Your thesis implies admin actions made this list unpopular. I think it is
plain to see this *wasn't* the case with this list. Indeed, some opinions
voiced in this thread indicate people want *more* admin action.
A.
On Aug 26, 2017 6:30 PM, "John Erling Blad" <jeblad(a)gmail.com> wrote:
1. The list gets popular
2. The list attracts people
3. The people sends emails
4. Other people reads emails with opinions
5. Other people don't want to read about other peoples opinions
6. Other people want to limit other peoples opinions
7. Admins starts to wonder how to limit emails
8. Admins starts to limit people
9. Admins makes list unpopular
…
This has no simple solution, and it can easily turn a living forum into a
dead forum.
_______________________________________________
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>
Hoi,
I was invited to positively give my opinion about the Wikimedia mailinglist
and its use by one of the list managers.
So the first thing to consider is what is the list for. This is largely a
given because of its name; it is to discuss things that are primarily
concerned with "Wikimedia" both as a movement and as an organisation. It is
not about Wikipedia in general, it has its own list; wikipedia-l, and there
are even lists for language specific Wikipedias.
The topic of Wikimedia makes it very much a macro or high level. It follows
that many of the subjects that are not topical elsewhere have there proper
home on this list. When a post transcends a local list because there is a
high level consideration, Wikimedia-l is also the right venue.
Some topics that are of interest to me and are high level are: the multi
linguality of our projects and its support. As a consequence the lack of
funding and interest in other languages. As a movement we agree on the need
to consider the gender gap. However there are other diversity issues that
do not get attention. When quality improvements are possible in multiple
projects, the discussion about this starts here.
What I have found is that this whole notion of the purpose of this list is
lost. When a topic raised on the list is answered with high level
arguments, it is easily seen as "highjacking". That is normal because from
a sociological point of view, high level considerations and low level
considerations often work in different directions (think Coleman).
Then there is another consideration; intent. The objective of this list is
to discuss ways whereby we can understand and improve what is happening in
our movement. For me it follows that when it is known for a list member to
actively undermine our foundation, he has no place here. That *is *the kind
of noise we can do without. When someone is punished for having a point of
view that aims to improve what we do but has a position that is not the
flavour of the month, it is a different story. The list itself has a
problem when these to considerations are not part of the management of the
list.
The current proposals will not improve the Wikimedia-l because it is
restrictive in its approach. It is what some people may want, a lower
volume. But others like myself have weaned themselves of Meta because it is
such a time sink. There are at this time other platforms as well where
people obstruct (imho) probably with good intentions but without
understanding of the arguments that it has become virtually impossible to
come to a consensus anyway. Floating arguments on Wikimedia-l is one way to
get a traction, actively working towards the hoped for outcome and blogging
makes it complete for me.
With the current restrictions proposed, I do not feel safe. There is no
longer room to reflect on arguments. There is no longer room to reply
because of this arbitrary limitation to post.
Remember, this list is to make a positive difference for our movement. Few
posts only allow for making statements and not for discussions. Many of the
arguments put forward are arguably wrong even detrimental to what we do.
Thanks,
GerardM
Hello everyone,
This is to let community know that I've successfully completed creating
"Picture of the Day" templates for Mainpages of various Wikipedias in the
languages of Russia
See this project description @ https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikipedias_in_the_languages_of_Russia/ActionPlan/Potd
regards,
farhad
P.S. Reposting it here per Amir's recommendation in the email below.
-------- Пересылаемое сообщение --------
27.08.2017, 11:17, "Amir E. Aharoni" <amir.aharoni(a)mail.huji.ac.il>:
Nice!
Recommendation: Post it to the Wikimedia-L list. Wikipedia-L is not really
active. Besides, this is something that goes beyond just Wikipedia.
--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
2017-08-27 11:03 GMT+03:00 Фархад Фаткуллин / Farkhad Fatkullin <
frhd(a)yandex.com>:
> Hello everyone,
>
> This is to let community know that I've successfully completed creating
> "Picture of the Day" templates for Mainpages of various Wikipedias in the
> languages of Russia
> See this project description @ https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikipedias_in_the_languages_of_Russia/ActionPlan/Potd
>
> regards,
> farhad
>
> --
> Farkhad Fatkullin - Фархад Фаткуллин http://sikzn.ru/ Тел.+79274158066 /
> skype:frhdkazan / Wikipedia:frhdkazan
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-------- Конец пересылаемого сообщения --------
--
Farkhad Fatkullin - Фархад Фаткуллин http://sikzn.ru/ Тел.+79274158066 / skype:frhdkazan / Wikipedia:frhdkazan
Hi everyone,
I wanted to give you all a heads up about the upcoming Dev Summit. This year the Summit will be held in San Francisco on January 22nd and 23rd, 2018. We are still finalizing the details and will be sending out the call for participation soon. But meantime, we wanted to share a preview of the game plan with you so that you can hold the dates and begin to think about ways of participating.
This has been a year of strategy making for the Foundation and our communities. As the way forward becomes clearer, we, the technology community entrusted with delivering the products and infrastructure for supporting the community vision, need to reflect on what the movement strategy means for us and how to best prepare, plan and execute that support. This year, the Developer Summit is dedicated to this reflection. We invite technologists, managers and users to study, reflect and propose ways to support the strategic vision we are committed to. We would like you to capture your thoughts in a short position statement and join the conversation.
Specifically, we invite you to think about ways of imagining, creating, planning, building and maintaining the technology foundation needed to enable the key tenets of our strategy:
The infrastructure for open: We will empower individuals and institutions to participate and share, through open standards, platforms, and datasets. We will host, broker, share, and exchange free knowledge across institutions and communities. We will be a leading advocate and partner for increasing the creation, curation, and dissemination in free and open knowledge.
An encyclopedia, and so much more: We will adapt to our changing world to offer knowledge in the most effective ways, across digital formats, devices, and experiences. We will adapt our communities and technology to the needs of the people we serve. As we include other forms of free knowledge, we will aim for these projects to be as successful as Wikipedia.
Reliable, relevant information: We will continue our commitment to providing useful information that it is reliable, accurate, and relevant to users. We will integrate technologies that support accuracy at scale and enable greater insight into how knowledge is produced and shared. We will embrace the effort of increasing the quality, depth, breadth, and diversity of free knowledge, in all forms.
This direction poses key questions for our technical community. Here are some example topics we would welcome ideas and discussion in:
How do we maintain and grow the technical community and ready it for the mission ahead?
What should the role of open source be in the next 15 years of the movement? How does it help or hinder? How do we promote it or adapt it? How do we leverage it?
What are the foundational building blocks for the language technologies we will need in order to be present everywhere where there are people?
Scaling. What tools do we need as the movement and the community grow?
What are the implications of the strategic direction for our infrastructure? Do we have any key gaps in this infrastructure? How ready is our infrastructure for what is to come?
How should MediaWiki evolve to support the mission?
What technologies are necessary for embracing mobility?
We operate in parts of the world where access to free knowledge is blocked, hindered or plain dangerous. What tools do we need to support these at-risk communities?
How and with whom should we partner to create the technologies needed to support the mission?
How can we leverage machine learning and analytics to support the mission and our communities?
What are emerging trends in technology that will impact our mission in the next 5-10-15 years?
These conversations will be invaluable input to the next phase of the strategy process as we shift from exploration to definition to execution. We are energized, excited and hopeful for a great set of thoughtful, impactful conversations.
As we embark on this journey we want to have an open but focused dialog so we are aiming for a smaller participant cohort than previous Dev Summits. We want to encourage everyone to consider these questions and put forward ideas in the form of a short position paper or abstract. We are selecting a Program Committee that consists of respected technologists and best represents the diversity of our communities. The Program Committee will screen and evaluate the position papers in a blind review process and will select those that best fit the strategic intent of this Summit. The authors will then be invited to participate. We hope to attract those within our community who are passionate about the future, hold a point of view and have concrete ideas for how we best use technology to support the objectives of the movement through 2030. We will bring the ideas and learnings from the Summit to the broader technology community during the upcoming hackathons and related events in the tech calendar.
So stay tuned for the Call for Participation! Looking forward to seeing you in San Francisco!
Victoria & the TechCom
I haven't taken part in discussions about the endowment for several
years, not least because the argument appears to have been won and an
endowment is being established. But if things have changed so much
that people are arguing that there is a choice between long-term
stability and short-term content contribution, then perhaps it is time
that I restated two of the arguments for an endowment.
For some of us who volunteer our time for these projects long term
stability or at least survival of content is itself a motivation. I
have put tens of hours of my time into sites that have sputtered and
then died. I have put far far more time into Wikimedia sites, and part
of my motivation is that my small contributions are part of something
much bigger that will probably help people for a long long time to
come.
There is also an important incentive re short term contributions from
digital curators in the GLAM sector. One of the positives that we
offer our GLAM partners is the increased probability that their
digitisation will persist and still be available for the foreseeable
future if they upload a copy on commons. An endowment increases the
credibility of that offer. What I'd like to see coming from the WMF re
the endowment is communication as to when the endowment has reached
the point where the WMF can commit to hosting Wikimedia Commons for
the foreseeable future. Ideally both as a blogpost for external
audiences and a contribution to the GLAM newsletter for internal
audiences.
Regards
Jonathan / WereSpielChequers
> On 23 Aug 2017, at 07:44, 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: RFC on wikimedia-l posting limits (Alessandro Marchetti)
> 2. t (Rogol Domedonfors)
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 07:25:23 +0100
> From: Rogol Domedonfors <domedonfors(a)gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding the endowment
> Message-ID:
> <CAN5-TAymNh_S76QOqLpB60j9BrxKtbgmo=duQWNf4LPsmFbc+g(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> James
>
> Certainly. When the probability of last year's fundraising effort
> generating more income than had been expected emerged, there was a
> discussion here about how that "surplus" might be used. There were some
> suggestions for using it to directly assist the members of the volunteer
> community in their work of contributing content -- such as funding books,
> on- and off-line library subscriptions, for the content contributors -- or
> improving the contributing environment -- such as hiring more devs for
> community tech projects -- or building the community -- such as extra
> funding for community events. That money, once gone, would be gone
> forever, and there is the risk that further donations would not be
> forthcoming at the same rate. The alternative, which was adopted, was to
> give it to the Endowment to generate a permanent income which might be used
> to fund such acitivities in the future. That money once in the Endowment
> is, presumably, always in the Endowment, and the income can be relied on to
> a reasonable extent.
>
> The Board has chosen to favour long-term stability over short-term content
> contribution. That is clearly their prerogative, but it is a choice, and a
> choice that affects the community her and now. It seems reasonable to ask
> the Board to explain to the community, who provide the content, and whose
> work sustains the entire mission, and which ultimately motivates people to
> make such generous donations, why, given that opportunity, they did not see
> it as so important to give them more in the way of direct help in
> contributing that content and building that community.
>
> Rod
>
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 11:31 PM, Joseph Seddon <jseddon(a)wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Rogol I don't understanding how you have interpreted this as a choice
>> between community and stability.
>>
>> Could you explain?
>>
>> Seddon
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 9:08 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <domedonfors(a)gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Lisa
>>>
>>> Thanks anyway. Perhaps one of the members of the Board will comment, in
>>> the interests of transparency.
>>>
>>> Ronald
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 8:57 PM, Lisa Gruwell <lgruwell(a)wikimedia.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sorry, I wasn't at the meeting, so I can't speak to that.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
>>> domedonfors(a)gmail.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Lisa
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for that explanation. If it had already been decided to
>>>> contribute
>>>>> the $5M to the Endowment before the offer of matching funds, then
>> there
>>>>> would be no appearance of the offer influencing the Board's decision.
>>>> Can
>>>>> you confirm that was the case? But the main point of my question to
>>> the
>>>>> Board is to ask why they decided that placing this large sum into the
>>>>> Endowment was more important than using it to support the work of the
>>>>> volunteer community (whether or not the offer of matching funds was
>>> part
>>>> of
>>>>> that decision) directly. Can you throw any light on their reasons?
>>>>>
>>>>> Rudyard
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 6:38 PM, Lisa Gruwell <
>> lgruwell(a)wikimedia.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Just jumping in with a few points of information regarding the
>>>> Endowment:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) I met with Lukas at Wikimania regarding SRI and the endowment.
>> As
>>>>> James
>>>>>> indicated, the endowment is invested through the Tides Foundation
>> and
>>>>> this
>>>>>> is one of the areas of expertise. We have been looking at
>>>> environmental,
>>>>>> social, and governance (ESG) ratings as well as how funds perform
>>>> against
>>>>>> the benchmarks financially. We are going to be publishing more
>>>>> information
>>>>>> about this soon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) Regarding the matching grant, this funder has made large grants
>> to
>>>> the
>>>>>> Wikimedia Foundation for general support for our annual work for
>>>> almost a
>>>>>> decade. They have also now provided major support to the
>> endowment.
>>>>> They
>>>>>> have provided generous support for our present work and our future
>>>> work.
>>>>>> It is positive thing that this grant was positioned as a matching
>>>> grant.
>>>>>> It doubles the impact of a portion of the contributions that our
>>> online
>>>>>> donors made this year. It is a great story that we are sharing
>> with
>>>>> other
>>>>>> potential endowment donors. We are hoping to find another major
>>> donor
>>>>> (or
>>>>>> donors) that will match the $5 million for the endowment that is in
>>> the
>>>>> FY
>>>>>> 2017-18 annual plan as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>> Lisa
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 9:15 AM, James Heilman <jmh649(a)gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have been send further details. As expected Tides (who runs our
>>>>>>> endowment) has a strong philosophy around social justice.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.tides.org/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> James
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Cristian Consonni <
>>>>> cristian(a)balist.es>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2017 17:03, James Heilman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Andrea I agree completely that movement monies should be
>>> invested
>>>>>>> inline
>>>>>>>>> with our values. We should not be invested in stuff that
>>> promotes
>>>>> war
>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>> surveillance for example. I would image this is currently the
>>>> case
>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>> would have to verify.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I wholeheartedly agree with Andrea.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> C
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> 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>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> James Heilman
>>>>>>> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Seddon
>>
>> *Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)*
>> *Wikimedia Foundation*
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 23:44:55 -0700
> From: George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] RFC on wikimedia-l posting limits
> Message-ID: <99AD38E6-BEC3-41D3-A356-B810C4638AEC(a)gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> The 15 limit is busted regularly by normal active posters. I disagree with that one.
>
> George William Herbert
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Aug 22, 2017, at 9:03 PM, John Mark Vandenberg <jayvdb(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi list members,
>>
>> The list admins (hereafter 'we', being Austin, Asaf, Shani and I, your
>> humble narrator) regularly receive complaints about the frequent
>> posters on this list, as well as about the unpleasant atmosphere some
>> posters (some of them frequent) create.
>>
>> It is natural that frequent posters will say specific things that more
>> frequently annoy other list members, but often the complaints are due
>> to the volume of messages rather than the content of the messages.
>>
>> We are floating some suggestions aimed specifically at reducing the
>> volume, hopefully motivating frequent posters to self-moderate more,
>> but these proposed limits are actually intending to increasing the
>> quality of the discourse without heavy subjective moderation.
>>
>> The first proposal impacts all posters to this list, and the last
>> three proposals are aimed at providing a more clear framework within
>> which criticism and whistle-blowing are permitted, but that critics
>> are prevented from drowning out other discussions. The bandwidth that
>> will be given to critics should be established in advance, reducing
>> need to use subjective moderation of the content when a limit to the
>> volume will often achieve the same result.
>> --
>>
>> Proposal #1: Monthly 'soft quota' reduced from 30 to 15
>>
>> The existing soft quota of 30 posts per person has practically never
>> been exceeded in the past year, and yet many list subscribers still
>> clearly feel that a few individuals overwhelm the list. This suggests
>> the current quota is too high.
>>
>> A review of the stats at
>> https://stats.wikimedia.org/mail-lists/wikimedia-l.html show very few
>> people go over 15 in a month, and quite often the reason for people
>> exceeding 15 per month is because they are replying to other list
>> members who have already exceeded 15 per month, and sometimes they are
>> repeatedly directly or indirectly asking the person to stop repeating
>> themselves to allow some space for other list members also have their
>> opinion heard.
>> --
>>
>> Proposal #2: Posts by globally banned people not permitted
>>
>> As WMF-banned people are already banned from mailing lists, this
>> proposal is to apply the same ‘global’ approach to any people who have
>> been globally banned by the community according to the
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_bans policy.
>>
>> This proposal does not prevent proxying, or canvassing, or “meat
>> puppetry” as defined by English Wikipedia policy. The list admins
>> would prefer that globally banned people communicate their grievances
>> via established members of our community who can guide them, rather
>> than the list admins initially guiding these globally banned people on
>> how to revise their posts so they are suitable for this audience, and
>> then required to block them when they do not follow advice. The role
>> of list moderators is clearer and simpler if we are only patrolling
>> the boundaries and not repeatedly personally engaged with helping
>> globally banned users.
>> --
>>
>> Proposal #3: Identity of an account locked / blocked / banned by two
>> Wikimedia communities limited to five (5) posts per month
>>
>> This proposal is intended to strike a balance between openness and
>> quality of discourse.
>>
>> Banned people occasionally use the wikimedia-l mailing list as a
>> substitute of the meta Request for comment system, and banned people
>> also occasionally provide constructive criticisms and thought
>> provoking views. This proposal hopes to allow that to continue.
>>
>> However people who have been banned on a few projects also use this
>> list as their “last stand”, having already exhausted the community
>> patience on the wikis. Sometimes the last stand is brief, but
>> occasionally a banned person is able to maintain sufficient decorum
>> that they are not moderated or banned from the list, and mailing list
>> readers need to suffer month after month of the banned person
>> dominating the mailing lists with time that they would previously have
>> spent editing on the wikis.
>> --
>>
>> Proposal #4: Undisclosed alternative identities limited to five (5)
>> posts per month
>>
>> Posting using fake identities allows people to shield their real life
>> *and* their Wikimedia editing 'account' from the repercussions of
>> their actions. This provision to allow fake identities on wikimedia-l
>> is necessary for whistle-blowing, and this mailing list has been used
>> for that purpose at important junctures in the history of the
>> Wikimedia movement.
>>
>> However it is more frequently abused, especially by some ‘critics’ who
>> have used incessant hyperbole and snark and baiting to generally cause
>> stress to many readers. Sometimes this is also accompanied with many
>> list posts on various unrelated threads as the ‘critic’ believes their
>> criticism is so important that all other discussions about Wikimedia
>> should be diverted until their problem has been resolved to their
>> satisfaction, which is unlikely anyway.
>>
>> Note this explicitly does not include anyone posting using their real
>> world identity, whether or not they have a Wikimedia account.
>>
>> Where a poster does not clearly link to either Wikimedia account, or
>> does not appear to be using a real identity, and only after it is
>> exceeding the five post limit, the list admins will privately ask the
>> poster to either verify their identity or stop posting until the end
>> of the month. Very frequently a whistle-blower is able and even
>> prefers to be documenting the problem on meta, but needs the high
>> profile of this list to spark the discussion and draw attention to
>> their meta page.
>>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> The five post allowance for proposals 3 and 4 are to ensure that
>> anyone who has not been globally banned can post criticisms without
>> repercussions, which is vital for whistleblowing and transparency
>> generally, but they need to use their five posts per month wisely.
>> Once they have used their five posts, community members can reply with
>> less concern about being drawn into a direct argument with the poster.
>> It aims to force the poster to listen to others in the community once
>> their limit of five posts has been reached.
>>
>> If there is support for these proposals, the list admins would not
>> immediately add moderation or bans, but would implement them as
>> needed, when we notice someone has exceeded one of these limits, and
>> we would make a note on a meta page where the community can review
>> these actions without allowing moderation meta-discussion to dominate
>> the discourse on the mailing list. Refinements to the list moderation
>> limits can then occur organically as we see how these rules plays out
>> in practise.
>>
>>
>> The RFC is at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/wikimedia-l-post-limits
>>
>> However please also feel welcome to reply on-list if you wish to
>> express explicit support or opposition to any of the four proposals
>> above (please identify them by number, to ease counting). We will
>> count votes (here and on the meta RFC) after two weeks, and post a
>> more refined final version back to this mailing list.
>>
>> The list administrators will default to *enacting* all four proposals,
>> but will refrain from enacting any proposal receiving more opposition
>> than support.
>>
>> --
>> John Vandenberg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> 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 161, Issue 67
> ********************************************
Hey Wikimedia-l
Apologies for the short notice.
I wanted to give you a heads up on a banner test that will soon be going
live.
We've been working on a new style of banner that is specifically designed
to have the same native look and feel as the rest of the site and
interface. It's intended to be understated and you'll see is very different
to our currently best performing banner:
Current:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein?banner=B1718_0823_en6C_dsk_p1…
New Native feel:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein?banner=B1718_0823_en6C_dsk_p1…
Any feedback is welcome.
Regards
--
Seddon
*Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)*
*Wikimedia Foundation*
I was surprised to read the record
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Approval_of_Endowment_fundi…
of the decision to place $5M into the endowment. After the anouncement by
Lisa Gruwell on this list
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-December/085712.html
there was a discussion of what might be done with the funds raised, and a
number of suggestions were made for how these funds could be used to
directly support the work of the volunteers who contribute the content to
the projects, such as
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-January/085835.html.
It is disappointing that the Board has chosen not to fund support of this
kind. What is more than disappointing, but positively disturbing is that
the decision was made in the light of an offer from a donor to match the
sum put into the endowment. I suggest that this was not a fair offer, and
the Board's decision was the wrong one. Effectively this donor has said to
the Board that they will pay the Foundation not to support the volunteers,
and the Board has agreed to follow their wishes. If the donor believes so
strongly in the necessity to build up the mission by means of an Endowment,
why did they not simply gift the money directly into the endowment without
conditions? Equally, if the donor believes so strongly that money should
not be spent supporting the volunteer community, then I challenge them to
say so explicitly in public and to defend their position.
I call on the Board to explain to the community of volunteers precisely why
they have chosen not to offer that support to the community and to state
that they will not allow future decisions of this nature to be influenced
by the wishes of one donor, however generous.
"Rogol"
In a recent blog post, "No, we’re not in a post-fact world. On Wikipedia,
facts matter.", the Foundation referred to Wikipedia editors"sharing
breaking news in record time". It is true that the English-language
Wikipedia is increasingly carrying articles about newsworthy events, and
this in spite of its WP:NOTNEWS policy.
Has the Foundation made a conscious decision to promote Wikipedia as a
source of news, and if so, what were the results of its discussions with
the Wikipedia and Wikinews communities? Will the Foundation allocate any
extra resources to this effort?
Rognvald
Hi everyone,
The Community Tech team has released a new security feature this week:
LoginNotify, which gives you a notification when someone tries and fails to
log in to your account. This project was wish #7 on the 2016 Community
Wishlist Survey [1].
Here’s how it works:
If someone tries and fails to log in to your account from a device or an IP
address that hasn’t logged into your account recently, then you’ll get an
on-wiki notification at the first attempt. For a familiar device or IP
address, you’ll get an on-wiki notification after 5 failed logins. This is
on by default, but you can turn it off in your preferences; you can also
turn on email notifications.
It’s also possible to turn on email notifications when there’s a successful
login from a new device or IP address. This is turned off by default, but
it might be useful for admins or other functionaries who are concerned that
their user rights could be misused. This means that you’ll get a
notification every time you log in from a new device or IP address.
We want to take this opportunity to thank Brian Wolff for all his work in
writing the underlying extension for this feature.
There’s more information on the feature on the Community Tech project page
on Meta, and please feel free to post questions on the talk page:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Tech/LoginNotify
PS: If you’re wondering what happened to the Syntax Highlighting beta
feature that we deployed a couple weeks ago and then had to roll back:
it’ll be back soon!
[1]: 2016 Community Wishlist Survey:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2016_Community_Wishlist_Survey/Results
Hi everyone,
WMF's Community Tech team team is happy to announce that Wikitext Editor
Syntax Highlighting has been released as a beta feature today on all LTR
Wikimedia projects!
Syntax Highlighting was the #6 request in this year's Community Wishlist
Survey [1] -- a way to help editors parse the wikitext in the edit window
by using color, bolding, italics and size to make it easier to see which
parts are article text, and which are links, templates, tags and headings.
It's easy to separate the link target from the actual link text, section
headings are bigger, and adding bold and italics actually changes the way
it looks in the edit window. Plus -- thanks to the amazing performance
optimization done by volunteer developer Pastakhov -- it loads a lot faster
than previous versions of syntax highlighting.
Unfortunately, the feature isn't available in RTL languages yet; we're
working on some bugs, and we'll release it as soon as we can. We're also
hoping to improve the Syntax Highlighting performance for people who also
use the "New wikitext mode" Beta feature.
You can find Syntax Highlighting under the Beta features tab in
Preferences. I hope you all love it and find it useful! If you've got
feedback, you can click on the Discussion link in Beta features, or leave
comments and questions on the Community Tech project talk page. [2] Thanks!
Danny Horn
Senior Product Manager
WMF Community Tech
[1] Community Wishlist Survey:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2016_Community_Wishlist_Survey/Results
[2] Project talk page:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Community_Tech/Wikitext_editor_syntax_…