I cant believe this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/The_World_…
has
got WMF funding, the idea of trying to create 100,000 stub articles on
english wikipedia without any thought to how it'll impact on the
community.
I find it ironic that a competition is being funded to encourage current
contributors to do what we wont accept from new editors. If a new editor
was to create an article it wouldnt pass through the Articles for Creation
process because its half the size of the minimum set there. Many of the
competition articles will just get tagged CSD - A1, A7, A9 even G2
While there is a nice bot that will count the size of the prose, there is
no automated process for checking copyright violations, checking for
notability and most importantly checking for BLP with the aim of 100,000
the community will years to clean up the mess that is about to be created.
we are 15 days from this disaster commencing
--
G
nangarra
Dear Wikimedians,
Years ago, as part of the first Strategy process of 2009-2010, a
distinction entered our lives, between Global North and Global South
countries. That distinction was borrowed from a United Nations agency
named ITU, and it was used as shorthand to refer to communities the
Foundation considered to need additional resources and help to achieve
impact on our mission of creating and sharing free knowledge.
However, the distinction was never a very good fit for us. It was based on
UN notions like the Human Development Index, and gave much weight to
nation-wide economic conditions. Its binary nature did not allow for
distinguishing between countries where Wikimedia work is possible and
happening, albeit with difficulty, and ones where no Wikimedia work, or
next to none, is happening, or possible. It also looked only at geography,
whereas much of our work is defined by language communities and not by
geographies. And it was political and alienating to many people.
In short, it was both not as useful as we needed it to be as well as
unloved and rejected by many.
The Community Resources team at the Wikimedia Foundation has been thinking
about replacing that distinction with a more nuanced one, that would be a
much better fit with our needs, would take into account the actual state of
editing communities, would consider multiple axes beyond geography, and
would be less controversial.
We began using the term "emerging communities" two years ago, first as a
replacement for the term Global South, but it has always been our intention
to define Emerging Communities ourselves. Finishing the proposed
definition took a back seat for a while due to other priorities, but we are
ready to share the proposed definition today:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement/Defining_Emerging_Comm…
We welcome your thoughts, on the talk page (ideally) or on this thread.
The definition is already our working definition, but we are open to
incorporating changes to both wording and substance through October 31st.
Be sure to take a look at the FAQ supplied at the bottom of the page, too.
:)
Cheers,
Asaf
Hi Gnangarra
I've heard bad things about the articles for creation process, but a
minimum of either 1.5 kb or 2,000 bytes of prose is a new one on me. Can
you link to that part of the AFC rules? I have reread things such as
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/
Reviewing_instructions and found one perfectly sensible comment about
deleting single sentence "articles". But 1,000 bytes would be a jolly long
sentence. AFC has its flaws, and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone, but is
it really as flawed as you assert?
As for the women in red contest, you might want to read the rules, and if
you have concerns there is a currently redlinked talkpage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_
talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/The_World_Contest/Rules&action=edit&redlink=1
I've made a couple of bold tweaks to the competition rules myself, but they
did already cover notability and of course copyvio. Though a contest aimed
at existing editors is less likely to hit problems in those areas as an
outreach editathon targeted at new editors - there we do need to explain
our notability rules and sadly often teach people about copyright and
plagiarism.
As for criticising a project for aiming for 100,000 articles when they only
have 4 judges and 108 participants, it is two weeks until it starts and
they have a watchlist notice up to recruit more people either as
participants or judges note
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/The_World_…
-* "If you want to help judge the contest or help out with running it
please ensure that you add your name in the judges section on the main
page"* I could understand at the end of a project having that sort of
criticism if they had got ambitious but not tried to recruit enough
participants. However at this stage such criticism is premature and
probably misdirected. A more nuanced view would be to look at the end and
check whether they succeeded in their objective and whether they achieved
sufficient participation both of editors and judges. Criticising a project
that doesn't start for another two weeks for having insufficient judges and
participants when it currently in a major site wide recruitment drive for
judges and participants seems premature to me.
Alternatively one could look at the objective and ask whether creating
100,000 articles on women was sufficient, insufficient or excessive to deal
with the known gender gap in our coverage. The 100,000 target looks about
right to me and it will be interesting to see how much progress people can
make on it in a one month contest, but if someone is uncomfortable about it
it would be sensible to go through the figures and check if that is an
appropriate target for the problem. Treating such an ambitious target as a
problem without acknowledging that Wikipedia has coverage gaps on that
scale comes across almost as denial of the problem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 22:02:50 +0800
> From: Gnangarra <gnangarra(a)gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Women in red
> Message-ID:
> <CAD==kbLkFbP+MKzQ=wg4ApZXVqMyp1osM6tNL8i8==K-PL+ZCg@mail.
> gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> I cant believe this
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in
> _Red/The_World_Contest
> has
> got WMF funding, the idea of trying to create 100,000 stub articles on
> english wikipedia without any thought to how it'll impact on the
> community.
>
> I find it ironic that a competition is being funded to encourage current
> contributors to do what we wont accept from new editors. If a new editor
> was to create an article it wouldnt pass through the Articles for Creation
> process because its half the size of the minimum set there. Many of the
> competition articles will just get tagged CSD - A1, A7, A9 even G2
>
> While there is a nice bot that will count the size of the prose, there is
> no automated process for checking copyright violations, checking for
> notability and most importantly checking for BLP with the aim of 100,000
> the community will years to clean up the mess that is about to be created.
>
> we are 15 days from this disaster commencing
>
> --
> G
> nangarra
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 08:47:30 -0600
> From: James Heilman <jmh649(a)gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Women in red
> Message-ID:
> <CAF1en7ULzbw+6Gf7c1=HNoFX-pRvM7A4FdYCfp9HusVk+3Kg8w@mail.
> gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Correction:
>
> There is a tool that automatically checks for copyright infringement.
> It is called CopyPatrol
>
> https://tools.wmflabs.org/copypatrol/en
>
> James
>
the linkedin page of emeric says that WMFR has 1.2 Mio Eur budget, 15 FTE
employees. which year was this?
https://www.linkedin.com/in/evallespi/
DirectorCompany NameWikimédia FranceDates EmployedDec 2012 – Sep 2017
Employment
Duration4 yrs 10 mosLocationMontpellier | Paris
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/800480/>
- June 2017 to present : Board of trustees member
- May 2016 to may 2017 : Chairman / President
- October 2014 to April 2016: Vice-chair
- December 2012 to September 2014: Deputy treasurer
Wikimedia France is a non-profit organization (based on "the Association
act of 1901" in France) which promotes and supports 14 projects, the best
known is Wikipedia. The 3 main missions are:
- Increase contents on this projects (quality and quantity) ;
- Facilitation of interested communities ;
- Action on the environment (economic, legal, technical) to make it
favorable to our movement.
Budget: € 1,200,000
Team (Full Time Equivalent) : 15
Main skills: strategy, volunteers & staff management, dyarchical
governance, international relationships, financial and accounting analysis,
internal control, human resources, labour law, press and media
relationships, public policy, lobbying, internal and external communication.
rupert
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
Hi everyone!
I'm very happy to announce that the Affiliations Committee has recognized
Wikimedia Community User Group Malaysia [1] as a Wikimedia User Group. The
group aims to act as a hub for Wikimedians in Malaysia, organizing public
outreach activities around the county, promoting Wikipedia and the various
Malaysian Wikimedia projects, and collaborating with the wider regional and
international Wikimedia community.
Please join me in congratulating the members of this new user group!
Regards,
Kirill Lokshin
Chair, Affiliations Committee
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_User_Group_Malaysia
(Thank you for sharing widely in your communities!)
Dear Wikimedia friends,
The Annual Plan Grants FDC process needs your eyes, brains and analytic
skills again!
Since 1 October, 10 organizations have posted their proposal for review by
the FDC...and you. These consist of annual plans and budgets, with a detail
of what programs and activities those organizations are planning for the
coming 12 months.
This opens the time for community review, a month-long process in which we
need as many people as possible giving their feedback on the proposals,
asking questions or clarifications and analyzing the initiatives that our
movement affiliates and partners have developed for the year to come.
In November, the FDC will meet to make recommendations to Wikimedia
Foundation's Board of Trustees on how to allocate movement funds to these
affiliates in order to achieve the most impact. Your input and
participation will be valuable as they make these recommendations.
You can find the proposals linked from the Community review portal here:
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2017-2018_round_1>
The organizations whose proposals, plans and budgets are available for your
review include: Amical Wikimedia, Wiki Education Foundation, Wikimedia
Argentina, Wikimedia CH, Wikimedia Czech Republic, Wikimedia Israel,
Wikimedia Nederland, Wikimedia Serbia, Wikimedia UK, and Wikimedia
Deutschland, e.V. You can leave your feedback on the proposals discussion
page.
Visit the annual plan grant portal [*] for more information about the
program, the FDC, or upcoming milestones. You can also reach the FDC
support staff at <FDCsupport(a)wikimedia.org>. More information about past
APG rounds, Recommendations, and reports from organizations can be found on
the proposals page: <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals>.
*More about community review:*
The APG proposal submission date is followed by a 30-day open comment
period, when anyone is invited to provide input on and ask questions about
a specific proposal on its discussion page. Applicants are also expected to
respond to input and questions during this period, although they are not
able to change the proposal form itself after the submission date.
The FDC will review the discussion pages during their deliberations in
November as one of many inputs to the decision-making process. While anyone
may comment on proposals after the open comment period closes on 31
October, the FDC may not be able to take comments made after this period
into consideration when reaching its decisions.
*How to review:*
Please visit the community review page to view the proposals being
considered and follow the instructions. While the proposals are only
available in English, your comments can be in any language.
*Why your feedback matters:*
We hope this open comment period will add to an in-depth and robust review
of each proposal, and help keep our grantmaking transparent and
collaborative. The FDC highly values feedback and insights from the
Wikimedia community in making its funding recommendations.
Thank you for the time you’ll take to review these proposals.
Best,
Delphine
[*] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals
--
Delphine Ménard
Program Officer
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Delphine_(WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Delphine_(WMF)>