The BBC reports http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-39035512 on a
controversy involvig Uber and its diversity policies.
*Until now, Uber had been standing firm on not publishing its diversity
figures. Most major technology companies make public their EEO-1 - a
government filing that breaks down employees by race, religion, gender and
other factors.*
I assume that the WMF would prefer to align itself with the majority, and
demonstrate its commitment to transparency. Will the WMF publish its EEO-1
figures?
"Rogol"
Hi Milos, You might want to read this signpost article from 2015
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-08-26/In_fo…>
that talked about the rally in very active editors from EN wiki's 2014
nadir. Another interesting measure of the rally, *Time between ten million
edits * <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Time_Between_Edits>was
hitting 73 days in late 2014 and is now back down to about 60.
Of course what we don't know is how much of the perceived decline was down
to the edit filters and therefore how much of the increase in the last
couple of years is simply because the easy wins for edit filters have been
achieved; Or how much of the decline was due to the rise of smartphones and
tablets where Wikipedia is much more of a broadcast medium with
comparatively few editors.
Jonathan/WereSpielChequers
Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2017 03:32:24 +0100
> From: Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Very good news!
> Message-ID:
> <CAHPiQ2GZdSg7vGYGwKdRqrPcn9+_2BcYcWHGfoXHenUujVeYGA@mail.
> gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> This is an extraordinary news for us! For almost 10 years I was hoping
> to see that and, finally, I've seen it!
>
> In short, it seems that we reached the bottom in participation in 2014
> and that we are now slowly going upwards.
>
> My claim is based on the analysis [1] of the Eric Zachte's
> participation statistics on English Wikipedia [2], but I am almost
> sure that the rest of the projects more or less mirror it. But,
> anyway, I encourage others to check other projects and other relevant
> factors and see if their results correlate with what I have found. The
> reasons for the change in trends should be also detected.
>
> If we are looking Eric's statistics from 2010 onwards, it is not
> immediately obvious if we are going up or down. We reached the peak in
> 2007 (German Wikipedia somewhat earlier, other projects later, but
> English Wikipedia is approximately 50% of our activity and its weight
> is too strong for other projects to balance our overall activity).
> After that peak, we went down as quickly as we reached the peak. Then,
> in 2010, the trends flattened.
>
> However, it was not a stagnation, but barely visible recession.
> However, that "barely visible recession" removed approximately 20% of
> the very active editors in the period from 2010 to 2014, while the
> "visible one" -- from 2007 to 2010 -- was also approximately 20%. At
> that point of time, in 2014, the next 10 years would for sure drive
> Wikipedia and Wikimedia movement into insignificance.
>
> Comparing such data is also tricky. It's not just necessary to compare
> the same months (January 2010 with January 2011, 2012 etc.), but there
> could be "freak" months, which are not following general trends.
>
> That's why I used two methods: One is coloring the months by place in
> comparison to the months of the previous years. The other is average
> number per year.
>
> There are at least a couple of important conclusions:
>
> 1) Negative trends have been reversed.
>
> 2) Both 2015 and 2016 were not just better than 2013 and 2014, but
> even better than 2012, while 2016 is just a little bit worse than
> 2011!
>
> 3) December 2016 was even better than December 2010!
>
> 4) I could guess that the period June-November 2016 was worse than the
> same period in 2015 because of the political turbulence. Without them
> -- as May and December 2016 likely show -- 2016 would be not just
> better, but much better than 2015 and maybe even better than 2010.
>
> I would say that the reversal is still fragile and that we should do
> whatever we've been doing the last two years. Yes, detecting what
> we've been doing good (or bad) is not that easy to detect. But, yes,
> better analysis of all of all of the processes should be definitely
> done.
>
> I hope that this shows that we are at the beginning of our
> Renaissance, Wikimedia Renaissance and that the Dark Wikimedia Age is
> behind us! So, please join me in enjoying that fact, even I could be
> wrong. It definitely sounds definitely amazing, even it could be just
> my imagination! :)
>
> [1] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IXYoTI_nCBhhuJAknH5KL450_
> D3V67KWTHuoEAh6540/edit?usp=sharing
> [2] https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaEN.htm
>
> --
> Milos
>
>
>
This is an extraordinary news for us! For almost 10 years I was hoping
to see that and, finally, I've seen it!
In short, it seems that we reached the bottom in participation in 2014
and that we are now slowly going upwards.
My claim is based on the analysis [1] of the Eric Zachte's
participation statistics on English Wikipedia [2], but I am almost
sure that the rest of the projects more or less mirror it. But,
anyway, I encourage others to check other projects and other relevant
factors and see if their results correlate with what I have found. The
reasons for the change in trends should be also detected.
If we are looking Eric's statistics from 2010 onwards, it is not
immediately obvious if we are going up or down. We reached the peak in
2007 (German Wikipedia somewhat earlier, other projects later, but
English Wikipedia is approximately 50% of our activity and its weight
is too strong for other projects to balance our overall activity).
After that peak, we went down as quickly as we reached the peak. Then,
in 2010, the trends flattened.
However, it was not a stagnation, but barely visible recession.
However, that "barely visible recession" removed approximately 20% of
the very active editors in the period from 2010 to 2014, while the
"visible one" -- from 2007 to 2010 -- was also approximately 20%. At
that point of time, in 2014, the next 10 years would for sure drive
Wikipedia and Wikimedia movement into insignificance.
Comparing such data is also tricky. It's not just necessary to compare
the same months (January 2010 with January 2011, 2012 etc.), but there
could be "freak" months, which are not following general trends.
That's why I used two methods: One is coloring the months by place in
comparison to the months of the previous years. The other is average
number per year.
There are at least a couple of important conclusions:
1) Negative trends have been reversed.
2) Both 2015 and 2016 were not just better than 2013 and 2014, but
even better than 2012, while 2016 is just a little bit worse than
2011!
3) December 2016 was even better than December 2010!
4) I could guess that the period June-November 2016 was worse than the
same period in 2015 because of the political turbulence. Without them
-- as May and December 2016 likely show -- 2016 would be not just
better, but much better than 2015 and maybe even better than 2010.
I would say that the reversal is still fragile and that we should do
whatever we've been doing the last two years. Yes, detecting what
we've been doing good (or bad) is not that easy to detect. But, yes,
better analysis of all of all of the processes should be definitely
done.
I hope that this shows that we are at the beginning of our
Renaissance, Wikimedia Renaissance and that the Dark Wikimedia Age is
behind us! So, please join me in enjoying that fact, even I could be
wrong. It definitely sounds definitely amazing, even it could be just
my imagination! :)
[1] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IXYoTI_nCBhhuJAknH5KL450_D3V67KWTHu…
[2] https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaEN.htm
--
Milos
This is a good point Pete. I only know the full circumstances of a couple
of the global bans, but in each case it is based on non-public information
that we would not want going public. Just because each discussion is not
subject to a yes/no decision on Meta, does not mean there is no community
involvement. Generally though, I want to see more leadership from the
Foundation in working against antisocial users, not less.
I'd additionally add that the circumstances around some of these bans it
may be the case that the Foundation would be criminally negligent in *not*
stepping in and taking action. In this case running extensive community
consultation where there can only be one result would be a waste of time,
both for the Foundation and also for the community.
The only suggestion for improvement I'd have is that in a situation like we
have currently where Maggie is sitting in two roles that both should play a
separate oversight role in this process, an extra set of eyes is
temporarily empowered to review and approve. Not that I don't have
complete faith in James, Maggie and Michelle to make a fair and competent
decision, but if it normally requires four separate approvals, transient
staffing issues shouldn't be knocking the requirement down to three (or
two, or one).
Cheers,
Craig
On 18 February 2017 at 06:56, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I want to chime in briefly, since I have direct personal experience in
> WMF0-initiated bans.
>
> Not long ago, Support & Safety took an action to exclude somebody for whom
> I, as a volunteer, felt some responsibility. Initially, I felt that there
> was inadequate communication with me, and as a result the action put me in
> a difficult position. I brought the issue to James Alexander's attention.
> He took the time to discuss the issue in some depth; he acknowledged that
> it should have been handled better by WMF, and assured me that the
> experience would inform future efforts. If we're going to be using letter
> grades, I would James and his colleagues an "A" on the debrief, and I am
> confident that he and his colleagues have done/will do better after the
> fact.
>
> There are good reasons for some bans to be handled by volunteers, and good
> reasons for some bans to be handled entirely by professionals. There are
> also some incidents that clearly fall into a grey area where cooperation is
> needed, and it's important that such incidents be handled with a
> sensitivity to their unique qualities, which requires trust in the various
> people involved to judge how much public communication is appropriate.
>
> Final point -- all of this is now very much a departure from the subject
> line and the original topic, which were about permissions *for WMF staff*.
> If discussion on bans continues, I'd suggest introducing a new subject line.
>
> -Pete
>
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
>
>
> On 02/17/2017 11:49 AM, Adrian Raddatz wrote:
>
>> I'm not convinced of the problem. The WMF global bans are designed to step
>> in where community processes would not be appropriate. From their page on
>> Meta: "global bans are carried out ... to address multi-project
>> misconduct,
>> to help ensure the trust and safety of the users of all Wikimedia sites,
>> or
>> to assist in preventing prohibited behavior". The last two reasons should
>> not be dealt with by the community; our volunteers do not have the
>> resources, qualifications, or liability required to deal with them. But
>> perhaps "multi-project misconduct" could be handled by the WMF
>> differently.
>> Instead of imposing a WMF ban, they could build a case for a community
>> ban,
>> and follow that process instead. As I said though, I'm not convinced that
>> there is a problem with how things are done currently. Some things
>> shouldn't be handled by community governance.
>>
>> Adrian Raddatz
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> How would you suggest modifying the process so that it is compatible with
>>> community governance? Note that while I'm dissatisfied with the system
>>> that
>>> is in place now, I doubt that there will be a perfect solution that is
>>> free
>>> from all possible criticism and drama. I would give the current system a
>>> grade of "C-" for transparency and a grade of "F" for its compatibility
>>> with community governance. I don't expect ether grade to get to an "A",
>>> but
>>> I would be satisfied with "B" for transparency and "B+" for community
>>> governance.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Pine
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Adrian Raddatz <ajraddatz(a)gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Wikimedia isn't a country, the global ban policy isn't a law. Any such
>>>> metaphors are honestly a bit ridiculous. The WMF bans are, for the most
>>>> part, sensitive. And that means that they all need to be, because if you
>>>> have a list of reasons that you can disclose, then any bans without
>>>>
>>> comment
>>>
>>>> are going to be on a very short list of quite serious reasons. Plus, the
>>>> ones without a reason would still have the "wikipediocracy-lite" crowd
>>>>
>>> that
>>>
>>>> seems to dominate this list in a fuss.
>>>>
>>>> It's also worth noting that the WMF provides some basic details of
>>>> global
>>>> bans to certain trusted community groups. The issue isn't with
>>>>
>>> disclosure,
>>>
>>>> it's with mass disclosure.
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 17, 2017 11:09 AM, "Pine W" <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I am glad to hear that WMF global bans are processed through multiple
>>>>> people. Still, I am deeply uncomfortable with the lack of community
>>>>> involvement in this process as well as the lack of transparency. In the
>>>>>
>>>> US
>>>>
>>>>> we don't trust professional law enforcement agencies to make decisions
>>>>> about who should go to jail without giving the accused the right to a
>>>>>
>>>> trial
>>>>
>>>>> by a jury of their peers. Unless we have lost faith in peer governance
>>>>> (which would be a radical break with open source philosophy) I think it
>>>>>
>>>> is
>>>>
>>>>> both unwise and inappropriate to have "the professionals" make these
>>>>> decisions behind closed doors and with zero community involvement in
>>>>>
>>>> the
>>>
>>>> process.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am in favor of professionals working on investigations, and in
>>>>> enforcement of community decisions to ban *after* those decisions have
>>>>>
>>>> been
>>>>
>>>>> made by the community through some meaningful due process. I oppose
>>>>>
>>>> letting
>>>>
>>>>> "the professionals" decide among themselves who should be banned.
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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/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>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>
Dear Wikipedians of the world,
this year the article writing contest CEE Spring takes place for the third
time. It is a contest in which Wikipedians write about topics like the
culture, history, notable people, geography, etc., of the region of Central
and Eastern Europe. We are aiming to close the content gap about the region
on as many Wikipedias as possible and this year we are opening it for local
contests outside of the region. On most Wikipedias we, Wikipedians, write
about our own region and topics of worldwide significance. On most
Wikipedias there would be an article about your own history and the history
of the Roman Empire, but there would not be an article about the Kingdom of
Livonia, there would be an article about Luciano Pavarotti, but not about
Solomiya Krushelnytska, an article about Lord Byron, but not about Hristo
Botev.
You can help us close this knowledge gap by joining CEE Spring and
organising a local contest on your own Wikipedia. It starts on March 21st
and ends on May 31st. The local organisers from the CEE region will prepare
topics on their parts of the world and put them at [1], so that the
participants from your community can find inspiration easily. You can
follow our blog [2] and our Facebook page [3] where we share the stories of
the created articles and interesting topics. If you wish to organise a
contest on your wiki please add your wiki and name at [4].
And if someone creates something exceptional there might be a pleasant
surprise for them one day.
Best regards,
Nikola / User:Lord Bumbury
On behalf of the International Organising Team
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_CEE_Spring_2017/Article_Lists
[2] http://ceespring.eu
[3] https://www.facebook.com/WCEESpring/
[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_CEE_Spring_2017/Participants
Hello everyone,
The next Wikimedia Foundation metrics and activities meeting will take
place on Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 7:00 PM UTC (11 AM PST). The IRC
channel is #wikimedia-office on irc.freenode.net, and the meeting will be
broadcast as a live YouTube stream.
The theme of the February meeting is: “the future of open” – looking into
the future of free and open knowledge in the world and the role our
movement plays in a free and open internet.
Meeting agenda:
* Welcomes, theme introduction
* Movement update
* The Met Museum - Open Access policy
* Wikimedia Foundation values
* Movement strategy update
* Questions and discussion
Please review
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_metrics_and_activities…
for further information about the meeting and how to participate.
We’ll post the video recording publicly after the meeting.
Thank you,
Lena
Lena Traer
Project Assistant // Communications // Advancement
Wikimedia Foundation
149 New Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
After what Asaf and I agree was a sufficient time for a call for
candidates, we've appointed two new list administrators.
Please welcome Shani Evenstein and John Mark Vandenberg as your new list
overlords.
Austin
Hi all!
A lot going on this week, which means we’re making progress. Let’s jump
right in:
*Feedback requested*
There are two items in particular on Meta-Wiki ready for your feedback:
- Updated processes and timelines for Tracks A & B
https://meta.wikimedia.org/?curid=10152629
- Document introducing the movement strategy process for discussions
https://meta.wikimedia.org/?curid=10184031
*Overall process*
- The Core Team met with Eugene Kim (2010 strategy architect) to get a
briefing on the 2010 process. They’ll be updating the on-wiki 2010 audit
and sharing notes from the meeting in the next two weeks.
- We have completed the selection of the leads for three of the tracks.
These leads will help coordinate the efforts for their track and facilitate
alignment across the four tracks. The leads identified so far:
- Track B - Jaime Anstee (with Maggie Dennis)
- Track C - Juliet Barbara (with Caitlin Virtue)
- Track D - Adele Vrana
*Track A (Organized community groups) and Track B (Individual
contributors).*
- We published updated processes for tracks A&B.[1] We made changes
based on ongoing feedback from the Steering Committee and many of you.
Please keep the feedback coming!
- In our most recent session with the Steering Committee we:
- Reinstated the 3rd discussion cycle, so strategy participants will
have more time to prioritize top ideas and discuss the
implications of each
choice.
- Discussed the tension: we need a clear final theme that lets people
make decisions and prioritize work, but our movement naturally is diverse
and organic. How can we be broad while still sharing overall goals?
- We asked the members of the Community Process Steering Committee if
they would extend the charter’s term for two more weeks while we continue
to refine the process. Most members have agreed. We’ll use the time to:
- Simplify all terms and language to make it easier to translate
- Refine the toolkits for hosting/facilitating a strategy discussion
- We proposed a system for collecting, analyzing, and publishing the
summaries from strategy discussions, in multiple languages, on the
Meta-Wiki strategy portal.
- We’re working on an “introduction to strategy discussions” document,
with interesting and relevant information about topics related to strategy.
We will summarize it so anyone can read it in about 30 minutes.
- The work in progress has been shared on Meta-Wiki.[2] In addition to
incorporating feedback provided on-wiki, the Core Team is working with
experts in and outside Wikimedia to further develop the content.
- Please take a look and provide us with feedback on its talk page.[2]
- The Core Team developed a draft facilitation toolkit for community
discussions, and have shared it with the Steering Committee for feedback.
They will publish on Meta-Wiki next week.
- To help get as many people involved in strategy discussions as
possible, we’re asking people to help coordinate and facilitate group
discussions. This toolkit is intended to make this easier.
- The toolkit will some basic premises which we think are important
to our discussion. Please review the draft and help improve these draft
premises.[3]
- The Core Team had a briefing call with the facilitators from Wikimedia
Deutschland for Wikimedia Conference 2017 in Berlin. They discussed the
overall goals and objectives for the conference’s strategy track, which
will be one of the tracks offered at the conference this year.[4]
- 150 of the 168 people invited to the conference for the strategy track
are now registered. This is in addition to the 175 existing attendees to
the main conference.
- The Core Team is working with Asaf Bartov to develop a graphic model
to help convey the evolution, health, and capacity of movement affiliates.
- The hiring process for the Language Specialist Strategy Coordinators
remains on-schedule. We are also on-schedule for filling the Lead role for
Track A, and are hoping to have a final update to share soon.
*Track C (Partners and readers in high-reach markets)*
- We proposed Track C leads, Juliet Barbara and Caitlin Virtue.
- The Core Team and Track C leads met to begin to scope out the overall
plans for partners and readers in high-reach markets. We’ll post a draft
proposal on Meta in the coming week.[1]
- As a part of this planning, we’re evaluating a budget and approach for
market research, local consultations, and convenings.
- Track C will be holding its first convening at an informal salon[5] on
March 2 after the Accelerate Good Global Conference in San Francisco.[6]
The conference is being attended by a number of local community leaders.
*Track D (Partners and readers in low reach markets)*
- The Core Team and Track D lead met to define the timeline, roles, and
process for selecting in-country research firms in low-reach markets. Based
on these discussions, a draft request for proposal was developed and posted
on Meta-Wiki.[7]
- They reviewed 2016 research conducted in Nigeria and India as a part
of the New Readers program[8].
- Adele and Guillaume met about sharing and structuring Track D
processes and content on Meta-Wiki, and have started to post initial
content and structure on the Meta-Wiki strategy portal.[9]
- The Track C and D leads also met to discuss coordination between the
two tracks and areas of potential collaboration.
*Next steps*
- Final feedback on Track A materials. Includes:
- Finalize the process based on feedback collected on-wiki. Share drafts
of toolkits and related materials for facilitating discussions, get
feedback.
- Finalize selection and onboarding of Track A lead.
- Explore the potential for a track C/D salon at the Mobile World
Congress in Barcelona.
- Build expert interview guide for Track D (will also be shared with
Track C).
- Recruit research firms with requests for proposals developed this past
week.[7]
- Provide an update to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees at
their upcoming meeting (2/24).
Also: you may have received a summary of these updates in another mailing
list. Thanks for being patient with the cross-posting! We’re trying to get
the word out, because we want this strategy effort to be truly
movement-wide, across languages, communities, projects, and contributors.
As part of this, I want to say a special thank you to everyone that has
helped translate these updates and other information on the strategy
process![10] Your work is critical to helping us be a truly global
movement.
That was a long note, thanks for reading! See you again next week - same
day, same mailing list(s).
Cheers,
Katherine
PS. A version of this message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.[11]
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Process/De…
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Process/Br…
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Process/Pr…
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2017/Program_Design_Pr…
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salon_(gathering)
[6] http://accelerategood.org
[7]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Track_D/Pr…
[8] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/New_Readers
[9] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Track_D
[10]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Participat…
[11]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Updates/16…
--
Katherine Maher
Wikimedia Foundation
149 New Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
+1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635
+1 (415) 712 4873
kmaher(a)wikimedia.org
Were I a "predatory individuals victimizing underage editors" there would
be a reason to threaten me with a ban for replying to questions from other
editors on my home talk page. But I am not. James' bad faith is
unacceptable.
Fae
On 16 Feb 2017 14:22, "Robert Fernandez" <wikigamaliel(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I don't see the point of paying for legal and community safety experts
if we aren't going to allow them to engage in their area of
professional expertise. Transparency, due process, and community
governance are important values, but they are not the skills you need
to bring to bear when it comes to issues such as, for example,
predatory individuals victimizing underage editors. I know this
sounds like "won't somebody think of the children!" but the thought of
untrained volunteers, however sensitive and well meaning they are,
attempting to deal with an issue like this frightening, and the
thought of what passes for community governance on the English
Wikipedia attempting to deal with this is positively bonechilling. It
has very real consequences for the real, offline lives of victims and
opens volunteers and projects to significant legal jeopardy.
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:57 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> * Based on what I currently know, I disagree with WMF's choice to site-ban
> individuals instead of leaving that decision to the community,
particularly
> when the evidence is not public. It seems to me that this practice is
> incompatible with transparency, due process, and community governance of
> Wikimedia content sites (which notably excludes the Foundation wiki).
_______________________________________________
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>