Wikimedia-l December 2021

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

78 participants
52 discussions

Recruiting movement organizers for pilot of geo-based metrics
by Jaime Anstee 15 Dec '21

15 Dec '21

TL;DR: The Global Data & Insights team is recruiting [1] Wikimedia movement researchers, organizers, grantees, and affiliates to partner in piloting and consulting on some new movement metrics in February and March 2022. The Global Data & Insights team will launch a pilot [2] beginning February 2022 for consultation on a new project mapping existing Wikimedia Movement engagement data by geography. The project intends to surface existing data to help our movement have a better understanding of diversity, equity, and inclusion across known pathways for engaging with Wikimedia, including reading and editing or organizing programs, grants, or affiliates. It will help us answer shared questions about who is in our movement, what voices may be missing, and where. They are looking for volunteers who are actively engaged in strategic planning, implementation, or research focused on the Wikimedia movement’s development along two specific use cases to which the pilot metrics are geared toward. * Use Case 1: Directing grant funds and resource opportunities to spaces ready for growth * Use Case 2: Directing non-monetary support and partnership opportunities to spaces ready for development and able to support the work. Read more in our diff blog [1] and meta portal [3]. Thanks for your time and attention. Best, Jaime [1] https://diff.wikimedia.org/2021/12/15/measuring-our-movement-ecosystem-a-ne… [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_Data_and_Insights_Team/Movement_Data… [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_Data_and_Insights_Team/Movement_Data… -- Jaime Anstee, PhD (she/her/they) Lead Strategist, Global Data & Insights Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/> *Local Timezone: Pacific (UTC-8)* *"Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment." * Donate <https://donate.wikimedia.org>

1 0

[Wikimedia Research Showcase] Online Learning
by Janna Layton 15 Dec '21

15 Dec '21

Hello all, The next Wikimedia Research Showcase will be held Wednesday, December 15 at 17:30 UTC (9:30 PT / 12:30 ET / 18:30 CET). You can view the livestream here: https://youtu.be/HKODaHgmQWw <https://www.google.com/url?q=https://youtu.be/HKODaHgmQWw&sa=D&source=calen…> The Showcase will feature the following talks: *Latin American Youth and their Information Ecosystem: Finding, Evaluation, Creating, and Sharing Content Online* The increased importance the Internet plays as a core source of information in youth's lives, now underscored by the pandemic, gives new urgency to the need to better understand young people’s information habits and attitudes. Answers to questions like where young people go to look for information, what information they decide to trust and how they share the information they find, hold important implications for the knowledge they obtain, the beliefs they form and the actions they take in areas ranging from personal health, professional employment or their educational training. In this research showcase, we will be summarizing insights from focus group interviews in Latin America that offer a window into the experiences of young people themselves. Taken together, these perspectives might help us to develop a more comprehensive understanding of how young people in Latin America use the Internet in general and interact with information from online sources in particular. Speakers: Lionel Brossi and Ana María Castillo. Artificial Intelligence and Society Hub at University of Chile. -- Characterizing the Online Learning Landscape: What and How People Learn Online Hundreds of millions of people learn something new online every day. Simultaneously, the study of online education has blossomed with new systems, experiments, and observations creating and exploring previously undiscovered online learning environments. In this talk I will discuss our study, in which we endeavor to characterize this entire landscape of online learning experiences using a national survey of 2260 US adults who are balanced to match the demographics of the U.S. We examine the online learning resources that they consult, and we analyze the subjects that they pursue using those resources. Furthermore, we compare both formal and informal online learning experiences on a larger scale than has ever been done before, to our knowledge, to better understand which subjects people are seeking for intensive study. We find that there is a core set of online learning experiences that are central to other experiences and these are shared among the majority of people who learn online. Speaker: Sean Kross, University of California San Diego https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/Showcase -- Janna Layton (she/her) Administrative Associate - Product & Technology Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>

1 2

AI Q&A Systems and Wiki Platforms
by Adam Sobieski 14 Dec '21

14 Dec '21

Hello, I have an idea for a new Wikimedia sister project [1] that I would like to share, here, for discussion. This idea occurred when considering a recent AI project, Delphi [2]. The gist of the idea is a wiki Q&A platform [3] designed for interoperation with AI Q&A systems. As envisioned, AI research teams could download the wiki Q&A software platform, install the software, and then develop AI Q&A systems which interoperate with the scalable wiki platform using the platform’s API. The gist includes that these AI systems could bootstrap Q&A pages with automatically-generated answers to questions such that expert users could subsequently edit these pages, providing input for the continuously improving AI systems. In theory, such structured wiki’s could generate XHTML utilizing appropriate Web schema [4][5] for broader interoperability. Each structured wiki page could contain multiple answers and each answer could be supported by explanation and argumentation. Each structured wiki page, a question and answer(s), could also have an accompanying discussion page or threaded forum [6] as well. Scenarios of specific interest to me include moral question answering systems like Delphi [2]. The indicated approach would seemingly require some paraphrase detection components to detect paraphrases of questions. I hope that these ideas are of some interest. Any thoughts on these topics? Best regards, Adam Sobieski [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_new_projects [2] https://delphi.allenai.org/ (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2110.07574.pdf) [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q%26A_software [4] https://schema.org/Question [5] https://schema.org/Answer [6] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Structured_Discussions

1 1

December 14 Conversation hour about organizing for #WikiForHumanRights 2022
by Alex Stinson 14 Dec '21

14 Dec '21

*TL:DR --* Join us for a Conversation hour December 14 at 1500 UTC to learn how to organize for WikiForHumanRights 2022. Hello Everyone! #WikiForHumanRights: Right to a Healthy Environment 2022 [1]is back! From April 15 through to June 14 2022 we encourage local affiliates, individuals or organizations interested in the campaign to organize activities around the intersecting themes of human rights and the environment. If you are interested in organizing your community for the campaign, please join us for a conversation hour on December 14 at 1500 UTC [4] (more details below) to learn how you can participate. Why the Right to a Healthy Environment? This October, the Right to a Healthy Environment was formally recognized [1] by the United Nations Human Rights Council. According to Michelle Bachelet, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights: "A safe, clean, healthy, and sustainable environment is the foundation of human life. But today, because of human action – and inhuman inaction – the triple planetary crises of climate change, pollution, and nature loss is directly and severely impacting a broad range of rights, including the rights to adequate food, water, education, housing, health, development, and even life itself."[2] The environmental crisis is getting more complex. Humanity needs to make thousands of big and small decisions to address it. As the UN Environmental Program described it, we need to make “Peace with Nature”[3] and protect the human rights of the most vulnerable. Wikipedia and other platforms need to fill the knowledge gaps at the intersection of sustainability and human rights in every context and language. The world needs access to reliable information about the link between environmental sustainability and human rights. What can you do? Help us organize! We need your help! The campaign will officially launch on April 15 (one week before Earth Day), but we need your help now to begin preparing this global call to action. Last year we had 24 community-led editathons, workshops, webinars, and writing contests, with contributions to over 2000 articles in more than 40 languages. To match (and hopefully exceed) these impacts, we need your help to organize your local communities! Activities related to human rights and sustainability are good topics for local communities to both a) identify new partners, b) recruit enthusiastic participants and c) fill key topics for impact in their own language or context. Join the Conversation to learn more! Join us for 1.5 hours of conversation Tuesday the 14th December 2021 15:00 UTC on Zoom <https://wikimedia.zoom.us/j/84871090509> [4], to learn more about: - How you can participate in this campaign and organize local events in your community or region. - Which topics this campaign will target, and how you can connect with subject matter experts, partners, and other resources to support successful content creation activities. - How the Wikimedia Foundation Campaigns team can support you in designing your event and doing targeted outreach to potential contributors drawn to these topics. Organizers can find more information at this (still under development): page on Meta <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiForHumanRights>[5] If you want to join us as an organizer, please join our Telegram Group <https://t.me/joinchat/k_W9SVMG5K44YjJh>[6] If you have any questions send us an email at campaigns(a)wikimedia.org Looking forward to hearing you in the conversation, Ruby Damenshie-Brown and Alex Stinson [1] https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/10/1102582 [2] https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=27443 [3] https://www.unep.org/interactive/making-peace-nature/ [4] https://wikimedia.zoom.us/j/84871090509 [5]https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiForHumanRights [6] https://t.me/joinchat/k_W9SVMG5K44YjJh -- Alex Stinson Senior Program Strategist Wikimedia Foundation Twitter: @sadads Learn more about how the communities behind Wikipedia, Wikidata and other Wikimedia projects create calls to action to invite new contributors through campaigns: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Campaigns

3 4

Re: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 355, Issue 3
by Nosebagbear 13 Dec '21

13 Dec '21

Quoth its own page, the BOT's remit is " The Wikimedia Foundation *Board of Trustees* oversees the Wikimedia Foundation and its work", not the Movement. If the BOT wants to act as an actual representative body (which it doesn't claim to be) then it would need significant rework and a clear statement that that's what voters were voting for. As to the issue raised by another on meta-rfcs being dominated by en-wiki (although the stats I've seen on recent ones don't show a wild disparity compared to the large plurality of all editors), I actually raised a proposal specifically to factor that in for the actual UCOC ratification, but the selection of that method (to avoid a "turtles all the way down" issue) would inherently need to be something pre-standing - UCOC drafting committee would certainly be fine there. The WMF was heavily opposed to proposals to do a much more distributed approach to avoid that specific issue, in the last ratification meeting hosted. That meeting in general, unlike its predecessor, was significantly more fractious. In general, a good demonstration on why ratification methodologies are a good thing to specify before every side has had a chance to become highly invested in an actual draft language. *Richard (Nosebagbear)* Unless otherwise stated within this email, any Movement Charter viewpoints expressed represent my own position(s), and *not* the aggregate judgement of the MCDC. On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 at 13:09, <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, please visit > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikimedia-l.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: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 355, Issue 1 (Gerard Meijssen) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2021 14:08:26 +0100 > From: Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 355, Issue 1 > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > Message-ID: > < > CAO53wxUmGy3DO3aqEj4FdAkv6Ho6oEzaa7PxbpRjyGDgcbJzSA(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > boundary="00000000000058672505d306c5f4" > > Hoi, > The community as such does not have any standing. They are represented by > some members in the board. People may volunteer to be part of all kinds of > committees. When they do they do not represent anything but themselves. The > committees play a role because they have been giving standing by the board. > Thanks, > GerardM > > On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 at 13:08, Nosebagbear <nosebagbear(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > I don't believe I stated it had a remit under the law - indeed, I'm > pretty > > confident I did not. > > > > Almost none of our bodies have legal personae, so that would have been an > > odd thing for me to say, so I'm somewhat confused on why you indicate I > > did. > > > > But we are a project that is built on our internally agreed > > responsibilities and relations - which includes our remits (the BOT, to > the > > degree that even it has a legal remit, is fairly narrow). As an example, > > the UCOC drafting committee has a very clear remit, but not one that's > > enshrined in law. > > > > p.s. Mea culpa on forgetting to change the title - didn't want to change > > this one *now* as I don't know if that would split the thread. Happy for > > someone to change to an appropriate title. > > > > *Richard (Nosebagbear)* > > > > Unless otherwise stated within this email, any Movement Charter > viewpoints > > expressed represent my own position(s), and *not* the aggregate judgement > > of the MCDC. > > > > > > On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 at 11:57, <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, please visit > >> > >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikimedia-l.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: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 348, Issue 3 (Gerard Meijssen) > >> > >> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> Message: 1 > >> Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2021 12:56:51 +0100 > >> From: Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> > >> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 348, Issue 3 > >> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > >> Message-ID: > >> <CAO53wxVEwnU= > >> Aa-27GAuAJXy3yrJ25aJBkPKRyTk2-jJTSvBww(a)mail.gmail.com> > >> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > >> boundary="00000000000056b3ac05d305c5c3" > >> > >> Hoi, > >> Why is it that you consider the "community" a single body that has a > remit > >> under the law for anything? It is not and it has not. > >> Thanks, > >> GerardM > >> > >> On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 at 11:40, Nosebagbear <nosebagbear(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> > Dear Patrick, > >> > > >> > Firstly, you (and in this case, I mean, "I notified members of T&S > >> policy, > >> > directly, in discussions where they were involved, as did others" all > >> the > >> > way back in phase 1) were made aware of the community need for > >> ratification > >> > far before the ArbCom letter. > >> > > >> > Which of these is the case: that the WMF only notified the Board of a > >> need > >> > for actual community ratification when the Arbcom open letter was > made, > >> or > >> > that the Board declined to consider it as a need prior to that point? > >> > > >> > Secondly, why does the Board feel that they should be "consider[ing] > the > >> > input received so far on what would make a fair and practical > process." > >> - > >> > there are only two bodies with a reasonable remit to be specifying the > >> > nature of any ratification method. In the weaker position is the UCOC > >> > drafting committee, and in the first place, the Community as a whole, > >> > probably by a meta-RfC. Please provide the reasoning for this process. > >> > > >> > *Richard (Nosebagbear)* > >> > > >> > Unless otherwise stated within this email, any Movement Charter > >> viewpoints > >> > expressed represent my own position(s), and *not* the aggregate > >> judgement > >> > of the MCDC. > >> > > >> > > >> > On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 at 21:13, <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, please visit > >> >> > >> >> > >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikimedia-l.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: [Marketing Mail] Re: Closing the comment period for the > >> >> Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Draft Guidelines and next step > >> >> (Andreas Kolbe) > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >> > >> >> Message: 1 > >> >> Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2021 21:12:54 +0000 > >> >> From: Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com> > >> >> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: [Marketing Mail] Re: Closing the comment > >> >> period for the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Draft > >> >> Guidelines > >> >> and next step > >> >> To: Patrick Earley <pearley(a)wikimedia.org> > >> >> Cc: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > >> >> Message-ID: > >> >> < > >> >> CAHRTtW9h69ewsO1V3M6HzGn4EmUGLb0GvX9bKD+Q0Hi6T_F8jg(a)mail.gmail.com> > >> >> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > >> >> boundary="00000000000055427605d280b9bb" > >> >> > >> >> Hi Patrick, > >> >> > >> >> Thank you for your clarification. So if I understand correctly, there > >> will > >> >> be no UCoC policy text review before sometime in 2023. > >> >> > >> >> As this is quite a long time away, would it be possible to provide > some > >> >> answers to the questions I asked earlier? > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… > >> >> > >> >> For example: According to the Universal Code of Conduct, are > >> >> Wikipedians/Wikimedians allowed – > >> >> > >> >> – To blog about what happens on Wikipedia? > >> >> > >> >> – To discuss edits traceable to, say, the Russian or US government > on- > >> and > >> >> off-wiki, without the permission of the people making these edits? > >> >> > >> >> – To discuss cases of individuals engaging in revenge editing or > >> >> subverting > >> >> Wikipedia for commercial or criminal ends (recall the recent > Christian > >> >> Rosa > >> >> case), or to help the press with related enquiries (recall e.g. > >> >> > >> >> > >> > https://www.dailydot.com/irl/wikipedia-sockpuppet-investigation-largest-net… > >> >> and the input made by User:Doctree to that article)? > >> >> > >> >> – To notify the authorities when they believe a crime has been > >> committed > >> >> or > >> >> is about to be committed? > >> >> > >> >> Or should all of these actions categorically be considered harassment > >> of > >> >> fellow contributors, and the contributors engaging in these actions > be > >> >> subject to blocks and bans? > >> >> > >> >> I think it is important for people to understand the Code's intent > >> >> correctly. > >> >> > >> >> Best, > >> >> Andreas > >> >> > >> >> On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 6:42 PM Patrick Earley <pearley(a)wikimedia.org > > > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > Hi Andreas, > >> >> > > >> >> > The review of the policy text is planned one year after the close > and > >> >> the > >> >> > ratification of the enforcement outlines, which are still being > >> revised > >> >> by > >> >> > the Drafting Committee. Detailed information of the policy text > >> review > >> >> > will be communicated soon, as the revised guidelines are published > >> for > >> >> > comment and ratification. The review will likely follow > established > >> >> policy > >> >> > update formats, such as those used for the Terms of Use. [1] > >> >> > > >> >> > Patrick > >> >> > > >> >> > [1] > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment > >> >> > > >> >> > On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 11:10 AM Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> Hi Patrick, > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Thanks. You say, > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> *The policy was ratified by the Board last February.[1] That > said, a > >> >> >> policy must be adapted over time as it is put into practice and > >> >> >> complications arise. The main text of the UCoC must be adaptable, > >> and > >> >> >> there will be a full review and update of the text one year after > >> the > >> >> close > >> >> >> and ratification of the current phase, which is looking at > >> enforcement > >> >> >> pathways.[2] We fully expect refinements at that time.* > >> >> >> > >> >> >> If the policy was ratified last February, and "there will be a > full > >> >> >> review and update of the text one year after the close and > >> >> ratification", > >> >> >> does that mean there will be some sort of review of the policy > text > >> in > >> >> >> February 2022? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Or did you mean something else? And where will that review take > >> place? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Thanking you in advance for your clarification. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Best, > >> >> >> Andreas > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 6:05 PM Patrick Earley < > >> pearley(a)wikimedia.org> > >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >>> Hello, all. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> In reply to these questions and a few received via direct email: > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> Questions about the content of the Universal Code of Conduct > policy > >> >> >>> itself are very legitimate, but unrelated to the current process > >> under > >> >> >>> review with the Board. The policy was ratified by the Board last > >> >> >>> February.[1] That said, a policy must be adapted over time as it > is > >> >> put > >> >> >>> into practice and complications arise. The main text of the UCoC > >> >> must be > >> >> >>> adaptable, and there will be a full review and update of the text > >> one > >> >> year > >> >> >>> after the close and ratification of the current phase, which is > >> >> looking at > >> >> >>> enforcement pathways.[2] We fully expect refinements at that > time. > >> >> Figuring > >> >> >>> out how to manage some areas of policy is challenging. Doxxing > is a > >> >> very > >> >> >>> difficult area to form policy around, and I know the Drafting > >> >> Committee > >> >> >>> from Phase 1 worked hard to reflect best practices around the > >> >> movement in > >> >> >>> this area. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> To clarify, Nosebagbear: Youngjin was reminding folks to get > their > >> >> last > >> >> >>> thoughts in for the current work the Drafting Committee is doing > on > >> >> >>> revising the text. It wasn’t meant to imply that there will be > no > >> >> more > >> >> >>> discussion on the Guidelines before a ratification process takes > >> >> place. The > >> >> >>> revisions to the draft Guidelines will be published on Meta for > >> >> comment and > >> >> >>> discussion as soon as the committee feels they have incorporated > >> the > >> >> input > >> >> >>> received over the last few months. This message was just meant > as a > >> >> >>> reminder to anyone who might not have been aware of the draft > >> review. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> In terms of what we’re reviewing with the Board, it is a process > >> for > >> >> >>> ratification in response to a request from the global arbitration > >> >> >>> committees. They are not being asked to ratify the Enforcement > >> >> Guidelines > >> >> >>> at this time. As to how and when ratification of the guidelines > >> will > >> >> take > >> >> >>> place, thoughts and opinions from the Drafting Committee, > community > >> >> members > >> >> >>> and functionaries, and the Board of Trustees will inform the > >> details. > >> >> >>> We’ll communicate a full ratification plan after the Board meets > in > >> >> >>> mid-December and considers the input received so far on what > would > >> >> make a > >> >> >>> fair and practical process. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> Patrick > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> [1] > >> >> >>> > >> >> > >> > https://www.mail-archive.com/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/msg35984.html > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> [2] > >> >> >>> > >> >> > >> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ#Periodic_revi… > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 11:37 PM Peter Southwood < > >> >> >>> peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net> wrote: > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>>> Fair comment. > >> >> >>>> P > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> -----Original Message----- > >> >> >>>> From: nosebagbear(a)gmail.com [mailto:nosebagbear@gmail.com] > >> >> >>>> Sent: 27 November 2021 13:04 > >> >> >>>> To: wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > >> >> >>>> Subject: [Marketing Mail] [Wikimedia-l] Re: Closing the comment > >> >> period > >> >> >>>> for > >> >> >>>> the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Draft Guidelines and > >> next > >> >> step > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> Hello, > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> I would make a couple of notes here: > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> One is that when you say "comment period will end", that can't > be > >> of > >> >> the > >> >> >>>> process. > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> There are numerous open questions that we have yet to see any > >> draft > >> >> >>>> policy > >> >> >>>> text on - they can't go into the final document without chance > for > >> >> open > >> >> >>>> review and further revision. > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> While I've heard bits about how they will be discussed, we've > seen > >> >> >>>> nothing > >> >> >>>> formal and nothing in writing. > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> Please let me know BEFORE the 29th how that will be handled to > the > >> >> >>>> community's expectations. As the inherently most controversial > >> bits > >> >> >>>> (that's > >> >> >>>> why they were open questions!) the actual next needs MORE time > to > >> >> review > >> >> >>>> than the aspects already there, not less. > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> Yours, > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> Nosebagbear > >> >> >>>> _______________________________________________ > >> >> >>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, > >> >> >>>> guidelines at: > >> >> >>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > >> >> >>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > >> >> >>>> Public archives at > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> > >> >> > >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/ > >> >> >>>> message/GD5CSLNTF7XBCQVCEZT7CGD7XHQ2PRIQ/ > >> >> >>>> < > >> >> > >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… > >> >> > > >> >> >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to > >> >> wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> -- > >> >> >>>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > >> >> >>>> https://www.avg.com > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> _______________________________________________ > >> >> >>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, > >> >> >>>> guidelines at: > >> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > >> >> >>>> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > >> >> >>>> Public archives at > >> >> >>>> > >> >> > >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… > >> >> >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to > >> >> wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> -- > >> >> >>> Patrick Earley > >> >> >>> Lead Trust & Safety Policy Manager > >> >> >>> Wikimedia Foundation > >> >> >>> pearley(a)wikimedia.org > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> _______________________________________________ > >> >> >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, > >> >> guidelines > >> >> >>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > >> >> >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > >> >> >>> Public archives at > >> >> >>> > >> >> > >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… > >> >> >>> To unsubscribe send an email to > >> wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > -- > >> >> > Patrick Earley > >> >> > Lead Trust & Safety Policy Manager > >> >> > Wikimedia Foundation > >> >> > pearley(a)wikimedia.org > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >>

1 0

Re: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 355, Issue 1
by Nosebagbear 13 Dec '21

13 Dec '21

Hello, I don't believe I stated it had a remit under the law - indeed, I'm pretty confident I did not. Almost none of our bodies have legal personae, so that would have been an odd thing for me to say, so I'm somewhat confused on why you indicate I did. But we are a project that is built on our internally agreed responsibilities and relations - which includes our remits (the BOT, to the degree that even it has a legal remit, is fairly narrow). As an example, the UCOC drafting committee has a very clear remit, but not one that's enshrined in law. p.s. Mea culpa on forgetting to change the title - didn't want to change this one *now* as I don't know if that would split the thread. Happy for someone to change to an appropriate title. *Richard (Nosebagbear)* Unless otherwise stated within this email, any Movement Charter viewpoints expressed represent my own position(s), and *not* the aggregate judgement of the MCDC. On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 at 11:57, <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, please visit > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikimedia-l.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: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 348, Issue 3 (Gerard Meijssen) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2021 12:56:51 +0100 > From: Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 348, Issue 3 > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > Message-ID: > <CAO53wxVEwnU= > Aa-27GAuAJXy3yrJ25aJBkPKRyTk2-jJTSvBww(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > boundary="00000000000056b3ac05d305c5c3" > > Hoi, > Why is it that you consider the "community" a single body that has a remit > under the law for anything? It is not and it has not. > Thanks, > GerardM > > On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 at 11:40, Nosebagbear <nosebagbear(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear Patrick, > > > > Firstly, you (and in this case, I mean, "I notified members of T&S > policy, > > directly, in discussions where they were involved, as did others" all the > > way back in phase 1) were made aware of the community need for > ratification > > far before the ArbCom letter. > > > > Which of these is the case: that the WMF only notified the Board of a > need > > for actual community ratification when the Arbcom open letter was made, > or > > that the Board declined to consider it as a need prior to that point? > > > > Secondly, why does the Board feel that they should be "consider[ing] the > > input received so far on what would make a fair and practical process." - > > there are only two bodies with a reasonable remit to be specifying the > > nature of any ratification method. In the weaker position is the UCOC > > drafting committee, and in the first place, the Community as a whole, > > probably by a meta-RfC. Please provide the reasoning for this process. > > > > *Richard (Nosebagbear)* > > > > Unless otherwise stated within this email, any Movement Charter > viewpoints > > expressed represent my own position(s), and *not* the aggregate judgement > > of the MCDC. > > > > > > On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 at 21:13, <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, please visit > >> > >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikimedia-l.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: [Marketing Mail] Re: Closing the comment period for the > >> Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Draft Guidelines and next step > >> (Andreas Kolbe) > >> > >> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> Message: 1 > >> Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2021 21:12:54 +0000 > >> From: Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com> > >> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: [Marketing Mail] Re: Closing the comment > >> period for the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Draft > >> Guidelines > >> and next step > >> To: Patrick Earley <pearley(a)wikimedia.org> > >> Cc: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > >> Message-ID: > >> < > >> CAHRTtW9h69ewsO1V3M6HzGn4EmUGLb0GvX9bKD+Q0Hi6T_F8jg(a)mail.gmail.com> > >> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > >> boundary="00000000000055427605d280b9bb" > >> > >> Hi Patrick, > >> > >> Thank you for your clarification. So if I understand correctly, there > will > >> be no UCoC policy text review before sometime in 2023. > >> > >> As this is quite a long time away, would it be possible to provide some > >> answers to the questions I asked earlier? > >> > >> > >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… > >> > >> For example: According to the Universal Code of Conduct, are > >> Wikipedians/Wikimedians allowed – > >> > >> – To blog about what happens on Wikipedia? > >> > >> – To discuss edits traceable to, say, the Russian or US government on- > and > >> off-wiki, without the permission of the people making these edits? > >> > >> – To discuss cases of individuals engaging in revenge editing or > >> subverting > >> Wikipedia for commercial or criminal ends (recall the recent Christian > >> Rosa > >> case), or to help the press with related enquiries (recall e.g. > >> > >> > https://www.dailydot.com/irl/wikipedia-sockpuppet-investigation-largest-net… > >> and the input made by User:Doctree to that article)? > >> > >> – To notify the authorities when they believe a crime has been committed > >> or > >> is about to be committed? > >> > >> Or should all of these actions categorically be considered harassment of > >> fellow contributors, and the contributors engaging in these actions be > >> subject to blocks and bans? > >> > >> I think it is important for people to understand the Code's intent > >> correctly. > >> > >> Best, > >> Andreas > >> > >> On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 6:42 PM Patrick Earley <pearley(a)wikimedia.org> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Hi Andreas, > >> > > >> > The review of the policy text is planned one year after the close and > >> the > >> > ratification of the enforcement outlines, which are still being > revised > >> by > >> > the Drafting Committee. Detailed information of the policy text > review > >> > will be communicated soon, as the revised guidelines are published for > >> > comment and ratification. The review will likely follow established > >> policy > >> > update formats, such as those used for the Terms of Use. [1] > >> > > >> > Patrick > >> > > >> > [1] > >> > > >> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment > >> > > >> > On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 11:10 AM Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Hi Patrick, > >> >> > >> >> Thanks. You say, > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> *The policy was ratified by the Board last February.[1] That said, a > >> >> policy must be adapted over time as it is put into practice and > >> >> complications arise. The main text of the UCoC must be adaptable, > and > >> >> there will be a full review and update of the text one year after the > >> close > >> >> and ratification of the current phase, which is looking at > enforcement > >> >> pathways.[2] We fully expect refinements at that time.* > >> >> > >> >> If the policy was ratified last February, and "there will be a full > >> >> review and update of the text one year after the close and > >> ratification", > >> >> does that mean there will be some sort of review of the policy text > in > >> >> February 2022? > >> >> > >> >> Or did you mean something else? And where will that review take > place? > >> >> > >> >> Thanking you in advance for your clarification. > >> >> > >> >> Best, > >> >> Andreas > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 6:05 PM Patrick Earley < > pearley(a)wikimedia.org> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> Hello, all. > >> >>> > >> >>> In reply to these questions and a few received via direct email: > >> >>> > >> >>> Questions about the content of the Universal Code of Conduct policy > >> >>> itself are very legitimate, but unrelated to the current process > under > >> >>> review with the Board. The policy was ratified by the Board last > >> >>> February.[1] That said, a policy must be adapted over time as it is > >> put > >> >>> into practice and complications arise. The main text of the UCoC > >> must be > >> >>> adaptable, and there will be a full review and update of the text > one > >> year > >> >>> after the close and ratification of the current phase, which is > >> looking at > >> >>> enforcement pathways.[2] We fully expect refinements at that time. > >> Figuring > >> >>> out how to manage some areas of policy is challenging. Doxxing is a > >> very > >> >>> difficult area to form policy around, and I know the Drafting > >> Committee > >> >>> from Phase 1 worked hard to reflect best practices around the > >> movement in > >> >>> this area. > >> >>> > >> >>> To clarify, Nosebagbear: Youngjin was reminding folks to get their > >> last > >> >>> thoughts in for the current work the Drafting Committee is doing on > >> >>> revising the text. It wasn’t meant to imply that there will be no > >> more > >> >>> discussion on the Guidelines before a ratification process takes > >> place. The > >> >>> revisions to the draft Guidelines will be published on Meta for > >> comment and > >> >>> discussion as soon as the committee feels they have incorporated the > >> input > >> >>> received over the last few months. This message was just meant as a > >> >>> reminder to anyone who might not have been aware of the draft > review. > >> >>> > >> >>> In terms of what we’re reviewing with the Board, it is a process for > >> >>> ratification in response to a request from the global arbitration > >> >>> committees. They are not being asked to ratify the Enforcement > >> Guidelines > >> >>> at this time. As to how and when ratification of the guidelines will > >> take > >> >>> place, thoughts and opinions from the Drafting Committee, community > >> members > >> >>> and functionaries, and the Board of Trustees will inform the > details. > >> >>> We’ll communicate a full ratification plan after the Board meets in > >> >>> mid-December and considers the input received so far on what would > >> make a > >> >>> fair and practical process. > >> >>> > >> >>> Patrick > >> >>> > >> >>> [1] > >> >>> > >> > https://www.mail-archive.com/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/msg35984.html > >> >>> > >> >>> [2] > >> >>> > >> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ#Periodic_revi… > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 11:37 PM Peter Southwood < > >> >>> peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net> wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>>> Fair comment. > >> >>>> P > >> >>>> > >> >>>> -----Original Message----- > >> >>>> From: nosebagbear(a)gmail.com [mailto:nosebagbear@gmail.com] > >> >>>> Sent: 27 November 2021 13:04 > >> >>>> To: wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > >> >>>> Subject: [Marketing Mail] [Wikimedia-l] Re: Closing the comment > >> period > >> >>>> for > >> >>>> the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Draft Guidelines and next > >> step > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Hello, > >> >>>> > >> >>>> I would make a couple of notes here: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> One is that when you say "comment period will end", that can't be > of > >> the > >> >>>> process. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> There are numerous open questions that we have yet to see any draft > >> >>>> policy > >> >>>> text on - they can't go into the final document without chance for > >> open > >> >>>> review and further revision. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> While I've heard bits about how they will be discussed, we've seen > >> >>>> nothing > >> >>>> formal and nothing in writing. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Please let me know BEFORE the 29th how that will be handled to the > >> >>>> community's expectations. As the inherently most controversial bits > >> >>>> (that's > >> >>>> why they were open questions!) the actual next needs MORE time to > >> review > >> >>>> than the aspects already there, not less. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Yours, > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Nosebagbear > >> >>>> _______________________________________________ > >> >>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, > >> >>>> guidelines at: > >> >>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > >> >>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > >> >>>> Public archives at > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/ > >> >>>> message/GD5CSLNTF7XBCQVCEZT7CGD7XHQ2PRIQ/ > >> >>>> < > >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… > >> > > >> >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to > >> wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org > >> >>>> > >> >>>> -- > >> >>>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > >> >>>> https://www.avg.com > >> >>>> > >> >>>> _______________________________________________ > >> >>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, > >> >>>> guidelines at: > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > >> >>>> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > >> >>>> Public archives at > >> >>>> > >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… > >> >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to > >> wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org > >> >>>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> -- > >> >>> Patrick Earley > >> >>> Lead Trust & Safety Policy Manager > >> >>> Wikimedia Foundation > >> >>> pearley(a)wikimedia.org > >> >>> > >> >>> _______________________________________________ > >> >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, > >> guidelines > >> >>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > >> >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > >> >>> Public archives at > >> >>> > >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… > >> >>> To unsubscribe send an email to > wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Patrick Earley > >> > Lead Trust & Safety Policy Manager > >> > Wikimedia Foundation > >> > pearley(a)wikimedia.org > >> > > >> > > >>

2 1

Re: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 348, Issue 3
by Nosebagbear 13 Dec '21

13 Dec '21

Dear Patrick, Firstly, you (and in this case, I mean, "I notified members of T&S policy, directly, in discussions where they were involved, as did others" all the way back in phase 1) were made aware of the community need for ratification far before the ArbCom letter. Which of these is the case: that the WMF only notified the Board of a need for actual community ratification when the Arbcom open letter was made, or that the Board declined to consider it as a need prior to that point? Secondly, why does the Board feel that they should be "consider[ing] the input received so far on what would make a fair and practical process." - there are only two bodies with a reasonable remit to be specifying the nature of any ratification method. In the weaker position is the UCOC drafting committee, and in the first place, the Community as a whole, probably by a meta-RfC. Please provide the reasoning for this process. *Richard (Nosebagbear)* Unless otherwise stated within this email, any Movement Charter viewpoints expressed represent my own position(s), and *not* the aggregate judgement of the MCDC. On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 at 21:13, <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, please visit > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikimedia-l.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: [Marketing Mail] Re: Closing the comment period for the > Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Draft Guidelines and next step > (Andreas Kolbe) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2021 21:12:54 +0000 > From: Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: [Marketing Mail] Re: Closing the comment > period for the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Draft > Guidelines > and next step > To: Patrick Earley <pearley(a)wikimedia.org> > Cc: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > Message-ID: > < > CAHRTtW9h69ewsO1V3M6HzGn4EmUGLb0GvX9bKD+Q0Hi6T_F8jg(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > boundary="00000000000055427605d280b9bb" > > Hi Patrick, > > Thank you for your clarification. So if I understand correctly, there will > be no UCoC policy text review before sometime in 2023. > > As this is quite a long time away, would it be possible to provide some > answers to the questions I asked earlier? > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… > > For example: According to the Universal Code of Conduct, are > Wikipedians/Wikimedians allowed – > > – To blog about what happens on Wikipedia? > > – To discuss edits traceable to, say, the Russian or US government on- and > off-wiki, without the permission of the people making these edits? > > – To discuss cases of individuals engaging in revenge editing or subverting > Wikipedia for commercial or criminal ends (recall the recent Christian Rosa > case), or to help the press with related enquiries (recall e.g. > > https://www.dailydot.com/irl/wikipedia-sockpuppet-investigation-largest-net… > and the input made by User:Doctree to that article)? > > – To notify the authorities when they believe a crime has been committed or > is about to be committed? > > Or should all of these actions categorically be considered harassment of > fellow contributors, and the contributors engaging in these actions be > subject to blocks and bans? > > I think it is important for people to understand the Code's intent > correctly. > > Best, > Andreas > > On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 6:42 PM Patrick Earley <pearley(a)wikimedia.org> > wrote: > > > Hi Andreas, > > > > The review of the policy text is planned one year after the close and the > > ratification of the enforcement outlines, which are still being revised > by > > the Drafting Committee. Detailed information of the policy text review > > will be communicated soon, as the revised guidelines are published for > > comment and ratification. The review will likely follow established > policy > > update formats, such as those used for the Terms of Use. [1] > > > > Patrick > > > > [1] > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment > > > > On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 11:10 AM Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> Hi Patrick, > >> > >> Thanks. You say, > >> > >> > >> *The policy was ratified by the Board last February.[1] That said, a > >> policy must be adapted over time as it is put into practice and > >> complications arise. The main text of the UCoC must be adaptable, and > >> there will be a full review and update of the text one year after the > close > >> and ratification of the current phase, which is looking at enforcement > >> pathways.[2] We fully expect refinements at that time.* > >> > >> If the policy was ratified last February, and "there will be a full > >> review and update of the text one year after the close and > ratification", > >> does that mean there will be some sort of review of the policy text in > >> February 2022? > >> > >> Or did you mean something else? And where will that review take place? > >> > >> Thanking you in advance for your clarification. > >> > >> Best, > >> Andreas > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 6:05 PM Patrick Earley <pearley(a)wikimedia.org> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Hello, all. > >>> > >>> In reply to these questions and a few received via direct email: > >>> > >>> Questions about the content of the Universal Code of Conduct policy > >>> itself are very legitimate, but unrelated to the current process under > >>> review with the Board. The policy was ratified by the Board last > >>> February.[1] That said, a policy must be adapted over time as it is put > >>> into practice and complications arise. The main text of the UCoC must > be > >>> adaptable, and there will be a full review and update of the text one > year > >>> after the close and ratification of the current phase, which is > looking at > >>> enforcement pathways.[2] We fully expect refinements at that time. > Figuring > >>> out how to manage some areas of policy is challenging. Doxxing is a > very > >>> difficult area to form policy around, and I know the Drafting Committee > >>> from Phase 1 worked hard to reflect best practices around the movement > in > >>> this area. > >>> > >>> To clarify, Nosebagbear: Youngjin was reminding folks to get their last > >>> thoughts in for the current work the Drafting Committee is doing on > >>> revising the text. It wasn’t meant to imply that there will be no more > >>> discussion on the Guidelines before a ratification process takes > place. The > >>> revisions to the draft Guidelines will be published on Meta for > comment and > >>> discussion as soon as the committee feels they have incorporated the > input > >>> received over the last few months. This message was just meant as a > >>> reminder to anyone who might not have been aware of the draft review. > >>> > >>> In terms of what we’re reviewing with the Board, it is a process for > >>> ratification in response to a request from the global arbitration > >>> committees. They are not being asked to ratify the Enforcement > Guidelines > >>> at this time. As to how and when ratification of the guidelines will > take > >>> place, thoughts and opinions from the Drafting Committee, community > members > >>> and functionaries, and the Board of Trustees will inform the details. > >>> We’ll communicate a full ratification plan after the Board meets in > >>> mid-December and considers the input received so far on what would > make a > >>> fair and practical process. > >>> > >>> Patrick > >>> > >>> [1] > >>> > https://www.mail-archive.com/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/msg35984.html > >>> > >>> [2] > >>> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ#Periodic_revi… > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 11:37 PM Peter Southwood < > >>> peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Fair comment. > >>>> P > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: nosebagbear(a)gmail.com [mailto:nosebagbear@gmail.com] > >>>> Sent: 27 November 2021 13:04 > >>>> To: wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > >>>> Subject: [Marketing Mail] [Wikimedia-l] Re: Closing the comment period > >>>> for > >>>> the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Draft Guidelines and next > step > >>>> > >>>> Hello, > >>>> > >>>> I would make a couple of notes here: > >>>> > >>>> One is that when you say "comment period will end", that can't be of > the > >>>> process. > >>>> > >>>> There are numerous open questions that we have yet to see any draft > >>>> policy > >>>> text on - they can't go into the final document without chance for > open > >>>> review and further revision. > >>>> > >>>> While I've heard bits about how they will be discussed, we've seen > >>>> nothing > >>>> formal and nothing in writing. > >>>> > >>>> Please let me know BEFORE the 29th how that will be handled to the > >>>> community's expectations. As the inherently most controversial bits > >>>> (that's > >>>> why they were open questions!) the actual next needs MORE time to > review > >>>> than the aspects already there, not less. > >>>> > >>>> Yours, > >>>> > >>>> Nosebagbear > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, > >>>> guidelines at: > >>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > >>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > >>>> Public archives at > >>>> > >>>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/ > >>>> message/GD5CSLNTF7XBCQVCEZT7CGD7XHQ2PRIQ/ > >>>> < > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… > > > >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > >>>> https://www.avg.com > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, > >>>> guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > >>>> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > >>>> Public archives at > >>>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… > >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Patrick Earley > >>> Lead Trust & Safety Policy Manager > >>> Wikimedia Foundation > >>> pearley(a)wikimedia.org > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, > guidelines > >>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > >>> Public archives at > >>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… > >>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org > >> > >> > > > > -- > > Patrick Earley > > Lead Trust & Safety Policy Manager > > Wikimedia Foundation > > pearley(a)wikimedia.org > > > > >

3 2

Paid editing in Bulgarian Wikipedia?
by Mrb Rafi 12 Dec '21

12 Dec '21

Hello all! I became confused watching this [1] job post on Upwork with the title "Create 20 pages in the Bulgarian Wikipedia". The client offered 30 USD for this task. The job post says: > > > > > > > > > *This is a small experimental project. The goal is to check if people on > Upwork.com can help grow the Bulgarian Wikipedia in a quality way. I also > wish to *not* cannibalize edits that would have happened anyway. The > created content will be in the public domain. It's a gift to all > Bulgarians. We follow all the values, guidelines and rules valid on the > Bulgarian WIkipedia: https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/ > <https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/>Уикипедия:Поведение . This includes > following the specific wiki syntax and the usual expectations of all pages, > especially good sources and categorization of the page. Some experience > editing Wikipedia is desired, but not required. Since these are supposed to > be net new edits, I will prefer people who have fewer than 100 Wikipedia > edits so far. Due to this social benefit, the proposed price is far below > market price. As Bulgarians say, the payment is symbolic. For this > experiment, I've selected 20 articles that exist in the English Wikipedia, > but don't yet exist in the Bulgarian Wikipedia. That gives you the option > to use Wikipedia's translation tool, which may make your work much faster > and more pleasant: Please note that the translation tool has some specifics > that take time to get used to, e.g., adding references, representing other > alphabets -- I can help with such issues. The list of proposed articles is > here: https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/ > <https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/>Потребител:Cryout/Чрез_ЪпУърк I hope you > will enjoy this variety of content. Still, the list is negotiable and we > can swap articles in and out per your preference. * > Is it going in the right way? I'm a Lil' bit confused. Besides this, you'll get tons of paid editing job posts on Upwork, freelancer and other freelance networks. At first, I used to report these posts but there are so many of them that it's not possible for me to find all of them and report them. [1] https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01371a50692d0540d0 Best regards, Rafi

4 4

Old-style mailing list archive
by Andreas Kolbe 11 Dec '21

11 Dec '21

Hi all, I think I'm not alone in finding it a little hard to get used to the new format of the hyperkitty mailing list archive. Those who miss the old archive format can find something very similar here, allowing posts to be listed by date or thread, as they used to be: https://www.mail-archive.com/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/maillist.html My good deed for the day. :) Best wishes, Andreas

1 0

CivilSociety content gap?
by Željko Blaće 10 Dec '21

10 Dec '21

Happy Human Rights Day to all! Maybe this is not the worse day to reflect if Wikimedia and different language instances of Wikipedia have a CivilSociety content gap? How big is it? My intuition from observing just a bit is that there is one, especially when compared to institutions and corporations, but maybe someone already did research or has tool skills to extract and present some data? Considering Wikimedia Foundation is registered as an NGO, I think it would good to have in mind some of the issues NGOs face with visibility (as well as Wikimedia movement), just because we do not pay ADs in corp. media and get routinely reported on by state owned media... Maybe a good point in time to reflect on this and do something? Best Z. Blace

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Wikimedia-l December 2021