I thought this was interesting - it acknowledges many issues that come up
frequently in our community - released in January but I believe they still
consider many of these questions as open ones:
https://fbnewsroomus.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/draft-charter-oversight-bo…
Draft Charter: An Oversight Board for Content Decisions
"Every day, teams at Facebook make difficult decisions about what content
should stay up and what should come down.
As our community has grown to more than 2 billion people, we have come to
believe that Facebook should not make so many of those decisions on its own
— that people should be able to request an appeal of our content decisions
to an independent body.
To do that, we are creating an external board. The board will be a body of
independent experts who will review Facebook's most challenging content
decisions - focusing on important and disputed cases. It will share its
decisions transparently and give reasons for them.
The board will be able to reverse Facebook’s decisions about whether to
allow or remove certain posts on the platform. Facebook will accept and
implement the board's decisions.
Facebook takes responsibility for our content decisions, policies and the
values we use to make them. The purpose of the board is to provide
oversight of how we exercise that responsibility and to make Facebook more
accountable.
The following draft raises questions and considerations, while providing a
suggested approach that constitutes a model for the board's structure,
scope and authority. It is a starting point for discussion on how the board
should be designed and formed. What the draft does not do is answer every
proposed question completely or finally.
We are actively seeking contributions, opinions and perspectives from
around the world on each of the questions outlined below."
*Edward Saperia*
Dean of Newspeak House <http://www.nwspk.com>
newsletter <http://www.tinyletter.com/edsaperia> • facebook
<http://www.facebook.com/edsaperia> • twitter
<http://www.twitter.com/edsaperia> • 07796955572
133-135 Bethnal Green Road, E2 7DG
Dear all,
The discussion triggered by recent WMF T&S actions has tended to focus on
the merits or otherwise of that specific action (even though as I have
pointed out elsewhere this is very much a case of those who know don;t talk
and those who talk don't know). So I though it might be helpful to try and
abstract some more general points for discussion.
The long-term future of the Community, and the relationship between the
Foundation and its volunteers is under discussion in an elaborately
structured consultation announced already here in September 2017. It would
not be particularly helpful to try to run a parallel discussion here. But
in the short to medium term, it seems that it will be necessary for the
Foundation to take a different stance with respect to the management of the
various projects, and the English Wikipedia in particular.
It is often said that "The problem with Wikipedia is that it only works in
practice. In theory, it can never work." Well, that's half true. What the
experiment has proved is that the theory was indeed correct -- Wikipedia,
as currently constituted, does not work. There are two inter-related
aspects to its failure: content and conduct, inextricably related in a
project founded on crowd-sourcing.
Let's look at the content first. Even on Wikipedia's own terms, it has
failed. It is a principle that Wikipedia is founded on reliable sources,
and by its own admission, Wikipedia itself is not such a source. That
bears repetition -- a project aiming to be an encyclopaedia, that compares
itself with Britannica, explicitly is not reliable. Foundation research
has shown that about one fifth of Wikipedia articles are supported by
references that are inadequate to support the text or simply are not
there. That's about a million articles each on of the larger Wikpedias.
Some thousands of those are biographies of living people and in view of the
risk of defamation, no such articles should exist on Wikipedia at all.
There are several thousand articles that are possible copyright violations:
again such articles should not be there. And when I say "should not", I
mean according to the rules adopted by the Wikipedia volunteer community
itself.
This links to the conduct aspects. The self-organising policies of the
"encyclopaedia that anyone can edit" have flattened out the formal
hierarchy to the extent that it has been replaced, necessarily, by an
informal but strong hierarchy based on a reputation econiomy. This creates
an unpleasant and hence ineffective working environment, and makes it all
but impossible to organise a volunteer workforce into coping with the major
violations of content policy alreay mentioned. Indeed, the conduct policy
makes it all but impossible to effectively handle cases of major abuse,
witting ot uwitting. For example, one reason for the failure to manage
copyright violations is that some thousand of articles were written by a
volunteer who was unable or unwilling to comply with the copyright
requirements applicable to their contributions There is simply no
mechanism that allows for contributions to be effectively checked either
when contributed or subsequently, bcause there is no mechanism that makes
it possible to manage or organise the work of the volunteers, and existing
community norms will not accept such a degree of organisation.
These mutually reinforcing failures make to necessary for some degree of
organisation and management of content and conduct to be imposed from
outside the volunteer community. The Foundation has the resources and is
the only entity that can acquire and deploy the expertise required to do
so. No doubt this is unpalatable to some of the more vociferous members of
the community -- those who stand highest in the reputation economy and have
most to lose by it being replaced by an effective management policy. But
the fact remains -- Wikipedia is failing, and in its present form will
inevitably continue to do so.
Foundation or failure -- which is it to be?
Thrapostibongles
Hello,
The committee has finished selecting new members and the new committee
candidates are (In alphabetical order):
- Amir Sarabadani
- Lucie-Aimée Kaffee
- MusikAnimal
- Tonina Zhelyazkova
- Tony Thomas
And auxiliary members will be (In alphabetical order):
- Huji
- Matanya
- Nuria Ruiz
- Rosalie Perside
- Tpt
You can read more about the members in [0]
The changes are:
* Nuria and Rosalie are moving from main member to auxilary members
* MusikAnimal is moving from auxilary member to main
* Tonina Zhelyazkova is joining the main members
This is not the final structure. According to the CoC [1], the current
committee publishes the new members and call for public feedback for *six
weeks* and after that, the current committtee might apply changes to the
structure based on public feedback.
Please let the committee know if you have any concern regarding the members
and its structure until *19 June 2019* and after that, the new committee
will be in effect and will serve for a year.
[0]:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct/Committee/Members/Candidates
[1]:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct/Committee#Selection_of_new_m…
Amir, On behalf of the Code of Conduct committee
Best
Dear community,
First I need to mention that the message I sent a few days ago had too
limited information regarding the context of the message. The e-mail was
written by me personally alone, written from my perspective. The email
contained an overview what has happened, written based on e-mails and
eyewitnesses. So if anyone would say it is not true, please add {{Citation
needed}} to that person's saying.
About a month ago I have decided that I will indefinitely no longer attend
any WMF funded events as result of bullying, attempts to silence me,
intimidation and treats against me. This has resulted in that I feel
extremely unsafe as the result of the behaviour of only a few individuals.
This has lead that since the start of this occurring about 18 months ago I
have been over a dozen of times very ill, while I was in the 10 years
before only twice that ill.
I see no indication that the issues addressed are taken seriously, so I see
no safe space for me to be present. In my childhood I was bullied for being
different, I am not interested in a second episode now.
>From my parents I have learned to lend others always a helping hand where I
can. As such I was happy to be able to help the organisers of various
conferences and I always tried to make it a comfortable place for everyone.
To my regret I have been informed that some people have indicated that I
have given them an unpleasant feeling. You must know that I never ever had
such intention (also still largely unsure what of me has given you this
emotion) and I am feeling bad that I gave you such feeling. My apologies!
Some people have indicated with last year's conference that they had an
impression of me while I never ever had intended as such. In the past
period I have been thinking about it what would make some people think that
I gave that impression. This includes that some people think that I was
flirting or something with other people, while I actually had no interest
in the other.
I suspect it might have something to do that I almost never really
introduced myself as I always thought that widely diverse people in our
movement would respect me in my diversity.
Perhaps it is good to create some clarity. Traditionally looking, I
understand people expect me as "man" to fall on women, but I do not fall on
the women present at the conferences, as well as that I have a different
gender identification. In other words: LGBT+ Also I am autistic, having
aspergers, having sensory overloads, being claustrophobic, having a hearing
problem, avoiding touching, having an eidetic memory (photographic memory),
etc, being divergent in comparison to many others, I am feeling a bit
socially clumsy.
The first 8 years in the wiki world I was not feeling safe to meet anyone.
In 2011 I visited the first wiki event when Wikipedia celebrated its 10th
birthday. I felt more and more safe and joined more events. You might have
seen me with my large enthusiasm as I feel by providing knowledge to the
world, we make the world a better place for anyone. Now 8 years later I am
leaving as I am not feeling safe again.
But please, do not get me wrong. I live in a country that would probably
win the world championships in complaining. I believe everyone has the
right to complain, as that I see as part of the basic rights of freedom of
expression and thought. It matters however what happens next with
complaints. Every complaint should be judged by independent individuals,
with impartiality, without also any *appearance* of partiality, with taking
into account *all* information, with care and respect to all individuals
involved. (etc) Also anyone has the right to defend themselves against
allegations *before* conclusions are drawn and before decisions are made.
Among other things, three times a conclusion was drawn without talking with
me, with as excuse "we know how he thinks", sorry, but that is a heavy
insult to me.
Behind the scenes I have been trying to address the issues with dialogues,
as well as various other people, who have indicated their concerns, offered
help, offered (actual) solutions, tried to intermediate, etc etc, zero
results, zero self reflection.
There is a limit of what a human being can bear, my limit is here.
In the world, people have been discriminated for their religion, political
beliefs, the colour of their skin, because of their gender, because of a
different gender identity, how they look like, ..., or just because they
are considered to be "weird" when people do not understand the other. I
would prefer that we do not copy that and instead organise a civilised
complaint handling that works independently.
Many of you gave me a welcome feeling, independent from who/how I am. Thank
you!
As I likely will not meet you again, the one thing that rests me to say is:
thank you for collaborating, talking and sharing your thoughts, I wish you
all the best!
Romaine
Hi all,
Joseph Reagle, of "Good Faith Collaboration" fame, has a new book project
looking at Wikipedia 20 years after its inception.
There are 20-30 essays up for draft review and comments which are qjuite
diverse and interesting.
Check them out and leave comments: https://wikipedia20.pubpub.org/
Cheers,
Jake Orlowitz
The initial message was a private message from Romaine (WMBE Board member)
on his own initiative; not verified, nor approved by (the Board of)
Wikimedia Belgium. Please read this reply carefully in order to try to bring
more clarity.
I have immediately notified Romaine that he abused his function in the WMBE
Board to communicate private matters on the general mailinglist.
Since Monday I am in private contact, both with T&S and the management of
Wikimedia Nederland to follow-up this dispute. This caused delay in replying
to this message. The Wikimedia Belgium Board will continue to evaluate the
situation and take further measures.
Wikimedia Belgium wants to apologize for any moral damage that the initial
message provoked.
What one member of the general assembly did propose is that an internal
audit could be requested to investigate the general behavior, the working,
the completeness of procedures, and the treatment of cases by the Trust and
Safety (T&S), and the grants team.
Specifically, we have encountered as a chapter repeatedly during the last
several years a lack of appeal, both in the T&S complaints handling, and in
the grants team handling sAPG requests.
Specifically in the T&S handling procedures, the rights of the alleged
offender are not sufficiently guaranteed. There is a possibility that rumors
are invoking a punishment without careful verification of the facts, without
the defendants being sanctioned in a neutral way, and without taking into
account certain handicaps like hard-hearing, or autism.
That being said, please stop discussing this specific conflict publicly,
because a lot of important details are missing, are single-sided
interpretations, or even completely wrong.
-- Geert Van Pamel, chair of Wikimedia Belgium
The initial message was a private message from Romaine (WMBE Board member)
on his own initiative; not verified, nor approved by (the Board of)
Wikimedia Belgium. Please read this reply carefully in order to try to bring
more clarity.
I have immediately notified Romaine that he abused his function in the WMBE
Board to communicate private matters on the general mailinglist.
Since Monday I am in private contact, both with T&S and the management of
Wikimedia Nederland to follow-up this dispute. This caused delay in replying
to this message. The Wikimedia Belgium Board will continue to evaluate the
situation and take further measures.
Wikimedia Belgium wants to apologize for any moral damage that the initial
message provoked.
What one member of the general assembly did propose is that an internal
audit could be requested to investigate the general behavior, the working,
the completeness of procedures, and the treatment of cases by the Trust and
Safety (T&S), and the grants team.
Specifically, we have encountered as a chapter repeatedly during the last
several years a lack of appeal, both in the T&S complaints handling, and in
the grants team handling sAPG requests.
Specifically in the T&S handling procedures, the rights of the alleged
offender are not sufficiently guaranteed. There is a possibility that rumors
are invoking a punishment without careful verification of the facts, without
the defendants being sanctioned in a neutral way, and without taking into
account certain handicaps like hard-hearing, or autism.
That being said, please stop discussing this specific conflict publicly,
because a lot of important details are missing, are single-sided
interpretations, or even completely wrong.
-- Geert Van Pamel, chair of Wikimedia Belgium
Greetings,
We have some spots still available for presentations at next week's
Wikimedia monthly activities meeting on 27 June 2019 starting at 18:00 UTC.
If you have anything you are working on which you would like to share with
the wider movement, here is your chance! :)
Signup on Meta-Wiki (
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_monthly_activities_meetings/Sign_…)
or ping us via email (activitiesmeeting(a)wikimedia.org) if you are
interested.
Thank you!
-greg
--
Gregory Varnum (pronouns - he/his/him)
Communications Strategist
Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
Hello,
This is an announcement about a new installment of the Language Showcase, a
series of presentations about various aspects of language diversity and its
connection to Wikimedia Projects.
This new installment will deal with Machine Translation and how we are
seeing their use in Wikimedia projects.
This session is going to be broadcast over YouTube, and a recording will be
kept for later viewing. You can also participate in the conversation on IRC
or with us on the hangout. However, please do let us know earlier so that
we can send you a hangout invite.
Please read below for the event details, including local time, YouTube
links and do let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you!
Amir
== Details ==
# Event: Language Showcase #2
# When: June 26, 2019 (Wednesday) at 13:00 UTC (check local time
https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20190626T1300)
# Where:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uG3eU1tohok
IRC - #wikimedia-office (on Freenode)
# Agenda:
The usage of Machine Translation in Wikimedia projects.
--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
Dear all,
I would like to inform you about my resignation from the Executive Board of
Shared Knowledge, effective from 1 July 2019.
After spending almost ten years on the boards of Wikimedia Macedonia and
Shared Knowledge with the last five years as president of Shared Knowledge,
this was a difficult decision for me but, in order to allow the
organisation adapt to the ever-changing environment in the movement, it
seems like the right time to make this step has come. The reasons for my
decision to step down are mostly personal, including lack of time, lack of
motivation, and hunger for new challenges.
To give a better insight of my board experience, I can effectively divide
it to two different but related periods: the first five years spent as a
board member of Wikimedia Macedonia as a passive chapter were marked by
extensive learning about the movement and the programmes of the other
chapters with a limited amount of educational activities; the second five
years spent as president of Shared Knowledge as an active user group were
marked by executing the learning into practice with several programmes
abundant with projects and events.
The exact meaning of my resignation is, however, not retirement from the
movement but rather a substantial reduction of the time spent on some
activities. My future plans are to remain active in the movement in other
capacities.
I would like to thank you all for the collaboration so far and express my
hopefulness to extend it in my non-presidential role from now on. I will
not leave this mailing list and will continue following the news from the
movement.
Best regards,
Kiril Simeonovski
Chair of the Executive Board of Shared Knowledge