
> but currently there is consensus on the English Wikipedia on how the
> notability and verifiability policies should be implemented (I guess this
> could be different in other projects). The community is currently not
> accepting unsourced and poorly sourced articles, we have the trial running
> for autoconfirmed article creation, and the queue of new page patrol, which
> is now 13K articles, slowly goes down. (We actually struggled a lot to get
> it going down, for several years). Any unsourced article about living
> people gets PRODded within hours. No action which would attempt to revert
> this trend is going to be accepted. It is not about woman vs man or Africa
> vs Europe, it is about verifiability.
>
> Having said this, if there is a competition suddenly up in the air, aimed
> at 100K articles, poorly organized and with unrealistically weak
> requirements, I would definitely call it a road to disaster. It is just
> what I referenced is not this.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Gnangarra <gnangarra(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This has nothing to do with Gender,
>>
>> The issue is the standards required and the aim of the event not the
>> subjects of the content....
>>
>> The event set a minimum standard at 0.75k per article created, new editors
>> going through articles for creation are required to have 1.5k of prose
>> which is twice the requirement for this competition.
>>
>> I'll repeat we should not expect more from new editors than we do from
>> existing editors, regardless of the subject. With any competition we
>> should be expecting a higher amount than the minimum from existing
>> community members, mass creation of stubs is not the best way to address
>> to
>> encourage those editors to take an interest in developing subjects.
>>
>> Any competition of this magnitude should also have the resources to ensure
>> that in the process we dont do more damage
>>
>>
>>
>> On 16 October 2017 at 13:57, Natacha Rault <n.rault(a)me.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Dear All,
>> >
>> > I can only agree with GorillaWarfare. I am also tired of having to
>> proove
>> > anything concernig gender has to be perfect, when the whole principle of
>> > Wikipedia is that everything is always perfectible.
>> > I think we should assume good faith and avoid <sarcastic> comments.
>> > Doing nothing about the gender gap would not bring a positive image of
>> our
>> > movement. The gap is huge and we do need quantity. Readers noticing
>> > mistakes sometimes become contributors (dont we need new contributors?).
>> > Chosing such a tone “intentionally” (citing Gnangarra) is something I
>> find
>> > shocking. I think criticism is good to make progress, one does not need
>> to
>> > fuel resentmemt by making it <sarcastic>.
>> >
>> >
>> > Kind regards,
>> >
>> > Nattes à chat / Natacha
>> >
>> >
>> > > Le 16 oct. 2017 à 05:51, GorillaWarfare <gorillawarfarewikipedia@
>> > gmail.com> a écrit :
>> > >
>> > > Also, in case it's not clear from my forwarding of Emily's/Keilana's
>> > > message, I endorse it completely and am glad she made her points.
>> > >
>> > > I agree fully with Keegan and Sydney. I don't think the concerns that
>> > this
>> > > will be overtaken by bots are well-founded; that was planned for in
>> the
>> > > document outlining the competition, and editors involved in this
>> project
>> > > will be subject to all expectations of normal editors (including not
>> > > mass-producing poor-quality content).
>> > >
>> > > As for Keegan's original post, there is a major difference between
>> > > describing an email as sexist versus labeling the sender as a sexist.
>> I
>> > > believe Keegan meant the former, and I'm not sure anything he's said
>> can
>> > be
>> > > described as an attack on the sender so much as a valid criticism of
>> poor
>> > > wording.
>> > >
>> > > – Molly (GorillaWarfare)
>> > >
>> > > On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 11:44 PM, GorillaWarfare
>> > <gorillawarfarewikipedia@
>> > > gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Emily (User:Keilana) is having some trouble getting mails through to
>> > this
>> > >> list, so I'm forwarding this on her behalf in case it's an issue with
>> > her
>> > >> email address.
>> > >>
>> > >> "This is some sexist bullshit. You really think we can't handle some
>> > >> stubs? And do you really, really think that people won't try to AFD
>> > >> everything that comes out of this contest as it is?
>> > >>
>> > >> I'm sick and tired of this idea that we have to hold shit about women
>> > to a
>> > >> higher standard than literally anything else. The encyclopedia isn't
>> > going
>> > >> to break because, god forbid, some inexperienced newbies write a
>> bunch
>> > of
>> > >> stubs.
>> > >>
>> > >> And so what if people think we're paying lip service to women? It's
>> > better
>> > >> than being seen as being actively hostile to women, which, as I
>> > shouldn't
>> > >> have to remind you, is our reputation as it currently stands."
>> > >>
>> > >> – Molly (GorillaWarfare)
>> > >>
>> > >>> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 8:16 PM, Gnangarra <gnangarra(a)gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>> No worries Keegan I read it as sarcastic, given the amount of noise
>> on
>> > >>> here
>> > >>> I chose my tone intentionally to draw attention to the competition,
>> > yes it
>> > >>> looks like a wonderful idea until to look at the mechanics of
>> > comeptition
>> > >>> given it has a start time in 2 weeks, people are being encourage to
>> > start
>> > >>> now in sandboxes, its being advertised on banners yet it has very
>> > obvious
>> > >>> under lying issues
>> > >>>
>> > >>> - unrealistic targets
>> > >>> - quantity not quality
>> > >>> - an expectation that competitors are required to do half of what
>> is
>> > >>> expected from new editors , we should hold ourselves and expect of
>> > >>> higher
>> > >>> standards than that we expect from new comers
>> > >>> - no methodology for notability. blp, copyright issues arent
>> weeded
>> > out
>> > >>> during the event or judging
>> > >>> - judging is done by a bot just doing a count
>> > >>>
>> > >>> To win this event all you need is a list, a script, and reliable
>> > internet
>> > >>> connection, despite having so many signed up well experience good
>> > editors
>> > >>> on the list. <sarcasm> Sadly one person using a Wikidata script to
>> > >>> create
>> > >>> articles could be the winner, just imagine the unimaginable
>> > >>> frankenstienian horror that would create </sarcasm>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Any competition that relies on numbers alone is fraught with danger,
>> > the
>> > >>> big international events all succeed not because of numbers but
>> > because
>> > >>> of
>> > >>> large teams(this run by one person alone) focused on quality with
>> the
>> > >>> whole
>> > >>> processes divided into manageable opt-in regional sections. All the
>> > >>> initiatives to focus on under represented topics need to be careful
>> few
>> > >>> thousands of poor quality stubs about women is more harmful than
>> having
>> > >>> nothing as people will perceive Wikipedia to be paying lip service
>> to
>> > >>> women.
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> On 16 October 2017 at 07:18, Keegan Peterzell <
>> keegan.wiki(a)gmail.com>
>> > >>> wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>>>> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Gergő Tisza <gtisza(a)gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Keegan Peterzell <
>> > >>>> keegan.wiki(a)gmail.com>
>> > >>>>> wrote:
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>>> "The nerve of these women, to think that they can write
>> encyclopedia
>> > >>>>>> articles on women who must inherently be non-notable! There's
>> > >>> nothing
>> > >>>> to
>> > >>>>>> write about here."
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> That's basically what your email says. No complaints when the
>> > >>> subject
>> > >>>> is
>> > >>>>>> anything else from you, when these thematic editing are held on
>> > >>> other
>> > >>>>>> subjects.
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> Please avoid personal attacks based on hidden motivations you
>> assume
>> > >>>> other
>> > >>>>> parties to have; it's contrary to the Wikimedia movement's social
>> > best
>> > >>>>> practices [1] and bound to take discussions in unproductive
>> > >>> directions.
>> > >>>>> When criticizing what someone said, stick to what they actually
>> said.
>> > >>>>> Especially so if your accusation of bad faith would be essentially
>> > >>>>> content-free.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> Todd, Gnangarra, Gergő,
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> My intention, as I touched on earlier, was not to make a personal
>> > attack
>> > >>>> but to address the tone in which I perceived the email to be
>> written.
>> > I
>> > >>>> don't believe Gnangarra is actually sexist. I certainly stand by my
>> > >>>> position that the content of the initial post is unhelpful
>> criticism
>> > and
>> > >>>> mostly hyperbole, but I'm more than willing to apologize if my
>> > language
>> > >>>> came across as a personal attack. I could have written it
>> differently.
>> > >>> So,
>> > >>>> sorry about that.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> --
>> > >>>> ~Keegan
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email
>> > >>> address
>> > >>>> is in a personal capacity.
>> > >>>> _______________________________________________
>> > >>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> > >>>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> > >>>> wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> > >>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> > >>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ma
>> ilman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>> > ,
>> > >>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsu
>> bscribe>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> --
>> > >>> GN.
>> > >>> Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
>> > >>> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
>> > >>> Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
>> > >>> _______________________________________________
>> > >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> > >>> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> > >>> i/Wikimedia-l
>> > >>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> > >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ma
>> ilman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> > >>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsu
>> bscribe>
>> > >>>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> > > 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> > 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>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> GN.
>> Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
>> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
>> Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> i/Wikimedia-l
>> 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>
>
>
>
This press release is available online here: https://wikimediafoundation.
org/wiki/Press_releases/Raju_Narisetti_joins_Wikimedia_
Foundation_Board_of_Trustees
And also as a blog post on the Wikimedia blog here:
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/10/16/raju-narisetti-new-foundation-trustee/
Raju Narisetti joins Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
Media veteran brings nearly three decades of global strategic experience in
digital media and audience development to the Wikimedia Foundation Board
San Francisco, CA, October 16, 2017 — The Wikimedia Foundation today
announced the appointment of Raju Narisetti, a veteran media executive and
journalist, to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees.
Raju brings more than 29 years of media experience across three continents.
He is currently CEO of Univision Communications Inc’s Gizmodo Media Group,
the publisher of websites including Gizmodo, Jezebel, Lifehacker and The
Root.
“Raju has dedicated his life’s work to information as a public service. His
commitment to editorial integrity, independence, and inclusion is deeply
aligned with Wikimedia values. His passion and expertise in digital
strategy and international growth will be invaluable to our movement’s
future as we advance our global free knowledge mission,” said Wikimedia
Foundation Executive Director Katherine Maher.
Prior to joining the Gizmodo Media Group, Raju served as Senior Vice
President, Strategy, at News Corp, one of the largest media companies in
the world and the publisher of The Wall Street Journal and The Times of
London. In that role, Raju was responsible for identifying new digital
growth opportunities globally for News Corp.
“There has never been more urgency in Wikipedia's 16-year history than now,
for upholding the values of free exchange of information and knowledge,”
said Raju. “Despite mounting challenges around the world, rapid innovation
is creating tremendous opportunities for the Wikimedia Foundation. I have
much to learn, but am also looking forward to lending my nearly three
decades of global media experiences to the movement, to help engage more
digital and mobile audiences, particularly diverse young people, and
harness their energy to benefit from—and support—the vital values that
underpin all Wikimedia initiatives.”
Before joining News Corp, Raju spent nearly 25 years as a journalist and
editor. He started at The Economic Times in India before moving to The
Dayton Daily News (Ohio), The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), and The Washington
Post. Starting out as a summer intern at WSJ, he eventually became Editor
of The Wall Street Journal Europe and later Managing Editor of WSJ’s
digital newsrooms. At The Washington Post, he was the Managing Editor who
led the Post’s rethinking of its separate digital and print newsrooms and
operations.
A native of Hyderabad, India, Raju is also the founder of Mint, currently
India’s second-largest daily business newspaper by circulation.
“Raju's extensive international and journalistic experience will add
valuable perspective to the Board as we look to bring new voices from
around the world into our movement. I am impressed by his willingness to
learn about and embrace the values behind the Wikimedia movement, and look
forward to working with him to support our free knowledge mission,” said
Nataliia Tymkiv, Governance Chair for the Board.
Raju is currently the Vice-chair for the Board of Directors of the
International
Center for Journalists
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Center_for_Journalists>, as
well as a member of the Board of Trustees for the Institute of
International Education
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_International_Education>, which
administers the Fulbright Scholarship
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulbright_Scholarship> programmes. He lives
in Brooklyn, New York.
Raju joins eight other Foundation Trustees
<https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_of_Trustees> who collectively
bring expertise in the Wikimedia community, financial oversight,
governance, and organizational development; and a commitment to advancing
Wikimedia’s mission of free knowledge for all.
He was approved unanimously by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees.
His term is effective October 2017 and will continue for three years.
Please see the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
<https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_of_Trustees> for complete
biographies.
About the Wikimedia Foundation
The Wikimedia Foundation is the non-profit organization that supports and
operates Wikipedia and its sister free knowledge projects. Wikipedia is the
world’s free knowledge resource, spanning more than 45 million articles
across nearly 300 languages. Every month, more than 200,000 people edit
Wikipedia and the Wikimedia projects, collectively creating and improving
knowledge that is accessed by more than 1 billion unique devices every
month. This all makes Wikipedia one of the most popular web properties in
the world. Based in San Francisco, California, the Wikimedia Foundation is
a 501(c)(3) charity that is funded primarily through donations and grants.
Wikimedia Foundation press contact
Juliet Barbara
press(a)wikimedia.org
Raju Narisetti profile
Raju Narisetti, 51, is the CEO of Gizmodo Media Group, the Univision
Communications Inc owned publisher of pioneering digital brands, including
Gizmodo, Jezebel, Lifehacker, Deadspin, *The Root*, Splinter, Kotaku,
Jalopnik and Earther, that reach 100 million plus readers each month.
Born in Hyderabad, India, Raju holds a Bachelor’s degree from Osmania
University in Hyderabad, and a Post Graduate Diploma in Management from the
Institute of Rural Management in Anand (India); a post-graduate diploma
from The Times School of Journalism in New Delhi; and a Master’s in
Journalism from Indiana University.
Over nearly three decades, Raju has led and transformed news organizations
in three continents.
Raju began his journalism career at The Economic Times in New Delhi and
later went on to found India’s Mint Newspaper, now the second largest
business newspaper in the country.
He spent 15 years at The Wall Street Journal, starting as a summer intern
and in a variety of reporting and editing roles, including the Editor of The
Wall Street Journal Europe; Deputy Managing Editor of The Wall Street
Journal; and Managing Editor of WSJ Digital.
Raju also served as Managing Editor at The Washington Post, where he was
instrumental in combining its print and digital newsrooms, in addition to
overseeing its editing, design, photo, video, engagement and social media
teams.
Prior to joining Gizmodo in October 2016, Raju was Senior Vice President,
Strategy, at News Corp, the publisher of The Times of London and The Wall
Street Journal.
Raju is the Vice-chair for the Board of Directors of the International
Center for Journalists
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Center_for_Journalists>, as
well as as a member of the Board of Trustees for the Institute of
International Education
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_International_Education>, which
administers the Fulbright Scholarship
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulbright_Scholarship> programmes and the
Scholar Rescue Fund. He lives in Brooklyn, New York.
--
*Samantha Lien*
Communications Manager
Wikimedia Foundation
1Montgomery Street
Suite 1600
San Francisco, CA 94104
(To be unsubscribed from this press release distribution list, please reply to communications(a)wikimedia.org with 'UNSUBSCRIBE' in the subject line)
_______________________________________________
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
Hi Chris,
This is actually a very good point!
I will try to find out with the other members of ec where we stand on this. Stay tuned for updates.
Thanks and sorry for the delay
On 16 באוקטובר 2017 21:14:33 GMT+03:00, 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: Women in red (Peter Southwood)
> 2. Re: Women in red (Robert Fernandez)
> 3. Re: Women in red (Lodewijk)
> 4. Re: [Wikimedia Announcements] Results of the 2017 Wikimedia
> Foundation Board of Trustees election (Chris Keating)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 19:53:01 +0200
>From: "Peter Southwood" <peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net>
>To: "'Wikimedia Mailing List'" <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Women in red
>Message-ID: <000901d346a7$9e49dd40$dadd97c0$(a)telkomsa.net>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
>Why?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On
>Behalf Of Pax Ahimsa Gethen
>Sent: Monday, 16 October 2017 7:21 PM
>To: wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Women in red
>
>The people whose opinion should most matter in determining whether a
>comment is sexist are women. Not men, and not non-binary transmasculine
>people like myself.
>
>I support and echo Emily and Molly's earlier comments on this thread:
>
>> Also, in case it's not clear from my forwarding of Emily's/Keilana's
>> message, I endorse it completely and am glad she made her points.
>>
>> I agree fully with Keegan and Sydney. I don't think the concerns that
>
>> this will be overtaken by bots are well-founded; that was planned for
>
>> in the document outlining the competition, and editors involved in
>> this project will be subject to all expectations of normal editors
>> (including not mass-producing poor-quality content).
>>
>> As for Keegan's original post, there is a major difference between
>> describing an email as sexist versus labeling the sender as a sexist.
>
>> I believe Keegan meant the former, and I'm not sure anything he's
>said
>> can be described as an attack on the sender so much as a valid
>> criticism of poor wording.
>>
>> – Molly (GorillaWarfare)
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 11:44 PM, GorillaWarfare
>> <gorillawarfarewikipedia@ gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Emily (User:Keilana) is having some trouble getting mails through to
>> this list, so I'm forwarding this on her behalf in case it's an issue
>
>> with her email address.
>>
>> "This is some sexist bullshit. You really think we can't handle some
>> stubs? And do you really, really think that people won't try to AFD
>> everything that comes out of this contest as it is?
>>
>> I'm sick and tired of this idea that we have to hold shit about women
>
>> to a higher standard than literally anything else. The encyclopedia
>> isn't going to break because, god forbid, some inexperienced newbies
>> write a bunch of stubs.
>>
>> And so what if people think we're paying lip service to women? It's
>> better than being seen as being actively hostile to women, which, as
>I
>> shouldn't have to remind you, is our reputation as it currently
>stands."
>>
>> – Molly (GorillaWarfare)
>
>- Pax aka Funcrunch
>
>
>On 10/16/17 10:11 AM, Todd Allen wrote:
>> Is that still going on?
>>
>> I'm against sexism and all for improving coverage of women on
>Wikipedia.
>> I've helped to encourage events toward that end, and they've turned
>> out pretty well. We now have quite a few more articles, for example,
>> on women involved as pioneers in outdoor sports and activities
>because of them.
>>
>> But I'm unsure how asking the question "Is it wise to offer money in
>> exchange for creating large numbers of articles without consideration
>
>> of quality?" or "Will this effort have the intended result?" is
>> sexist. The same question would apply if the proposed articles were
>> about Russian literature or asteroids. It is not sexist to ask the
>> question just because of what the subject happens to be.
>>
>> I think that needs to be discussed, not sidetracked by calling people
>
>> sexists. If people really were making sexist statements, I'd be all
>> for shutting that crap down. But I've seen not one such statement in
>> this thread.
>>
>> Todd
>>
>> On Oct 16, 2017 10:28 AM, "Robert Fernandez" <wikigamaliel(a)gmail.com>
>wrote:
>>
>>> So those who call out sexism are the real sexists, amirite?
>>>
>>> I am fed up with this double standard in the way we talk about these
>
>>> issues. Some people are allowed to make broad, unsupported,
>sweeping
>>> generalizations about the motives and actions of others and that's
>>> considered just fine, but if you call them out in even the gentlest
>>> tones it's treated as some horrific personal attack, and censure and
>
>>> apologies are demanded. We've culturally internalized sexism so
>much
>>> that even the way we talk about sexism is sexist.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Vi to <vituzzu.wiki(a)gmail.com>
>wrote:
>>>>
>>>> But just a note: using the same behavior of phenomena you're trying
>
>>>> to contast is, per se, a clear defeat.
>>>> To be more clear, blind -because you obviously don't know *nothing*
>
>>>> about their backgrounds- vilification of other's opinions is,
>>>> incidentally, one the of the main instruments of "cultural" sexism.
>
>--
>Pax Ahimsa Gethen | pax(a)funcrunch.org | http://funcrunch.org |
>Pronouns: they/them/their
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>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>
>
>---
>This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
>http://www.avg.com
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 13:57:26 -0400
>From: Robert Fernandez <wikigamaliel(a)gmail.com>
>To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Women in red
>Message-ID:
> <CAMY8yAXzYhsdvnuC1+goc42CCPdFoOPjFPCV-W0QVvRez4N7bg(a)mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
>Is the English Wikipedia the only Wikipedia which has problems with
>misogyny and under-representation of female editors and articles? I am
>relieved to hear that!
>
>
>On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Jean-Philippe Béland
><jpbeland(a)wikimedia.ca
>> wrote:
>
>> There is so many threads on this list that are only about English
>Wikipedia
>> like it is the centre of the world... Why other communities are able
>to
>> keep their internal discussions internal and not this community?
>>
>> Jean-Philippe Béland
>> Vice President, Wikimedia Canada
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Pax Ahimsa Gethen <
>> list-wikimedia(a)funcrunch.org> wrote:
>>
>> > The people whose opinion should most matter in determining whether
>a
>> > comment is sexist are women. Not men, and not non-binary
>transmasculine
>> > people like myself.
>> >
>> > I support and echo Emily and Molly's earlier comments on this
>thread:
>> >
>> >
>> > Also, in case it's not clear from my forwarding of
>Emily's/Keilana's
>> >> message, I endorse it completely and am glad she made her points.
>> >>
>> >> I agree fully with Keegan and Sydney. I don't think the concerns
>that
>> this
>> >> will be overtaken by bots are well-founded; that was planned for
>in the
>> >> document outlining the competition, and editors involved in this
>project
>> >> will be subject to all expectations of normal editors (including
>not
>> >> mass-producing poor-quality content).
>> >>
>> >> As for Keegan's original post, there is a major difference between
>> >> describing an email as sexist versus labeling the sender as a
>sexist. I
>> >> believe Keegan meant the former, and I'm not sure anything he's
>said can
>> >> be
>> >> described as an attack on the sender so much as a valid criticism
>of
>> poor
>> >> wording.
>> >>
>> >> – Molly (GorillaWarfare)
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 11:44 PM, GorillaWarfare
>> <gorillawarfarewikipedia@
>> >> gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Emily (User:Keilana) is having some trouble getting mails through
>to
>> this
>> >> list, so I'm forwarding this on her behalf in case it's an issue
>with
>> her
>> >> email address.
>> >>
>> >> "This is some sexist bullshit. You really think we can't handle
>some
>> >> stubs? And do you really, really think that people won't try to
>AFD
>> >> everything that comes out of this contest as it is?
>> >>
>> >> I'm sick and tired of this idea that we have to hold shit about
>women
>> to a
>> >> higher standard than literally anything else. The encyclopedia
>isn't
>> going
>> >> to break because, god forbid, some inexperienced newbies write a
>bunch
>> of
>> >> stubs.
>> >>
>> >> And so what if people think we're paying lip service to women?
>It's
>> better
>> >> than being seen as being actively hostile to women, which, as I
>> shouldn't
>> >> have to remind you, is our reputation as it currently stands."
>> >>
>> >> – Molly (GorillaWarfare)
>> >>
>> >
>> > - Pax aka Funcrunch
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 10/16/17 10:11 AM, Todd Allen wrote:
>> >
>> >> Is that still going on?
>> >>
>> >> I'm against sexism and all for improving coverage of women on
>Wikipedia.
>> >> I've helped to encourage events toward that end, and they've
>turned out
>> >> pretty well. We now have quite a few more articles, for example,
>on
>> women
>> >> involved as pioneers in outdoor sports and activities because of
>them.
>> >>
>> >> But I'm unsure how asking the question "Is it wise to offer money
>in
>> >> exchange for creating large numbers of articles without
>consideration of
>> >> quality?" or "Will this effort have the intended result?" is
>sexist. The
>> >> same question would apply if the proposed articles were about
>Russian
>> >> literature or asteroids. It is not sexist to ask the question just
>> because
>> >> of what the subject happens to be.
>> >>
>> >> I think that needs to be discussed, not sidetracked by calling
>people
>> >> sexists. If people really were making sexist statements, I'd be
>all for
>> >> shutting that crap down. But I've seen not one such statement in
>this
>> >> thread.
>> >>
>> >> Todd
>> >>
>> >> On Oct 16, 2017 10:28 AM, "Robert Fernandez"
><wikigamaliel(a)gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> So those who call out sexism are the real sexists, amirite?
>> >>>
>> >>> I am fed up with this double standard in the way we talk about
>these
>> >>> issues. Some people are allowed to make broad, unsupported,
>sweeping
>> >>> generalizations about the motives and actions of others and
>that's
>> >>> considered just fine, but if you call them out in even the
>gentlest
>> tones
>> >>> it's treated as some horrific personal attack, and censure and
>> apologies
>> >>> are demanded. We've culturally internalized sexism so much that
>even
>> the
>> >>> way we talk about sexism is sexist.
>> >>>
>> >>> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Vi to <vituzzu.wiki(a)gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> But just a note: using the same behavior of phenomena you're
>trying to
>> >>>> contast is, per se, a clear defeat.
>> >>>> To be more clear, blind -because you obviously don't know
>*nothing*
>> >>>> about
>> >>>> their backgrounds- vilification of other's opinions is,
>incidentally,
>> >>>> one
>> >>>> the of the main instruments of "cultural" sexism.
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> > --
>> > Pax Ahimsa Gethen | pax(a)funcrunch.org | http://funcrunch.org |
>Pronouns:
>> > they/them/their
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> > i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> > 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>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Jean-Philippe Béland
>>
>> [image: Wikimedia Canada] Vice-président — Wikimédia Canada
>> <https://ca.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page?uselang=fr>, chapitre
>national
>> soutenant Wikipédia
>> Vice president — Wikimedia Canada
>> <https://ca.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page?uselang=en>, national
>chapter
>> supporting Wikipedia
>> 535 avenue Viger Est, Montréal (Québec) H2L
>2P3,jpbeland(a)wikimedia.ca
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> 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>
>>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 3
>Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 11:03:32 -0700
>From: Lodewijk <lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org>
>To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Women in red
>Message-ID:
> <CACf6BeszfvKfnM38V1ugb7zwPOMck+Ow61N9UwAfgM9B5h81sQ(a)mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
>I understand from the original email that the venue was chosen based on
>the
>fact that it was WMF-funded as a project. I am guessing he's trying to
>pull
>that leverage.
>
>The topic is more generic though: should we support projects that are
>considered by some to be a little rough on the edges, or should we only
>pick 'safe' projects that will land well with the community. And how
>much
>of 'be bold' can be applied to projects that operate at a somewhat
>larger
>scale.
>
>While this particular topic seems enwp specific, its theme isn't.
>
>Lodewijk
>
>On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Jean-Philippe Béland <
>jpbeland(a)wikimedia.ca> wrote:
>
>> There is so many threads on this list that are only about English
>Wikipedia
>> like it is the centre of the world... Why other communities are able
>to
>> keep their internal discussions internal and not this community?
>>
>> Jean-Philippe Béland
>> Vice President, Wikimedia Canada
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Pax Ahimsa Gethen <
>> list-wikimedia(a)funcrunch.org> wrote:
>>
>> > The people whose opinion should most matter in determining whether
>a
>> > comment is sexist are women. Not men, and not non-binary
>transmasculine
>> > people like myself.
>> >
>> > I support and echo Emily and Molly's earlier comments on this
>thread:
>> >
>> >
>> > Also, in case it's not clear from my forwarding of
>Emily's/Keilana's
>> >> message, I endorse it completely and am glad she made her points.
>> >>
>> >> I agree fully with Keegan and Sydney. I don't think the concerns
>that
>> this
>> >> will be overtaken by bots are well-founded; that was planned for
>in the
>> >> document outlining the competition, and editors involved in this
>project
>> >> will be subject to all expectations of normal editors (including
>not
>> >> mass-producing poor-quality content).
>> >>
>> >> As for Keegan's original post, there is a major difference between
>> >> describing an email as sexist versus labeling the sender as a
>sexist. I
>> >> believe Keegan meant the former, and I'm not sure anything he's
>said can
>> >> be
>> >> described as an attack on the sender so much as a valid criticism
>of
>> poor
>> >> wording.
>> >>
>> >> – Molly (GorillaWarfare)
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 11:44 PM, GorillaWarfare
>> <gorillawarfarewikipedia@
>> >> gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Emily (User:Keilana) is having some trouble getting mails through
>to
>> this
>> >> list, so I'm forwarding this on her behalf in case it's an issue
>with
>> her
>> >> email address.
>> >>
>> >> "This is some sexist bullshit. You really think we can't handle
>some
>> >> stubs? And do you really, really think that people won't try to
>AFD
>> >> everything that comes out of this contest as it is?
>> >>
>> >> I'm sick and tired of this idea that we have to hold shit about
>women
>> to a
>> >> higher standard than literally anything else. The encyclopedia
>isn't
>> going
>> >> to break because, god forbid, some inexperienced newbies write a
>bunch
>> of
>> >> stubs.
>> >>
>> >> And so what if people think we're paying lip service to women?
>It's
>> better
>> >> than being seen as being actively hostile to women, which, as I
>> shouldn't
>> >> have to remind you, is our reputation as it currently stands."
>> >>
>> >> – Molly (GorillaWarfare)
>> >>
>> >
>> > - Pax aka Funcrunch
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 10/16/17 10:11 AM, Todd Allen wrote:
>> >
>> >> Is that still going on?
>> >>
>> >> I'm against sexism and all for improving coverage of women on
>Wikipedia.
>> >> I've helped to encourage events toward that end, and they've
>turned out
>> >> pretty well. We now have quite a few more articles, for example,
>on
>> women
>> >> involved as pioneers in outdoor sports and activities because of
>them.
>> >>
>> >> But I'm unsure how asking the question "Is it wise to offer money
>in
>> >> exchange for creating large numbers of articles without
>consideration of
>> >> quality?" or "Will this effort have the intended result?" is
>sexist. The
>> >> same question would apply if the proposed articles were about
>Russian
>> >> literature or asteroids. It is not sexist to ask the question just
>> because
>> >> of what the subject happens to be.
>> >>
>> >> I think that needs to be discussed, not sidetracked by calling
>people
>> >> sexists. If people really were making sexist statements, I'd be
>all for
>> >> shutting that crap down. But I've seen not one such statement in
>this
>> >> thread.
>> >>
>> >> Todd
>> >>
>> >> On Oct 16, 2017 10:28 AM, "Robert Fernandez"
><wikigamaliel(a)gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> So those who call out sexism are the real sexists, amirite?
>> >>>
>> >>> I am fed up with this double standard in the way we talk about
>these
>> >>> issues. Some people are allowed to make broad, unsupported,
>sweeping
>> >>> generalizations about the motives and actions of others and
>that's
>> >>> considered just fine, but if you call them out in even the
>gentlest
>> tones
>> >>> it's treated as some horrific personal attack, and censure and
>> apologies
>> >>> are demanded. We've culturally internalized sexism so much that
>even
>> the
>> >>> way we talk about sexism is sexist.
>> >>>
>> >>> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Vi to <vituzzu.wiki(a)gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> But just a note: using the same behavior of phenomena you're
>trying to
>> >>>> contast is, per se, a clear defeat.
>> >>>> To be more clear, blind -because you obviously don't know
>*nothing*
>> >>>> about
>> >>>> their backgrounds- vilification of other's opinions is,
>incidentally,
>> >>>> one
>> >>>> the of the main instruments of "cultural" sexism.
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> > --
>> > Pax Ahimsa Gethen | pax(a)funcrunch.org | http://funcrunch.org |
>Pronouns:
>> > they/them/their
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> > i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> > 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>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Jean-Philippe Béland
>>
>> [image: Wikimedia Canada] Vice-président — Wikimédia Canada
>> <https://ca.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page?uselang=fr>, chapitre
>national
>> soutenant Wikipédia
>> Vice president — Wikimedia Canada
>> <https://ca.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page?uselang=en>, national
>chapter
>> supporting Wikipedia
>> 535 avenue Viger Est, Montréal (Québec) H2L
>2P3,jpbeland(a)wikimedia.ca
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> 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>
>>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 4
>Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 19:14:29 +0100
>From: Chris Keating <chriskeatingwiki(a)gmail.com>
>To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Results of the
> 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election
>Message-ID:
> <CAFche1quo=Dj08jYbM4OwdyZPD9Zf8jk1r9hCxN1Uaz9_iY7Mw(a)mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
>Hello all and particularly the Elections Committee!
>
>I just wondered what is happening in terms of post-mortem on the
>elections.
>There was a call for comments on Meta - is there any kind of active
>review
>by the Election Committee happening? I know in previous years the EC
>has
>often made extensive comments to shape future years!
>
>Regards,
>
>Chris
>
>On 21 May 2017 01:33, "matanya moses" <matanya(a)foss.co.il> wrote:
>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> The certified results of the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of
>Trustees
>> election are now available on Meta-Wiki: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2017/Results
>>
>> Congratulations to María Sefidari (User:Raystorm), Dariusz Jemielniak
>> (User:pundit), and James Heilman (User:Doc James) for receiving the
>most
>> community support. Subject to a standard background check, they will
>be
>> appointed by the Board at their August meeting at Wikimania.
>>
>> These results have been certified by the elections committee, the
>> Wikimedia Foundation staff advisors to the committee, and the Board
>of
>> Trustees.
>>
>> There were 5,581 votes cast, with 5,120 of those being valid. The
>461-vote
>> difference comes from recast ballots, where eligible voters recast
>ballots
>> to change their votes, and struck votes, of which there were 34.
>(Some of
>> the recast votes were also struck.)
>>
>> Additional information is available on the Wikimedia Blog:
>>
>https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/05/20/board-of-trustees-elections-2017/
>>
>> More statistics on the elections and a post-mortem from the committee
>will
>> be published in the coming days. In the meantime, we would appreciate
>your
>> input—what went well for you in this election? What could we do
>better
>> next time? These reports are crucial to helping future elections be
>even
>> more successful, and we hope that you will offer your feedback and
>ideas:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_
>> elections/2017/Post_mortem
>>
>> The committee would like to thank everyone that participated in this
>> year’s election for helping make it, again, one of the most diverse
>and
>> representative in the movement’s history.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> – Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Subject: Digest Footer
>
>_______________________________________________
>Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>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>
>
>------------------------------
>
>End of Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 163, Issue 44
>********************************************
