Earlier today I tried to predict what the WMF org chart will look like, but I wasn't confident about my suggestion, so I created a new email account, subscribed it to wikimedia-l, and tried to send from there. I learned that new subscribers are moderated, which seems sensible given the level of trolling and disruption, and have since improved the prediction and become more confident about it. I have since learned that HTML email with embedded email attachments aren't allowed either, so, Moderators, please reject my earlier anonymous submission(s).
This is what I predict the Wikimedia organizational chart will look like in one year's time:
https://i.ibb.co/HPzpqLt/WMF-orgchart.png
Please critique it! If you are running for the Board of Directors, I am especially interested in your critique of this prediction.
Thank you!
-Will
Two questions, Bill.
1) Labour representation? Huh? 2) Where are the actual Wikimedia projects? I mean....all of this is hubris if the projects aren't on the org chart. They're the raison d'etre of every aspect of the community.
Risker/Anne
On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 at 19:03, Bill Takatoshi billtakatoshi@gmail.com wrote:
Earlier today I tried to predict what the WMF org chart will look like, but I wasn't confident about my suggestion, so I created a new email account, subscribed it to wikimedia-l, and tried to send from there. I learned that new subscribers are moderated, which seems sensible given the level of trolling and disruption, and have since improved the prediction and become more confident about it. I have since learned that HTML email with embedded email attachments aren't allowed either, so, Moderators, please reject my earlier anonymous submission(s).
This is what I predict the Wikimedia organizational chart will look like in one year's time:
https://i.ibb.co/HPzpqLt/WMF-orgchart.png
Please critique it! If you are running for the Board of Directors, I am especially interested in your critique of this prediction.
Thank you!
-Will _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Hi Anne,
Thank you for both of your excellent questions.
1) In Germany, rank-and-file employees are required to be represented in seat(s) on corporate boards of directors. Employee satisfaction is off the scale compared to North America, as are advantages such as healthcare untethered from employers, maternity and paternity leave, substantially longer life expectancy, and reduced income inequality.
2) The projects were abstracted out of the org chart. Individually, they exist in the "Editor" and "Operations" nodes. All of the Wikimedia projects have editors, who use the services provided by the Engineering Operations team.
I hope there is some way to get comment on the proposed org chart on the list of proposed Board candidate questions without disclosing my userid.
-Will
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 6:58 PM Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Two questions, Bill.
- Labour representation? Huh?
- Where are the actual Wikimedia projects? I mean....all of this is hubris if the projects aren't on the org chart. They're the raison d'etre of every aspect of the community.
Risker/Anne
On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 at 19:03, Bill Takatoshi billtakatoshi@gmail.com wrote:
Earlier today I tried to predict what the WMF org chart will look like, but I wasn't confident about my suggestion, so I created a new email account, subscribed it to wikimedia-l, and tried to send from there. I learned that new subscribers are moderated, which seems sensible given the level of trolling and disruption, and have since improved the prediction and become more confident about it. I have since learned that HTML email with embedded email attachments aren't allowed either, so, Moderators, please reject my earlier anonymous submission(s).
This is what I predict the Wikimedia organizational chart will look like in one year's time:
https://i.ibb.co/HPzpqLt/WMF-orgchart.png
Please critique it! If you are running for the Board of Directors, I am especially interested in your critique of this prediction.
Thank you!
-Will _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Here is the predicted org chart with Risker's suggestions: https://i.ibb.co/fpXyx3r/WMF-orgchart-2.png
-Will
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 7:24 PM Bill Takatoshi billtakatoshi@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Anne,
Thank you for both of your excellent questions.
- In Germany, rank-and-file employees are required to be represented
in seat(s) on corporate boards of directors. Employee satisfaction is off the scale compared to North America, as are advantages such as healthcare untethered from employers, maternity and paternity leave, substantially longer life expectancy, and reduced income inequality.
- The projects were abstracted out of the org chart. Individually,
they exist in the "Editor" and "Operations" nodes. All of the Wikimedia projects have editors, who use the services provided by the Engineering Operations team.
I hope there is some way to get comment on the proposed org chart on the list of proposed Board candidate questions without disclosing my userid.
-Will
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 6:58 PM Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Two questions, Bill.
- Labour representation? Huh?
- Where are the actual Wikimedia projects? I mean....all of this is hubris if the projects aren't on the org chart. They're the raison d'etre of every aspect of the community.
Risker/Anne
On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 at 19:03, Bill Takatoshi billtakatoshi@gmail.com wrote:
Earlier today I tried to predict what the WMF org chart will look like, but I wasn't confident about my suggestion, so I created a new email account, subscribed it to wikimedia-l, and tried to send from there. I learned that new subscribers are moderated, which seems sensible given the level of trolling and disruption, and have since improved the prediction and become more confident about it. I have since learned that HTML email with embedded email attachments aren't allowed either, so, Moderators, please reject my earlier anonymous submission(s).
This is what I predict the Wikimedia organizational chart will look like in one year's time:
https://i.ibb.co/HPzpqLt/WMF-orgchart.png
Please critique it! If you are running for the Board of Directors, I am especially interested in your critique of this prediction.
Thank you!
-Will _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Ah, I think it becomes clearer now. This is your preferred version, not anything official, based on your interpretations.
Please show me, in amongst all the official documents released in relation to the strategy, where it recommends that WMF employees should have representation on the WMF Board of Trustees. Not as a suggestion from someone, but something that has officially been agreed upon. I am sure I don't need to remind you that the WMF is an American foundation and that it is not required to meet the expectations of legislators in other countries. I think the broad WIkimedia community would be up in arms at the thought that a small group of about 500 people would have such proportionately high representation compared to the broader community (through either affiliate-selected or participant-selected seats).
And, having read your "revised" version....no, just no. Projects don't belong there.
Risker/Anne
On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 at 22:24, Bill Takatoshi billtakatoshi@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Anne,
Thank you for both of your excellent questions.
- In Germany, rank-and-file employees are required to be represented
in seat(s) on corporate boards of directors. Employee satisfaction is off the scale compared to North America, as are advantages such as healthcare untethered from employers, maternity and paternity leave, substantially longer life expectancy, and reduced income inequality.
- The projects were abstracted out of the org chart. Individually,
they exist in the "Editor" and "Operations" nodes. All of the Wikimedia projects have editors, who use the services provided by the Engineering Operations team.
I hope there is some way to get comment on the proposed org chart on the list of proposed Board candidate questions without disclosing my userid.
-Will
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 6:58 PM Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Two questions, Bill.
- Labour representation? Huh?
- Where are the actual Wikimedia projects? I mean....all of this is
hubris if the projects aren't on the org chart. They're the raison d'etre of every aspect of the community.
Risker/Anne
On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 at 19:03, Bill Takatoshi billtakatoshi@gmail.com
wrote:
Earlier today I tried to predict what the WMF org chart will look like, but I wasn't confident about my suggestion, so I created a new email account, subscribed it to wikimedia-l, and tried to send from there. I learned that new subscribers are moderated, which seems sensible given the level of trolling and disruption, and have since improved the prediction and become more confident about it. I have since learned that HTML email with embedded email attachments aren't allowed either, so, Moderators, please reject my earlier anonymous submission(s).
This is what I predict the Wikimedia organizational chart will look like in one year's time:
https://i.ibb.co/HPzpqLt/WMF-orgchart.png
Please critique it! If you are running for the Board of Directors, I am especially interested in your critique of this prediction.
Thank you!
-Will _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Please show me, in amongst all the official documents released in relation to the strategy, where it recommends that WMF employees should have representation on the WMF Board of Trustees.
I feel it would be best if I stepped away for some days at least, to let the North American Foundation employees who have been organizing for the union rights that their European counterparts enjoy.
-Will
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 7:58 PM Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Ah, I think it becomes clearer now. This is your preferred version, not anything official, based on your interpretations.
Please show me, in amongst all the official documents released in relation to the strategy, where it recommends that WMF employees should have representation on the WMF Board of Trustees. Not as a suggestion from someone, but something that has officially been agreed upon. I am sure I don't need to remind you that the WMF is an American foundation and that it is not required to meet the expectations of legislators in other countries. I think the broad WIkimedia community would be up in arms at the thought that a small group of about 500 people would have such proportionately high representation compared to the broader community (through either affiliate-selected or participant-selected seats).
And, having read your "revised" version....no, just no. Projects don't belong there.
Risker/Anne
On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 at 22:24, Bill Takatoshi billtakatoshi@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Anne,
Thank you for both of your excellent questions.
- In Germany, rank-and-file employees are required to be represented
in seat(s) on corporate boards of directors. Employee satisfaction is off the scale compared to North America, as are advantages such as healthcare untethered from employers, maternity and paternity leave, substantially longer life expectancy, and reduced income inequality.
- The projects were abstracted out of the org chart. Individually,
they exist in the "Editor" and "Operations" nodes. All of the Wikimedia projects have editors, who use the services provided by the Engineering Operations team.
I hope there is some way to get comment on the proposed org chart on the list of proposed Board candidate questions without disclosing my userid.
-Will
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 6:58 PM Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Two questions, Bill.
- Labour representation? Huh?
- Where are the actual Wikimedia projects? I mean....all of this is hubris if the projects aren't on the org chart. They're the raison d'etre of every aspect of the community.
Risker/Anne
On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 at 19:03, Bill Takatoshi billtakatoshi@gmail.com wrote:
Earlier today I tried to predict what the WMF org chart will look like, but I wasn't confident about my suggestion, so I created a new email account, subscribed it to wikimedia-l, and tried to send from there. I learned that new subscribers are moderated, which seems sensible given the level of trolling and disruption, and have since improved the prediction and become more confident about it. I have since learned that HTML email with embedded email attachments aren't allowed either, so, Moderators, please reject my earlier anonymous submission(s).
This is what I predict the Wikimedia organizational chart will look like in one year's time:
https://i.ibb.co/HPzpqLt/WMF-orgchart.png
Please critique it! If you are running for the Board of Directors, I am especially interested in your critique of this prediction.
Thank you!
-Will _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Thank you Bill, I always find organisation charts very much enlightening, and have been missing something like it for the WMF for some time now.
I think all the departments of the WMF-side are equal, right? For instance, legal has no higher 'status' then fundraising or research: employees are equals, just with a different function in the organisation.Therefore all the different departments should be presented in a horizontal line, not a vertical one, like in this one https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Organisational_Chart.JPG for example.
Vriendelijke groet, Ciell
Op di 6 jul. 2021 om 01:03 schreef Bill Takatoshi billtakatoshi@gmail.com:
Earlier today I tried to predict what the WMF org chart will look like, but I wasn't confident about my suggestion, so I created a new email account, subscribed it to wikimedia-l, and tried to send from there. I learned that new subscribers are moderated, which seems sensible given the level of trolling and disruption, and have since improved the prediction and become more confident about it. I have since learned that HTML email with embedded email attachments aren't allowed either, so, Moderators, please reject my earlier anonymous submission(s).
This is what I predict the Wikimedia organizational chart will look like in one year's time:
https://i.ibb.co/HPzpqLt/WMF-orgchart.png
Please critique it! If you are running for the Board of Directors, I am especially interested in your critique of this prediction.
Thank you!
-Will _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
On Tuesday, July 6, 2021, Ciell Wikipedia ciell.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you Bill, I always find organisation charts very much enlightening, and have been missing something like it for the WMF for some time now.
I feel the same. We need much much more of diagramatic content and higher level of organizational understanding for all Wikimedia contributors.
I think all the departments of the WMF-side are equal, right? For instance, legal has no higher 'status' then fundraising or research: employees are equals, just with a different function in the organisation.Therefore all the different departments should be presented in a horizontal line, not a vertical one, like in this one https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Organisational_Chart.JPG for example.
Kind of good point, but maybe scale (same size) is enough to represent equals, rather than direction/orientation? Not an expert.
BTW. .svg file export would be best for the posibility of translation within Wikimedia Commons ;-)
Best, Z.
Vriendelijke groet, Ciell
Op di 6 jul. 2021 om 01:03 schreef Bill Takatoshi <billtakatoshi@gmail.com
:
Earlier today I tried to predict what the WMF org chart will look like, but I wasn't confident about my suggestion, so I created a new email account, subscribed it to wikimedia-l, and tried to send from there. I learned that new subscribers are moderated, which seems sensible given the level of trolling and disruption, and have since improved the prediction and become more confident about it. I have since learned that HTML email with embedded email attachments aren't allowed either, so, Moderators, please reject my earlier anonymous submission(s).
This is what I predict the Wikimedia organizational chart will look like in one year's time:
https://i.ibb.co/HPzpqLt/WMF-orgchart.png
Please critique it! If you are running for the Board of Directors, I am especially interested in your critique of this prediction.
Thank you!
-Will _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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/ DURUHZ3WN7QBQSXWLUVU7ZRLDWHV42X2/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
The projects are the route by which content is added to Wikipedia. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to have an organisation—the purpose is to have and distribute free content. Everything else is superstructure—everything except the individual volunteers and the projects. This superstructure can be important, but not essential — the volunteers are capable of organising themselves and maintaining the projects. The foundation by itself is capable of almost nothing, as it doesn’t add content. The chapters are of value, primarily in recruiting contributors—without that, they’d just be social clubs.
The volunteers and the projects to which they add content are what matters. The three key functions of the organisation are maintaining MediaWiki (but that’s a volunteer effort also) in raising the small amount of essential funding, and the critically important political work of supporting freedom of the internet and of speech more generally. But our influence for this is because people in the world use the content the volunteers add to the projects. The structure must be organised around them. We are here to build an encyclopaedia.
On Jul 7, 2021, at 12:59 AM, Željko Blaće zblace@mi2.hr wrote:
On Tuesday, July 6, 2021, Ciell Wikipedia ciell.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you Bill, I always find organisation charts very much enlightening, and have been missing something like it for the WMF for some time now.
I feel the same. We need much much more of diagramatic content and higher level of organizational understanding for all Wikimedia contributors.
I think all the departments of the WMF-side are equal, right? For instance, legal has no higher 'status' then fundraising or research: employees are equals, just with a different function in the organisation.Therefore all the different departments should be presented in a horizontal line, not a vertical one, like in this one for example.
Kind of good point, but maybe scale (same size) is enough to represent equals, rather than direction/orientation? Not an expert.
BTW. .svg file export would be best for the posibility of translation within Wikimedia Commons ;-)
Best, Z.
Vriendelijke groet, Ciell
Op di 6 jul. 2021 om 01:03 schreef Bill Takatoshi billtakatoshi@gmail.com:
Earlier today I tried to predict what the WMF org chart will look like, but I wasn't confident about my suggestion, so I created a new email account, subscribed it to wikimedia-l, and tried to send from there. I learned that new subscribers are moderated, which seems sensible given the level of trolling and disruption, and have since improved the prediction and become more confident about it. I have since learned that HTML email with embedded email attachments aren't allowed either, so, Moderators, please reject my earlier anonymous submission(s).
This is what I predict the Wikimedia organizational chart will look like in one year's time:
https://i.ibb.co/HPzpqLt/WMF-orgchart.png
Please critique it! If you are running for the Board of Directors, I am especially interested in your critique of this prediction.
Thank you!
-Will _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 11:17 PM Dggenwp dggenwp@gmail.com wrote:
The projects are the route by which content is added to Wikipedia. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to have an organisation—the purpose is to have and distribute free content. Everything else is superstructure—everything except the individual volunteers and the projects. This superstructure can be important, but not essential — the volunteers are capable of organising themselves and maintaining the projects. The foundation by itself is capable of almost nothing, as it doesn’t add content. The chapters are of value, primarily in recruiting contributors—without that, they’d just be social clubs.
The volunteers and the projects to which they add content are what matters. The three key functions of the organisation are maintaining MediaWiki (but that’s a volunteer effort also) in raising the small amount of essential funding, and the critically important political work of supporting freedom of the internet and of speech more generally. But our influence for this is because people in the world use the content the volunteers add to the projects. The structure must be organised around them. We are here to build an encyclopaedia.
Without wish to argue against anything of what you wrote (can certainly agree with orientation), I would add (somewhat in your style) that this is 2021 and Wikimedia sister projects have also their own dynamics as well as playing part in the larger ecosystem of open knowledge, code, media, information, but also related dissemination, development, deployment, publication, participation, coordination, collaboration, education, preservation and other types of work that is non-encyclopedic.
Btw it is a good practice not to speak for everyone, even when this is partial truth, as it is not the only and nothing but the truth for everyone here ;-)
Best Z.
Hoi, The purpose of a Wikipedia is to provide encyclopaedic knowledge to a public. The purpose of the Wikimedia projects is to share in the sum of all knowledge. What the Wikimedia organisation supports is the infrastructure for our public to share in the sum of all the knowledge available to us and enable our editing communities to expand on this.
We all have our role to play and it is not good to disparage others or to think that what we do is possible without the support of the whole of the Wikimedia movement. It is a bias and it is discriminatory in the essence of the word. We are not here to build an encyclopaedia, we are here to share in the sum of all knowledge in every language. We do it for our public and that is why we need an organisation that enables and supports us in achieving this. If I have one regret, it is that we do not have a marketing department. Its function is to understand what more we can do to share in the knowledge that we have. As we reach out widely, when we endeavour to fulfill our aim to the fullest, we will grow our Wikimedia editing communities and it will show in the distribution of the data that moves from our servers into the world. Thanks, GerardM
On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 at 23:16, Dggenwp dggenwp@gmail.com wrote:
The projects are the route by which content is added to Wikipedia. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to have an organisation—the purpose is to have and distribute free content. Everything else is superstructure—everything except the individual volunteers and the projects. This superstructure can be important, but not essential — the volunteers are capable of organising themselves and maintaining the projects. The foundation by itself is capable of almost nothing, as it doesn’t add content. The chapters are of value, primarily in recruiting contributors—without that, they’d just be social clubs.
The volunteers and the projects to which they add content are what matters. The three key functions of the organisation are maintaining MediaWiki (but that’s a volunteer effort also) in raising the small amount of essential funding, and the critically important political work of supporting freedom of the internet and of speech more generally. But our influence for this is because people in the world use the content the volunteers add to the projects. The structure must be organised around them. We are here to build an encyclopaedia.
On Jul 7, 2021, at 12:59 AM, Željko Blaće zblace@mi2.hr wrote:
On Tuesday, July 6, 2021, Ciell Wikipedia ciell.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you Bill, I always find organisation charts very much enlightening, and have been missing something like it for the WMF for some time now.
I feel the same. We need much much more of diagramatic content and higher level of organizational understanding for all Wikimedia contributors.
I think all the departments of the WMF-side are equal, right? For instance, legal has no higher 'status' then fundraising or research: employees are equals, just with a different function in the organisation.Therefore all the different departments should be presented in a horizontal line, not a vertical one, like in this one https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Organisational_Chart.JPG for example.
Kind of good point, but maybe scale (same size) is enough to represent equals, rather than direction/orientation? Not an expert.
BTW. .svg file export would be best for the posibility of translation within Wikimedia Commons ;-)
Best, Z.
Vriendelijke groet, Ciell
Op di 6 jul. 2021 om 01:03 schreef Bill Takatoshi < billtakatoshi@gmail.com>:
Earlier today I tried to predict what the WMF org chart will look like, but I wasn't confident about my suggestion, so I created a new email account, subscribed it to wikimedia-l, and tried to send from there. I learned that new subscribers are moderated, which seems sensible given the level of trolling and disruption, and have since improved the prediction and become more confident about it. I have since learned that HTML email with embedded email attachments aren't allowed either, so, Moderators, please reject my earlier anonymous submission(s).
This is what I predict the Wikimedia organizational chart will look like in one year's time:
https://i.ibb.co/HPzpqLt/WMF-orgchart.png
Please critique it! If you are running for the Board of Directors, I am especially interested in your critique of this prediction.
Thank you!
-Will _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Bill/Will mentioned this might be a new organisational chart https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_chartof the Wikimedia Foundation. Of course, visuals differ depending on what you are trying to visualize.
This one https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikimedia_structure_and_government_-_Community_Content_Moderation_and_the_DSA.pdf&page=6 for instance would be more along the lines of what you, Dgg, are mentioning: how the different parties are involved in our projects. This one https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikimedia_structure_and_government_-_Community_Content_Moderation_and_the_DSA.pdf&page=12 would be more about how content on the projects is governed, and the different layers in responsibilities we have. This one https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Educatie_Universiteit_van_Amsterdam_14_november_2017.pdf&page=31 is more about how content is added to projects (example in this case: Wikimedia Commons): this is https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikimedia_structure_and_government_-_Community_Content_Moderation_and_the_DSA.pdf&page=7 a visualisation on the parties that re-use our content outside of the projects.
It would probably be impractical (or impossible even?) to put *everything* in* one* visual without the purpose of the illustration becoming too broad, and the chart or visual therefore surpassing its purpose (visual support for a concept).
Vriendelijke groet, Ciell
Op vr 9 jul. 2021 om 23:16 schreef Dggenwp dggenwp@gmail.com:
The projects are the route by which content is added to Wikipedia. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to have an organisation—the purpose is to have and distribute free content. Everything else is superstructure—everything except the individual volunteers and the projects. This superstructure can be important, but not essential — the volunteers are capable of organising themselves and maintaining the projects. The foundation by itself is capable of almost nothing, as it doesn’t add content. The chapters are of value, primarily in recruiting contributors—without that, they’d just be social clubs.
The volunteers and the projects to which they add content are what matters. The three key functions of the organisation are maintaining MediaWiki (but that’s a volunteer effort also) in raising the small amount of essential funding, and the critically important political work of supporting freedom of the internet and of speech more generally. But our influence for this is because people in the world use the content the volunteers add to the projects. The structure must be organised around them. We are here to build an encyclopaedia.
On Jul 7, 2021, at 12:59 AM, Željko Blaće zblace@mi2.hr wrote:
On Tuesday, July 6, 2021, Ciell Wikipedia ciell.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you Bill, I always find organisation charts very much enlightening, and have been missing something like it for the WMF for some time now.
I feel the same. We need much much more of diagramatic content and higher level of organizational understanding for all Wikimedia contributors.
I think all the departments of the WMF-side are equal, right? For instance, legal has no higher 'status' then fundraising or research: employees are equals, just with a different function in the organisation.Therefore all the different departments should be presented in a horizontal line, not a vertical one, like in this one https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Organisational_Chart.JPG for example.
Kind of good point, but maybe scale (same size) is enough to represent equals, rather than direction/orientation? Not an expert.
BTW. .svg file export would be best for the posibility of translation within Wikimedia Commons ;-)
Best, Z.
Vriendelijke groet, Ciell
Op di 6 jul. 2021 om 01:03 schreef Bill Takatoshi < billtakatoshi@gmail.com>:
Earlier today I tried to predict what the WMF org chart will look like, but I wasn't confident about my suggestion, so I created a new email account, subscribed it to wikimedia-l, and tried to send from there. I learned that new subscribers are moderated, which seems sensible given the level of trolling and disruption, and have since improved the prediction and become more confident about it. I have since learned that HTML email with embedded email attachments aren't allowed either, so, Moderators, please reject my earlier anonymous submission(s).
This is what I predict the Wikimedia organizational chart will look like in one year's time:
https://i.ibb.co/HPzpqLt/WMF-orgchart.png
Please critique it! If you are running for the Board of Directors, I am especially interested in your critique of this prediction.
Thank you!
-Will _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Certainly the projects have a role beyond content—in particular, they, not the foundation, are what the public sees. They are what it is needed to publicise (I don’t like to use the term “marketing “ — that’s the way the foundation speaks) and this is a key role of the chapters.
The obvious role of the foundation, besides the basic central services, is to deal with its natural counterparts—formal organisations such as governments and copyright agencies.
I recognise the need for coordination and the possible need to intervene to maintain minimum standards. But these are historically dangerous roles, for “protection “ against potential forces that might oppose our values has an ominous potential also.— DGG Obviously I speak only for myself—assume the appropriate qualifications before every phrase
On Jul 10, 2021, at 11:33 AM, Ciell Wikipedia ciell.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Bill/Will mentioned this might be a new organisational chart of the Wikimedia Foundation. Of course, visuals differ depending on what you are trying to visualize.
This one for instance would be more along the lines of what you, Dgg, are mentioning: how the different parties are involved in our projects. This one would be more about how content on the projects is governed, and the different layers in responsibilities we have. This one is more about how content is added to projects (example in this case: Wikimedia Commons): this is a visualisation on the parties that re-use our content outside of the projects.
It would probably be impractical (or impossible even?) to put everything in one visual without the purpose of the illustration becoming too broad, and the chart or visual therefore surpassing its purpose (visual support for a concept).
Vriendelijke groet, Ciell
Op vr 9 jul. 2021 om 23:16 schreef Dggenwp dggenwp@gmail.com:
The projects are the route by which content is added to Wikipedia. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to have an organisation—the purpose is to have and distribute free content. Everything else is superstructure—everything except the individual volunteers and the projects. This superstructure can be important, but not essential — the volunteers are capable of organising themselves and maintaining the projects. The foundation by itself is capable of almost nothing, as it doesn’t add content. The chapters are of value, primarily in recruiting contributors—without that, they’d just be social clubs.
The volunteers and the projects to which they add content are what matters. The three key functions of the organisation are maintaining MediaWiki (but that’s a volunteer effort also) in raising the small amount of essential funding, and the critically important political work of supporting freedom of the internet and of speech more generally. But our influence for this is because people in the world use the content the volunteers add to the projects. The structure must be organised around them. We are here to build an encyclopaedia.
On Jul 7, 2021, at 12:59 AM, Željko Blaće zblace@mi2.hr wrote:
On Tuesday, July 6, 2021, Ciell Wikipedia ciell.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you Bill, I always find organisation charts very much enlightening, and have been missing something like it for the WMF for some time now.
I feel the same. We need much much more of diagramatic content and higher level of organizational understanding for all Wikimedia contributors.
I think all the departments of the WMF-side are equal, right? For instance, legal has no higher 'status' then fundraising or research: employees are equals, just with a different function in the organisation.Therefore all the different departments should be presented in a horizontal line, not a vertical one, like in this one for example.
Kind of good point, but maybe scale (same size) is enough to represent equals, rather than direction/orientation? Not an expert.
BTW. .svg file export would be best for the posibility of translation within Wikimedia Commons ;-)
Best, Z.
Vriendelijke groet, Ciell
Op di 6 jul. 2021 om 01:03 schreef Bill Takatoshi billtakatoshi@gmail.com:
Earlier today I tried to predict what the WMF org chart will look like, but I wasn't confident about my suggestion, so I created a new email account, subscribed it to wikimedia-l, and tried to send from there. I learned that new subscribers are moderated, which seems sensible given the level of trolling and disruption, and have since improved the prediction and become more confident about it. I have since learned that HTML email with embedded email attachments aren't allowed either, so, Moderators, please reject my earlier anonymous submission(s).
This is what I predict the Wikimedia organizational chart will look like in one year's time:
https://i.ibb.co/HPzpqLt/WMF-orgchart.png
Please critique it! If you are running for the Board of Directors, I am especially interested in your critique of this prediction.
Thank you!
-Will _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Hoi, In an ideal world, it is indeed the content of the Wikimedia projects that our public sees. Each project represents a set of editors who contribute to a project. In general, all well meaning contributors are welcome. Some contributors contribute regularly, take pride in it and associate themselves with the project. Some of them actually participate in discussions on talk pages and contribute to the building of a consensus. Then there are the policy tigers, that insist that they are best placed to discuss policies for everybody else and insist that their consensus represents the community. Recently, on the Croatian Wikipedia a group of policy tigers were removed for their insistence of a nationalistic point of view.
When the "community" is given precedence over everything else, we get into hot water. Often their hard fought consensus does not stack up well with the research done on communities in particular research done on Wikipedia. Typically a project is represented by a community that insists on a bias for their project. This is easily recognised in the arguments against activities by the Wikimedia organisation. "We do not need that", "it is against the consensus, see this or that discussion", we should implement a policy and you can read it on "XX.wikipedia.org".
When we allow for a Wikimedia movement, it is much bigger than all these communities combined. It is where out global aims play a role, it is where we strategise for us as a whole. It is where marketing needs to be applied particularly as it is noticable that our biggest project next to Wikipedia, Commons does not get the public it deserves. It is where the predominant restrictive view of Wikipedias as our key focus leads to regrettable results. When we then consider lists, it is shown time and again that English Wikipedia is not able to maintain all its lists and yet a "consensus" prevents WMF from providing list functionality to other Wikipedias because "it is complicated". Who will argue that the bottom 150 Wikipedias in size have the capability to maintain the lists they arguable have a need for and who would deny a local community to accept the functionality that is on a par if not better than what any Wikipedia offers right now? Is it that complicated? Remember that "wiki" means, implies?
The Foundation or the organisation enables our movement. All our projects, communities and chapters. It provides a setting where a consensus is sought for all of us. It is how the 2030 strategy came about. Giving its permanency, it is ideally suited to represent our whole to other organisations and seek how we can best achieve our goal; sharing the sum of all knowledge. It operates by checks and balances, it is where at this time the board of the Wikimedia Foundation plays a key role.
When people consider it dangerous that it is the Wikimedia Foundation that plays a key role in maintaining our values, I invite them to consider the biases that exists in their communities and the insistence to see the implied consensus applied on other communities and projects. My example of lists is a relative innocent example.
In brief, we need marketing and we need to be humble of what a consensus implies. Thanks, GerardM
On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 at 19:29, Dggenwp dggenwp@gmail.com wrote:
Certainly the projects have a role beyond content—in particular, they, not the foundation, are what the public sees. They are what it is needed to publicise (I don’t like to use the term “marketing “ — that’s the way the foundation speaks) and this is a key role of the chapters.
The obvious role of the foundation, besides the basic central services, is to deal with its natural counterparts—formal organisations such as governments and copyright agencies.
I recognise the need for coordination and the possible need to intervene to maintain minimum standards. But these are historically dangerous roles, for “protection “ against potential forces that might oppose our values has an ominous potential also.— DGG Obviously I speak only for myself—assume the appropriate qualifications before every phrase
On Jul 10, 2021, at 11:33 AM, Ciell Wikipedia ciell.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Bill/Will mentioned this might be a new organisational chart https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_chartof the Wikimedia Foundation. Of course, visuals differ depending on what you are trying to visualize.
This one https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikimedia_structure_and_government_-_Community_Content_Moderation_and_the_DSA.pdf&page=6 for instance would be more along the lines of what you, Dgg, are mentioning: how the different parties are involved in our projects. This one https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikimedia_structure_and_government_-_Community_Content_Moderation_and_the_DSA.pdf&page=12 would be more about how content on the projects is governed, and the different layers in responsibilities we have. This one https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Educatie_Universiteit_van_Amsterdam_14_november_2017.pdf&page=31 is more about how content is added to projects (example in this case: Wikimedia Commons): this is https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikimedia_structure_and_government_-_Community_Content_Moderation_and_the_DSA.pdf&page=7 a visualisation on the parties that re-use our content outside of the projects.
It would probably be impractical (or impossible even?) to put *everything* in* one* visual without the purpose of the illustration becoming too broad, and the chart or visual therefore surpassing its purpose (visual support for a concept).
Vriendelijke groet, Ciell
Op vr 9 jul. 2021 om 23:16 schreef Dggenwp dggenwp@gmail.com:
The projects are the route by which content is added to Wikipedia. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to have an organisation—the purpose is to have and distribute free content. Everything else is superstructure—everything except the individual volunteers and the projects. This superstructure can be important, but not essential — the volunteers are capable of organising themselves and maintaining the projects. The foundation by itself is capable of almost nothing, as it doesn’t add content. The chapters are of value, primarily in recruiting contributors—without that, they’d just be social clubs.
The volunteers and the projects to which they add content are what matters. The three key functions of the organisation are maintaining MediaWiki (but that’s a volunteer effort also) in raising the small amount of essential funding, and the critically important political work of supporting freedom of the internet and of speech more generally. But our influence for this is because people in the world use the content the volunteers add to the projects. The structure must be organised around them. We are here to build an encyclopaedia.
On Jul 7, 2021, at 12:59 AM, Željko Blaće zblace@mi2.hr wrote:
On Tuesday, July 6, 2021, Ciell Wikipedia ciell.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you Bill, I always find organisation charts very much enlightening, and have been missing something like it for the WMF for some time now.
I feel the same. We need much much more of diagramatic content and higher level of organizational understanding for all Wikimedia contributors.
I think all the departments of the WMF-side are equal, right? For instance, legal has no higher 'status' then fundraising or research: employees are equals, just with a different function in the organisation.Therefore all the different departments should be presented in a horizontal line, not a vertical one, like in this one https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Organisational_Chart.JPG for example.
Kind of good point, but maybe scale (same size) is enough to represent equals, rather than direction/orientation? Not an expert.
BTW. .svg file export would be best for the posibility of translation within Wikimedia Commons ;-)
Best, Z.
Vriendelijke groet, Ciell
Op di 6 jul. 2021 om 01:03 schreef Bill Takatoshi < billtakatoshi@gmail.com>:
Earlier today I tried to predict what the WMF org chart will look like, but I wasn't confident about my suggestion, so I created a new email account, subscribed it to wikimedia-l, and tried to send from there. I learned that new subscribers are moderated, which seems sensible given the level of trolling and disruption, and have since improved the prediction and become more confident about it. I have since learned that HTML email with embedded email attachments aren't allowed either, so, Moderators, please reject my earlier anonymous submission(s).
This is what I predict the Wikimedia organizational chart will look like in one year's time:
https://i.ibb.co/HPzpqLt/WMF-orgchart.png
Please critique it! If you are running for the Board of Directors, I am especially interested in your critique of this prediction.
Thank you!
-Will _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Hoi. One reason why I am a candidate for the board of the WMF is that in my opinion one function is lacking. There is no reflection of the fact that all that we do is to share the sum of all knowledge. It is not only about the creation of content but also about sharing the sum all the knowledge that is available to us.
For obvious reasons, the contributors to the projects are heard. I do not subscribe to the notion that the "projects" need to be in the organisational chart. With 300 languages and potentially multiple projects for each language it is impossible to have equity among these projects. The point that I have made repeatedly: Commons is not useful in any language but English, this does not need to be as there is software that works equally well in any language dependent on the availability of labels in Wikidata. This is just one example, there are more. Thanks, GerardM
On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 at 01:04, Bill Takatoshi billtakatoshi@gmail.com wrote:
Earlier today I tried to predict what the WMF org chart will look like, but I wasn't confident about my suggestion, so I created a new email account, subscribed it to wikimedia-l, and tried to send from there. I learned that new subscribers are moderated, which seems sensible given the level of trolling and disruption, and have since improved the prediction and become more confident about it. I have since learned that HTML email with embedded email attachments aren't allowed either, so, Moderators, please reject my earlier anonymous submission(s).
This is what I predict the Wikimedia organizational chart will look like in one year's time:
https://i.ibb.co/HPzpqLt/WMF-orgchart.png
Please critique it! If you are running for the Board of Directors, I am especially interested in your critique of this prediction.
Thank you!
-Will _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 at 17:32, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi. One reason why I am a candidate for the board of the WMF is that in my opinion one function is lacking. There is no reflection of the fact that all that we do is to share the sum of all knowledge. It is not only about the creation of content but also about sharing the sum all the knowledge that is available to us.
For obvious reasons, the contributors to the projects are heard. I do not subscribe to the notion that the "projects" need to be in the organisational chart. With 300 languages and potentially multiple projects for each language it is impossible to have equity among these projects. The point that I have made repeatedly: Commons is not useful in any language but English, this does not need to be as there is software that works equally well in any language dependent on the availability of labels in Wikidata. This is just one example, there are more. Thanks, GerardM
"Commons is not useful in any language but English" is nonsense. The idea that displaying "labels" and imposed transclusions from Wikidata would make, say, a Commons image page Spanish description of a PDF book in Spanish redundant, and an English description is all that Commons should aim for, disregards the valued work that many Commons contributors make to keep the project multilingual.
I would hope that the WMF board would understand how the projects function and their value to public reuse rather better than this.
Thanks, Fae
Hoi, You make your point and you are essentially wrong. When you search in English for "beaver" you do not find beavers. They are mostly false positives related in one way or other to "beaver" but they do not depict a beaver[1] . This is true for all languages. My point is that Commons is not useful when people cannot find what they are looking for. Compare this to a search using the Wikidata labels linked to "depicts" statements in any and all languages, this is where they DO find beavers [2] (this app is by Hay Kranen and it shows the same functionality special:mediasearch used to have in a previous iteration).
I am totally aware that it is only a subset of the images at Commons that can be found in this way. It however works for a general public and it does work in any language. The current search is however not functional when you "just" want to find a picture. When you argue that special purpose files with a Spanish description are a reason not to provide a functional search, I do wonder what Commons is for. Why have the biggest freely licensed resource of media files when it has no functional search, when it is essentially closed in all languages to the public.
The reason why I aim to be a member of the board is exactly that we need a public for all the work that we have done. I do not mind when we start with a minimal service that works over a service that does not bring us the attention to Commons that it deserves. We do not truly value the data that we have. Thanks, GerardM
[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MediaSearch?type=image&search... [2] https://hay.toolforge.org/sdsearch/#q=haswbstatement:P180=Q181191
On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 at 13:42, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 at 17:32, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi. One reason why I am a candidate for the board of the WMF is that in my
opinion one function is lacking. There is no reflection of the fact that all that we do is to share the sum of all knowledge. It is not only about the creation of content but also about sharing the sum all the knowledge that is available to us.
For obvious reasons, the contributors to the projects are heard. I do
not subscribe to the notion that the "projects" need to be in the organisational chart. With 300 languages and potentially multiple projects for each language it is impossible to have equity among these projects. The point that I have made repeatedly: Commons is not useful in any language but English, this does not need to be as there is software that works equally well in any language dependent on the availability of labels in Wikidata. This is just one example, there are more.
Thanks, GerardM
"Commons is not useful in any language but English" is nonsense. The idea that displaying "labels" and imposed transclusions from Wikidata would make, say, a Commons image page Spanish description of a PDF book in Spanish redundant, and an English description is all that Commons should aim for, disregards the valued work that many Commons contributors make to keep the project multilingual.
I would hope that the WMF board would understand how the projects function and their value to public reuse rather better than this.
Thanks, Fae -- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Gerard, Fæ and others,
You are both correct, if we treat commons as an auxiliary tool for media hosting, then yes, it’s ok and working fine. And to Gerard point, it’s effectively saying commons is difficult to use and navigate as a website for non-English speakers, which is totally understandable. I don’t see any conflict here. I think Gerard’s wish to improve commons in that regard is respectable. Though it is my opinion that it would be better if Gerard didn’t start his reply with 'you are essentially wrong’, which sounded a little bit harsh (maybe just to me). There is no conflict in your statements, they are opinions on the two facets of the same thing.
Leo, On Jul 16, 2021, 10:26 PM +0800, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com, wrote:
Hoi, You make your point and you are essentially wrong. When you search in English for "beaver" you do not find beavers. They are mostly false positives related in one way or other to "beaver" but they do not depict a beaver[1] . This is true for all languages. My point is that Commons is not useful when people cannot find what they are looking for. Compare this to a search using the Wikidata labels linked to "depicts" statements in any and all languages, this is where they DO find beavers [2] (this app is by Hay Kranen and it shows the same functionality special:mediasearch used to have in a previous iteration).
I am totally aware that it is only a subset of the images at Commons that can be found in this way. It however works for a general public and it does work in any language. The current search is however not functional when you "just" want to find a picture. When you argue that special purpose files with a Spanish description are a reason not to provide a functional search, I do wonder what Commons is for. Why have the biggest freely licensed resource of media files when it has no functional search, when it is essentially closed in all languages to the public.
The reason why I aim to be a member of the board is exactly that we need a public for all the work that we have done. I do not mind when we start with a minimal service that works over a service that does not bring us the attention to Commons that it deserves. We do not truly value the data that we have. Thanks, GerardM
[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MediaSearch?type=image&search... [2] https://hay.toolforge.org/sdsearch/#q=haswbstatement:P180=Q181191
On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 at 13:42, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 at 17:32, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi. One reason why I am a candidate for the board of the WMF is that in my opinion one function is lacking. There is no reflection of the fact that all that we do is to share the sum of all knowledge. It is not only about the creation of content but also about sharing the sum all the knowledge that is available to us.
For obvious reasons, the contributors to the projects are heard. I do not subscribe to the notion that the "projects" need to be in the organisational chart. With 300 languages and potentially multiple projects for each language it is impossible to have equity among these projects. The point that I have made repeatedly: Commons is not useful in any language but English, this does not need to be as there is software that works equally well in any language dependent on the availability of labels in Wikidata. This is just one example, there are more. Thanks, GerardM
"Commons is not useful in any language but English" is nonsense. The idea that displaying "labels" and imposed transclusions from Wikidata would make, say, a Commons image page Spanish description of a PDF book in Spanish redundant, and an English description is all that Commons should aim for, disregards the valued work that many Commons contributors make to keep the project multilingual.
I would hope that the WMF board would understand how the projects function and their value to public reuse rather better than this.
Thanks, Fae -- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
It would be far more effective to make community and project proposals or run a wider community RFC about how the "common" projects work together rather than become a board member to make a difference in this area. The detail of how projects work and their policies is not something that the WMF board is well placed to dictate. Trustees are busy with WMF operational oversight and strategy, not lobbyists for how technical implementation might work.
A board that starts dictating how projects must function, is probably a board that volunteers would never elect, if they have a choice.
Thanks, Fae
On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 at 15:26, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, You make your point and you are essentially wrong. When you search in English for "beaver" you do not find beavers. They are mostly false positives related in one way or other to "beaver" but they do not depict a beaver[1] . This is true for all languages. My point is that Commons is not useful when people cannot find what they are looking for. Compare this to a search using the Wikidata labels linked to "depicts" statements in any and all languages, this is where they DO find beavers [2] (this app is by Hay Kranen and it shows the same functionality special:mediasearch used to have in a previous iteration).
I am totally aware that it is only a subset of the images at Commons that can be found in this way. It however works for a general public and it does work in any language. The current search is however not functional when you "just" want to find a picture. When you argue that special purpose files with a Spanish description are a reason not to provide a functional search, I do wonder what Commons is for. Why have the biggest freely licensed resource of media files when it has no functional search, when it is essentially closed in all languages to the public.
The reason why I aim to be a member of the board is exactly that we need a public for all the work that we have done. I do not mind when we start with a minimal service that works over a service that does not bring us the attention to Commons that it deserves. We do not truly value the data that we have. Thanks, GerardM
[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MediaSearch?type=image&search... [2] https://hay.toolforge.org/sdsearch/#q=haswbstatement:P180=Q181191
On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 at 13:42, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 at 17:32, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi. One reason why I am a candidate for the board of the WMF is that in my opinion one function is lacking. There is no reflection of the fact that all that we do is to share the sum of all knowledge. It is not only about the creation of content but also about sharing the sum all the knowledge that is available to us.
For obvious reasons, the contributors to the projects are heard. I do not subscribe to the notion that the "projects" need to be in the organisational chart. With 300 languages and potentially multiple projects for each language it is impossible to have equity among these projects. The point that I have made repeatedly: Commons is not useful in any language but English, this does not need to be as there is software that works equally well in any language dependent on the availability of labels in Wikidata. This is just one example, there are more. Thanks, GerardM
"Commons is not useful in any language but English" is nonsense. The idea that displaying "labels" and imposed transclusions from Wikidata would make, say, a Commons image page Spanish description of a PDF book in Spanish redundant, and an English description is all that Commons should aim for, disregards the valued work that many Commons contributors make to keep the project multilingual.
I would hope that the WMF board would understand how the projects function and their value to public reuse rather better than this.
Thanks, Fae -- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Hoi, You have it the wrong way around. Our projects have a function, they exist for us to share in the sum of all knowledge. When a search engine provides results to a public in any language, it does not make a difference to how Commons is run. Your claim that finding pictures is only allowed when a community allows for it exposes a bias that is fundamentally wrong. What Commons contains is freely licensed and consequently anyone can search it, use it.
Your claim that people worked hard to make Commons usable in other languages is fine. However, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. It is the purpose of Commons that its images are actually used, used world wide in any language. You claim that it is the community that allows for re-use. It is not, it is the license. It is the purpose of the Wikimedia movement to make the most of what we have and do. It is the responsibility of the Board to ensure that we do. Thanks, GerardM
On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 at 20:39, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
It would be far more effective to make community and project proposals or run a wider community RFC about how the "common" projects work together rather than become a board member to make a difference in this area. The detail of how projects work and their policies is not something that the WMF board is well placed to dictate. Trustees are busy with WMF operational oversight and strategy, not lobbyists for how technical implementation might work.
A board that starts dictating how projects must function, is probably a board that volunteers would never elect, if they have a choice.
Thanks, Fae
On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 at 15:26, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, You make your point and you are essentially wrong. When you search in
English for "beaver" you do not find beavers. They are mostly false positives related in one way or other to "beaver" but they do not depict a beaver[1] . This is true for all languages. My point is that Commons is not useful when people cannot find what they are looking for. Compare this to a search using the Wikidata labels linked to "depicts" statements in any and all languages, this is where they DO find beavers [2] (this app is by Hay Kranen and it shows the same functionality special:mediasearch used to have in a previous iteration).
I am totally aware that it is only a subset of the images at Commons
that can be found in this way. It however works for a general public and it does work in any language. The current search is however not functional when you "just" want to find a picture. When you argue that special purpose files with a Spanish description are a reason not to provide a functional search, I do wonder what Commons is for. Why have the biggest freely licensed resource of media files when it has no functional search, when it is essentially closed in all languages to the public.
The reason why I aim to be a member of the board is exactly that we need
a public for all the work that we have done. I do not mind when we start with a minimal service that works over a service that does not bring us the attention to Commons that it deserves. We do not truly value the data that we have.
Thanks, GerardM
[1]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MediaSearch?type=image&search...
[2] https://hay.toolforge.org/sdsearch/#q=haswbstatement:P180=Q181191
On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 at 13:42, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 at 17:32, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi. One reason why I am a candidate for the board of the WMF is that in
my opinion one function is lacking. There is no reflection of the fact that all that we do is to share the sum of all knowledge. It is not only about the creation of content but also about sharing the sum all the knowledge that is available to us.
For obvious reasons, the contributors to the projects are heard. I do
not subscribe to the notion that the "projects" need to be in the organisational chart. With 300 languages and potentially multiple projects for each language it is impossible to have equity among these projects. The point that I have made repeatedly: Commons is not useful in any language but English, this does not need to be as there is software that works equally well in any language dependent on the availability of labels in Wikidata. This is just one example, there are more.
Thanks, GerardM
"Commons is not useful in any language but English" is nonsense. The idea that displaying "labels" and imposed transclusions from Wikidata would make, say, a Commons image page Spanish description of a PDF book in Spanish redundant, and an English description is all that Commons should aim for, disregards the valued work that many Commons contributors make to keep the project multilingual.
I would hope that the WMF board would understand how the projects function and their value to public reuse rather better than this.
Thanks, Fae -- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
I must say that in my experience along the years is that search is not a very strong feature in all Wikimedia projects, commons or not. Personally I use commercial search engines to custom search Wikimedia projects, and I include the Creative Commons search [https://search.creativecommons.org/%5D%C2%A0for photos.
I would love if there are efforts to include multilingualism and better search in Wikimedia projects. For Wikimedia Commons specifically, I would love to see (more) cooperation with Creative Commons and other like-minded entities for better search results for all languages.
ircpresident -- [photo] Mohamed ElGohary Lingua Manager and Board Member, Global Voices https://globalvoices.org/lingua [https://globalvoices.org/lingua] [http://globalvoices.org/author/Mohamed-ElGohary/] [http://ircpresident.com] [http://facebook.com/GVlingua] [http://twitter.com/GVLingua] [http://plus.google.com/+MohamedElGohary/] [http://linkedin.com/in/ircpresident] [http://instragram.com/ircpresident] Key: 0x5D13669E Fingerprints: 7838 7FE7 E0E4 BF88 0024 2703 B452 E75A 5D13 669E Amplifying Global Voices stories by the translation into dozens of languages with the help of hundreds of volunteer translators. We are Global Voices Lingua [http://globalvoices.org/lingua%5D! [http://globalvoices.org/donate] Donate to Global Voices [http://globalvoices.org/donate] On 16-Jul-21 10:09:33 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, You have it the wrong way around. Our projects have a function, they exist for us to share in the sum of all knowledge. When a search engine provides results to a public in any language, it does not make a difference to how Commons is run. Your claim that finding pictures is only allowed when a community allows for it exposes a bias that is fundamentally wrong. What Commons contains is freely licensed and consequently anyone can search it, use it.
Your claim that people worked hard to make Commons usable in other languages is fine. However, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. It is the purpose of Commons that its images are actually used, used world wide in any language. You claim that it is the community that allows for re-use. It is not, it is the license. It is the purpose of the Wikimedia movement to make the most of what we have and do. It is the responsibility of the Board to ensure that we do. Thanks, GerardM
On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 at 20:39, Fæ <faewik@gmail.com [mailto:faewik@gmail.com]> wrote:
It would be far more effective to make community and project proposals or run a wider community RFC about how the "common" projects work together rather than become a board member to make a difference in this area. The detail of how projects work and their policies is not something that the WMF board is well placed to dictate. Trustees are busy with WMF operational oversight and strategy, not lobbyists for how technical implementation might work.
A board that starts dictating how projects must function, is probably a board that volunteers would never elect, if they have a choice.
Thanks, Fae
On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 at 15:26, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com [mailto:gerard.meijssen@gmail.com]> wrote:
Hoi, You make your point and you are essentially wrong. When you search in English for "beaver" you do not find beavers. They are mostly false positives related in one way or other to "beaver" but they do not depict a beaver[1] . This is true for all languages. My point is that Commons is not useful when people cannot find what they are looking for. Compare this to a search using the Wikidata labels linked to "depicts" statements in any and all languages, this is where they DO find beavers [2] (this app is by Hay Kranen and it shows the same functionality special:mediasearch used to have in a previous iteration).
I am totally aware that it is only a subset of the images at Commons that can be found in this way. It however works for a general public and it does work in any language. The current search is however not functional when you "just" want to find a picture. When you argue that special purpose files with a Spanish description are a reason not to provide a functional search, I do wonder what Commons is for. Why have the biggest freely licensed resource of media files when it has no functional search, when it is essentially closed in all languages to the public.
The reason why I aim to be a member of the board is exactly that we need a public for all the work that we have done. I do not mind when we start with a minimal service that works over a service that does not bring us the attention to Commons that it deserves. We do not truly value the data that we have. Thanks, GerardM
[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MediaSearch?type=image&search... [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MediaSearch?type=image&search...] [2] https://hay.toolforge.org/sdsearch/#q=haswbstatement:P180=Q181191 [https://hay.toolforge.org/sdsearch/#q=haswbstatement:P180=Q181191]
On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 at 13:42, Fæ <faewik@gmail.com [mailto:faewik@gmail.com]> wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 at 17:32, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com [mailto:gerard.meijssen@gmail.com]> wrote:
Hoi. One reason why I am a candidate for the board of the WMF is that in my opinion one function is lacking. There is no reflection of the fact that all that we do is to share the sum of all knowledge. It is not only about the creation of content but also about sharing the sum all the knowledge that is available to us.
For obvious reasons, the contributors to the projects are heard. I do not subscribe to the notion that the "projects" need to be in the organisational chart. With 300 languages and potentially multiple projects for each language it is impossible to have equity among these projects. The point that I have made repeatedly: Commons is not useful in any language but English, this does not need to be as there is software that works equally well in any language dependent on the availability of labels in Wikidata. This is just one example, there are more. Thanks, GerardM
"Commons is not useful in any language but English" is nonsense. The idea that displaying "labels" and imposed transclusions from Wikidata would make, say, a Commons image page Spanish description of a PDF book in Spanish redundant, and an English description is all that Commons should aim for, disregards the valued work that many Commons contributors make to keep the project multilingual.
I would hope that the WMF board would understand how the projects function and their value to public reuse rather better than this.
Thanks, Fae -- faewik@gmail.com [mailto:faewik@gmail.com] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae]
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines] and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l] Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... [https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...] To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org] _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Hi,
Just a reminder that multilingual search already works for Commons categories, for example search for 'telescopio lovell': https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=telescopio+lovell&title...
This is because the Wikidata Infobox on Commons displays multilingual information, and also includes search engine optimisation (i.e., includes all language labels from Wikidata in the searchable source). We're nearly at 3.5 million categories using the infobox now (about half of all Commons categories...).
It's a bit hidden out of the way now, though, since the default search is for images, and you need to click on 'Categories and pages'.
Thanks, Mike
On 18/7/21 18:49:28, Mohamed ElGohary wrote:
I must say that in my experience along the years is that search is not a very strong feature in all Wikimedia projects, commons or not. Personally I use commercial search engines to custom search Wikimedia projects, and I include the Creative Commons search https://search.creativecommons.org/ for photos.
I would love if there are efforts to include multilingualism and better search in Wikimedia projects. For Wikimedia Commons specifically, I would love to see (more) cooperation with Creative Commons and other like-minded entities for better search results for all languages.
ircpresident
photo *Mohamed ElGohary* Lingua Manager and Board Member, Global Voices
https://globalvoices.org/lingua https://globalvoices.org/lingua
http://globalvoices.org/author/Mohamed-ElGohary/ http://ircpresident.com http://facebook.com/GVlingua http://twitter.com/GVLingua http://plus.google.com/+MohamedElGohary/ http://linkedin.com/in/ircpresident http://instragram.com/ircpresident
Key: 0x5D13669E Fingerprints: 7838 7FE7 E0E4 BF88 0024 2703 B452 E75A 5D13 669E
Amplifying Global Voices stories by the translation into dozens of languages with the help of hundreds of volunteer translators. We are Global Voices Lingua http://globalvoices.org/lingua!
http://globalvoices.org/donate Donate to Global Voices http://globalvoices.org/donate
On 16-Jul-21 10:09:33 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, You have it the wrong way around. Our projects have a function, they exist for us to share in the sum of all knowledge. When a search engine provides results to a public in any language, it does not make a difference to how Commons is run. Your claim that finding pictures is only allowed when a community allows for it exposes a bias that is fundamentally wrong. What Commons contains is freely licensed and consequently anyone can search it, use it.
Your claim that people worked hard to make Commons usable in other languages is fine. However, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. It is the purpose of Commons that its images are actually used, used world wide in any language. You claim that it is the community that allows for re-use. It is not, it is the license. It is the purpose of the Wikimedia movement to make the most of what we have and do. It is the responsibility of the Board to ensure that we do. Thanks, GerardM
On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 at 20:39, Fæ <faewik@gmail.com mailto:faewik@gmail.com> wrote:
It would be far more effective to make community and project proposals or run a wider community RFC about how the "common" projects work together rather than become a board member to make a difference in this area. The detail of how projects work and their policies is not something that the WMF board is well placed to dictate. Trustees are busy with WMF operational oversight and strategy, not lobbyists for how technical implementation might work. A board that starts dictating how projects must function, is probably a board that volunteers would never elect, if they have a choice. Thanks, Fae On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 at 15:26, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com <mailto:gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Hoi, > You make your point and you are essentially wrong. When you search in English for "beaver" you do not find beavers. They are mostly false positives related in one way or other to "beaver" but they do not depict a beaver[1] . This is true for all languages. My point is that Commons is not useful when people cannot find what they are looking for. Compare this to a search using the Wikidata labels linked to "depicts" statements in any and all languages, this is where they DO find beavers [2] (this app is by Hay Kranen and it shows the same functionality special:mediasearch used to have in a previous iteration). > > I am totally aware that it is only a subset of the images at Commons that can be found in this way. It however works for a general public and it does work in any language. The current search is however not functional when you "just" want to find a picture. When you argue that special purpose files with a Spanish description are a reason not to provide a functional search, I do wonder what Commons is for. Why have the biggest freely licensed resource of media files when it has no functional search, when it is essentially closed in all languages to the public. > > The reason why I aim to be a member of the board is exactly that we need a public for all the work that we have done. I do not mind when we start with a minimal service that works over a service that does not bring us the attention to Commons that it deserves. We do not truly value the data that we have. > Thanks, > GerardM > > > [1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MediaSearch?type=image&search=beaver <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MediaSearch?type=image&search=beaver> > [2] https://hay.toolforge.org/sdsearch/#q=haswbstatement:P180=Q181191 <https://hay.toolforge.org/sdsearch/#q=haswbstatement:P180=Q181191> > > On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 at 13:42, Fæ <faewik@gmail.com <mailto:faewik@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 at 17:32, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com <mailto:gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>> wrote: >> > >> > Hoi. >> > One reason why I am a candidate for the board of the WMF is that in my opinion one function is lacking. There is no reflection of the fact that all that we do is to share the sum of all knowledge. It is not only about the creation of content but also about sharing the sum all the knowledge that is available to us. >> > >> > For obvious reasons, the contributors to the projects are heard. I do not subscribe to the notion that the "projects" need to be in the organisational chart. With 300 languages and potentially multiple projects for each language it is impossible to have equity among these projects. The point that I have made repeatedly: Commons is not useful in any language but English, this does not need to be as there is software that works equally well in any language dependent on the availability of labels in Wikidata. This is just one example, there are more. >> > Thanks, >> > GerardM >> >> "Commons is not useful in any language but English" is nonsense. The >> idea that displaying "labels" and imposed transclusions from Wikidata >> would make, say, a Commons image page Spanish description of a PDF >> book in Spanish redundant, and an English description is all that >> Commons should aim for, disregards the valued work that many Commons >> contributors make to keep the project multilingual. >> >> I would hope that the WMF board would understand how the projects >> function and their value to public reuse rather better than this. >> >> Thanks, >> Fae >> -- >> faewik@gmail.com <mailto:faewik@gmail.com> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l> Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/MW4TOXP2ZRYVBRRIDDSMC4FCXZWF7R7F/ <https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/MW4TOXP2ZRYVBRRIDDSMC4FCXZWF7R7F/> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org>_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Hoi, The notion that search works because "there is somewhere a thingie that you first have to select and oh it is a bit out the way" is an argument that can only be made by someone who invested a lot in it. The sad thing is, did you ever wonder if it worked because it does not. You did not consider a public, a user story fulfilled.
My user story is simply this: A nine year old seeks images of a subject to illustrate some homework he has to do. He types in the name of the subject and gets results he can choose from. The nine year old reads and writes in any of the 200+ languages we support. The teacher of the child is aware of the necessity of labels in Wikidata and checked them. In the process helping anybody to find the subjects that are in the curriculum.
Search is what the Wikimedia org provides. The problem with search has been known for as long as Commons exists. The Commons community has not had a material impact on search in all this time. Google does allow you to search with good effect for a "თახვი" but what it brings up is not freely licensed. It is therefore on the board of the Wikimedia Foundation to be aware of this problem and give it the attention that it requires.
Let's be blunt; Google et all are increasingly good at the game of providing information.The Wikimedia projects not as essential as they used to be. We find this in our traffic numbers; we are dropping in the rankings and we have no response. Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, 18 Jul 2021 at 19:59, Mike Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
Hi,
Just a reminder that multilingual search already works for Commons categories, for example search for 'telescopio lovell':
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=telescopio+lovell&title...
This is because the Wikidata Infobox on Commons displays multilingual information, and also includes search engine optimisation (i.e., includes all language labels from Wikidata in the searchable source). We're nearly at 3.5 million categories using the infobox now (about half of all Commons categories...).
It's a bit hidden out of the way now, though, since the default search is for images, and you need to click on 'Categories and pages'.
Thanks, Mike
On 18/7/21 18:49:28, Mohamed ElGohary wrote:
I must say that in my experience along the years is that search is not a very strong feature in all Wikimedia projects, commons or not. Personally I use commercial search engines to custom search Wikimedia projects, and I include the Creative Commons search https://search.creativecommons.org/ for photos.
I would love if there are efforts to include multilingualism and better search in Wikimedia projects. For Wikimedia Commons specifically, I would love to see (more) cooperation with Creative Commons and other like-minded entities for better search results for all languages.
ircpresident
photo *Mohamed ElGohary* Lingua Manager and Board Member, Global Voices
https://globalvoices.org/lingua https://globalvoices.org/lingua
http://globalvoices.org/author/Mohamed-ElGohary/ http://ircpresident.com http://facebook.com/GVlingua http://twitter.com/GVLingua http://plus.google.com/+MohamedElGohary/ http://linkedin.com/in/ircpresident <
http://instragram.com/ircpresident%3E
Key: 0x5D13669E Fingerprints: 7838 7FE7 E0E4 BF88 0024 2703 B452 E75A 5D13 669E
Amplifying Global Voices stories by the translation into dozens of languages with the help of hundreds of volunteer translators. We are Global Voices Lingua http://globalvoices.org/lingua!
http://globalvoices.org/donate Donate to Global Voices http://globalvoices.org/donate
On 16-Jul-21 10:09:33 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, You have it the wrong way around. Our projects have a function, they exist for us to share in the sum of all knowledge. When a search engine provides results to a public in any language, it does not make a difference to how Commons is run. Your claim that finding pictures is only allowed when a community allows for it exposes a bias that is fundamentally wrong. What Commons contains is freely licensed and consequently anyone can search it, use it.
Your claim that people worked hard to make Commons usable in other languages is fine. However, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. It is the purpose of Commons that its images are actually used, used world wide in any language. You claim that it is the community that allows for re-use. It is not, it is the license. It is the purpose of the Wikimedia movement to make the most of what we have and do. It is the responsibility of the Board to ensure that we do. Thanks, GerardM
On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 at 20:39, Fæ <faewik@gmail.com mailto:faewik@gmail.com> wrote:
It would be far more effective to make community and projectproposals
or run a wider community RFC about how the "common" projects work together rather than become a board member to make a difference in this area. The detail of how projects work and their policies is not something that the WMF board is well placed to dictate. Trustees are busy with WMF operational oversight and strategy, not lobbyists for how technical implementation might work. A board that starts dictating how projects must function, isprobably
a board that volunteers would never elect, if they have a choice. Thanks, Fae On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 at 15:26, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com <mailto:gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>>wrote:
> > Hoi, > You make your point and you are essentially wrong. When you search in English for "beaver" you do not find beavers. They are mostly false positives related in one way or other to "beaver" but they do not depict a beaver[1] . This is true for all languages. My point is that Commons is not useful when people cannot find what they are looking for. Compare this to a search using the Wikidata labels linked to "depicts" statements in any and all languages, this is where they DO find beavers [2] (this app is by Hay Kranen and it shows the same functionality special:mediasearch used to have in a previous iteration). > > I am totally aware that it is only a subset of the images at Commons that can be found in this way. It however works for a general public and it does work in any language. The current search is however not functional when you "just" want to find a picture. When you argue that special purpose files with a Spanish description are a reason not to provide a functional search, I do wonder what Commons is for. Why have the biggest freely licensed resource of media files when it has no functional search, when it is essentially closed in all languages to the public. > > The reason why I aim to be a member of the board is exactly that we need a public for all the work that we have done. I do not mind when we start with a minimal service that works over a service that does not bring us the attention to Commons that it deserves. We do not truly value the data that we have. > Thanks, > GerardM > > > [1]https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MediaSearch?type=image&search...
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MediaSearch?type=image&search...
> [2] https://hay.toolforge.org/sdsearch/#q=haswbstatement:P180=Q181191 <https://hay.toolforge.org/sdsearch/#q=haswbstatement:P180=Q181191> > > On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 at 13:42, Fæ <faewik@gmail.com <mailto:faewik@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 at 17:32, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com <mailto:gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>>wrote:
>> > >> > Hoi. >> > One reason why I am a candidate for the board of the WMF is that in my opinion one function is lacking. There is no reflection of the fact that all that we do is to share the sum of all knowledge. It is not only about the creation of content but also about sharing the sum all the knowledge that is available to us. >> > >> > For obvious reasons, the contributors to the projects are heard. I do not subscribe to the notion that the "projects" need to be in the organisational chart. With 300 languages and potentially multiple projects for each language it is impossible to have equity among these projects. The point that I have made repeatedly: Commons is not useful in any language but English, this does not need to be as there is software that works equally well in any language dependent on the availability of labels in Wikidata. This is just one example, there are more. >> > Thanks, >> > GerardM >> >> "Commons is not useful in any language but English" is nonsense. The >> idea that displaying "labels" and imposed transclusions from Wikidata >> would make, say, a Commons image page Spanish description of a>> book in Spanish redundant, and an English description is all that >> Commons should aim for, disregards the valued work that many Commons >> contributors make to keep the project multilingual. >> >> I would hope that the WMF board would understand how the projects >> function and their value to public reuse rather better than this. >> >> Thanks, >> Fae >> -- >> faewik@gmail.com <mailto:faewik@gmail.com> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l> Public archives athttps://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org>_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Does some basic functionality work? Sure. Is it as good as Google? Nope. Is it as good as we can make it? Most likely not.
BTW, we are not doing great in searches irrespective of multilingualism issues, but we have notably improved over time.
best,
Dariusz Jemielniak, "pundit"
On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 6:33 AM Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The notion that search works because "there is somewhere a thingie that you first have to select and oh it is a bit out the way" is an argument that can only be made by someone who invested a lot in it. The sad thing is, did you ever wonder if it worked because it does not. You did not consider a public, a user story fulfilled.
My user story is simply this: A nine year old seeks images of a subject to illustrate some homework he has to do. He types in the name of the subject and gets results he can choose from. The nine year old reads and writes in any of the 200+ languages we support. The teacher of the child is aware of the necessity of labels in Wikidata and checked them. In the process helping anybody to find the subjects that are in the curriculum.
Search is what the Wikimedia org provides. The problem with search has been known for as long as Commons exists. The Commons community has not had a material impact on search in all this time. Google does allow you to search with good effect for a "თახვი" but what it brings up is not freely licensed. It is therefore on the board of the Wikimedia Foundation to be aware of this problem and give it the attention that it requires.
Let's be blunt; Google et all are increasingly good at the game of providing information.The Wikimedia projects not as essential as they used to be. We find this in our traffic numbers; we are dropping in the rankings and we have no response. Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, 18 Jul 2021 at 19:59, Mike Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
Hi,
Just a reminder that multilingual search already works for Commons categories, for example search for 'telescopio lovell':
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=telescopio+lovell&title...
This is because the Wikidata Infobox on Commons displays multilingual information, and also includes search engine optimisation (i.e., includes all language labels from Wikidata in the searchable source). We're nearly at 3.5 million categories using the infobox now (about half of all Commons categories...).
It's a bit hidden out of the way now, though, since the default search is for images, and you need to click on 'Categories and pages'.
Thanks, Mike
On 18/7/21 18:49:28, Mohamed ElGohary wrote:
I must say that in my experience along the years is that search is not
a
very strong feature in all Wikimedia projects, commons or not. Personally I use commercial search engines to custom search Wikimedia projects, and I include the Creative Commons search https://search.creativecommons.org/ for photos.
I would love if there are efforts to include multilingualism and better search in Wikimedia projects. For Wikimedia Commons specifically, I would love to see (more) cooperation with Creative Commons and other like-minded entities for better search results for all languages.
ircpresident
photo *Mohamed ElGohary* Lingua Manager and Board Member, Global Voices
https://globalvoices.org/lingua https://globalvoices.org/lingua
http://globalvoices.org/author/Mohamed-ElGohary/ http://ircpresident.com http://facebook.com/GVlingua http://twitter.com/GVLingua http://plus.google.com/+MohamedElGohary/ http://linkedin.com/in/ircpresident <
http://instragram.com/ircpresident%3E
Key: 0x5D13669E Fingerprints: 7838 7FE7 E0E4 BF88 0024 2703 B452 E75A 5D13 669E
Amplifying Global Voices stories by the translation into dozens of languages with the help of hundreds of volunteer translators. We are Global Voices Lingua http://globalvoices.org/lingua!
http://globalvoices.org/donate Donate to Global Voices http://globalvoices.org/donate
On 16-Jul-21 10:09:33 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, You have it the wrong way around. Our projects have a function, they exist for us to share in the sum of all knowledge. When a search engine provides results to a public in any language, it does not make a difference to how Commons is run. Your claim that finding pictures is only allowed when a community allows for it exposes a bias that is fundamentally wrong. What Commons contains is freely licensed and consequently anyone can search it, use it.
Your claim that people worked hard to make Commons usable in other languages is fine. However, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. It is the purpose of Commons that its images are actually used, used world wide in any language. You claim that it is the community that allows for re-use. It is not, it is the license. It is the purpose of the Wikimedia movement to make the most of what we have and do. It is the responsibility of the Board to ensure that we do. Thanks, GerardM
On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 at 20:39, Fæ <faewik@gmail.com mailto:faewik@gmail.com> wrote:
It would be far more effective to make community and projectproposals
or run a wider community RFC about how the "common" projects work together rather than become a board member to make a difference in this area. The detail of how projects work and their policies isnot
something that the WMF board is well placed to dictate. Trusteesare
busy with WMF operational oversight and strategy, not lobbyists for how technical implementation might work. A board that starts dictating how projects must function, isprobably
a board that volunteers would never elect, if they have a choice. Thanks, Fae On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 at 15:26, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com <mailto:gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>>wrote:
> > Hoi, > You make your point and you are essentially wrong. When you search in English for "beaver" you do not find beavers. They are mostly false positives related in one way or other to "beaver" but they do not depict a beaver[1] . This is true for all languages. My point is that Commons is not useful when people cannot find what they are looking for. Compare this to a search using the Wikidata labels linked to "depicts" statements in any and all languages, this is where they DO find beavers [2] (this app is by Hay Kranen and it shows the same functionality special:mediasearch used to have in a previous iteration). > > I am totally aware that it is only a subset of the images at Commons that can be found in this way. It however works for a general public and it does work in any language. The current search is however not functional when you "just" want to find a picture. When you argue that special purpose files with a Spanish description are a reason not to provide a functional search, I do wonder what Commons is for. Why have the biggest freely licensed resource of media files when it has no functional search, when it is essentially closed in all languages to the public. > > The reason why I aim to be a member of the board is exactly that we need a public for all the work that we have done. I do not mind when we start with a minimal service that works over a service that does not bring us the attention to Commons that it deserves. We do not truly value the data that we have. > Thanks, > GerardM > > > [1]https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MediaSearch?type=image&search...
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MediaSearch?type=image&search...
> [2] https://hay.toolforge.org/sdsearch/#q=haswbstatement:P180=Q181191 <https://hay.toolforge.org/sdsearch/#q=haswbstatement:P180=Q181191> > On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 at 13:42, Fæ <faewik@gmail.com <mailto:faewik@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 at 17:32, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com <mailto:gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>>wrote:
>> > >> > Hoi. >> > One reason why I am a candidate for the board of the WMF is that in my opinion one function is lacking. There is no reflection of the fact that all that we do is to share the sum of all knowledge. It is not only about the creation of content but also about sharing the sum all the knowledge that is available to us. >> > >> > For obvious reasons, the contributors to the projects are heard. I do not subscribe to the notion that the "projects" need to be in the organisational chart. With 300 languages and potentially multiple projects for each language it is impossible to have equity among these projects. The point that I have made repeatedly: Commons is not useful in any language but English, this does not need to be as there is software that works equally well in any language dependent on the availability of labels in Wikidata. This is just one example, there are more. >> > Thanks, >> > GerardM >> >> "Commons is not useful in any language but English" is nonsense. The >> idea that displaying "labels" and imposed transclusions from Wikidata >> would make, say, a Commons image page Spanish description of a>> book in Spanish redundant, and an English description is allthat
>> Commons should aim for, disregards the valued work that many Commons >> contributors make to keep the project multilingual. >> >> I would hope that the WMF board would understand how theprojects
>> function and their value to public reuse rather better thanthis.
>> >> Thanks, >> Fae >> -- >> faewik@gmail.com <mailto:faewik@gmail.com> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l> Public archives athttps://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org>_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Hoi, Did we regress from a previous situation - yes Is the software still available to us - yes Do we have a serious issue with providing a service to our public - yes Is it is just one issue or is it one of many issues - one of many Has it improved over time, you tell me yes and you can point out the veracity because of.. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 at 14:31, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@kozminski.edu.pl wrote:
Does some basic functionality work? Sure. Is it as good as Google? Nope. Is it as good as we can make it? Most likely not.
BTW, we are not doing great in searches irrespective of multilingualism issues, but we have notably improved over time.
best,
Dariusz Jemielniak, "pundit"
On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 6:33 AM Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The notion that search works because "there is somewhere a thingie that you first have to select and oh it is a bit out the way" is an argument that can only be made by someone who invested a lot in it. The sad thing is, did you ever wonder if it worked because it does not. You did not consider a public, a user story fulfilled.
My user story is simply this: A nine year old seeks images of a subject to illustrate some homework he has to do. He types in the name of the subject and gets results he can choose from. The nine year old reads and writes in any of the 200+ languages we support. The teacher of the child is aware of the necessity of labels in Wikidata and checked them. In the process helping anybody to find the subjects that are in the curriculum.
Search is what the Wikimedia org provides. The problem with search has been known for as long as Commons exists. The Commons community has not had a material impact on search in all this time. Google does allow you to search with good effect for a "თახვი" but what it brings up is not freely licensed. It is therefore on the board of the Wikimedia Foundation to be aware of this problem and give it the attention that it requires.
Let's be blunt; Google et all are increasingly good at the game of providing information.The Wikimedia projects not as essential as they used to be. We find this in our traffic numbers; we are dropping in the rankings and we have no response. Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, 18 Jul 2021 at 19:59, Mike Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
Hi,
Just a reminder that multilingual search already works for Commons categories, for example search for 'telescopio lovell':
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=telescopio+lovell&title...
This is because the Wikidata Infobox on Commons displays multilingual information, and also includes search engine optimisation (i.e., includes all language labels from Wikidata in the searchable source). We're nearly at 3.5 million categories using the infobox now (about half of all Commons categories...).
It's a bit hidden out of the way now, though, since the default search is for images, and you need to click on 'Categories and pages'.
Thanks, Mike
On 18/7/21 18:49:28, Mohamed ElGohary wrote:
I must say that in my experience along the years is that search is not
a
very strong feature in all Wikimedia projects, commons or not. Personally I use commercial search engines to custom search Wikimedia projects, and I include the Creative Commons search https://search.creativecommons.org/ for photos.
I would love if there are efforts to include multilingualism and
better
search in Wikimedia projects. For Wikimedia Commons specifically, I would love to see (more) cooperation with Creative Commons and other like-minded entities for better search results for all languages.
ircpresident
photo *Mohamed ElGohary* Lingua Manager and Board Member, Global Voices
https://globalvoices.org/lingua https://globalvoices.org/lingua
http://globalvoices.org/author/Mohamed-ElGohary/ http://ircpresident.com http://facebook.com/GVlingua http://twitter.com/GVLingua http://plus.google.com/+MohamedElGohary/ http://linkedin.com/in/ircpresident <
http://instragram.com/ircpresident%3E
Key: 0x5D13669E Fingerprints: 7838 7FE7 E0E4 BF88 0024 2703 B452 E75A 5D13 669E
Amplifying Global Voices stories by the translation into dozens of languages with the help of hundreds of volunteer translators. We are Global Voices Lingua http://globalvoices.org/lingua!
http://globalvoices.org/donate Donate to Global Voices http://globalvoices.org/donate
On 16-Jul-21 10:09:33 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, You have it the wrong way around. Our projects have a function, they exist for us to share in the sum of all knowledge. When a search engine provides results to a public in any language, it does not make a difference to how Commons is run. Your claim that finding pictures is only allowed when a community allows for it exposes a bias that is fundamentally wrong. What Commons contains is freely licensed and consequently anyone can search it, use it.
Your claim that people worked hard to make Commons usable in other languages is fine. However, the proof of the pudding is in the
eating.
It is the purpose of Commons that its images are actually used, used world wide in any language. You claim that it is the community that allows for re-use. It is not, it is the license. It is the purpose of the Wikimedia movement to make the most of what we have and do. It is the responsibility of the Board to ensure that we do. Thanks, GerardM
On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 at 20:39, Fæ <faewik@gmail.com mailto:faewik@gmail.com> wrote:
It would be far more effective to make community and projectproposals
or run a wider community RFC about how the "common" projects work together rather than become a board member to make a difference in this area. The detail of how projects work and their policies isnot
something that the WMF board is well placed to dictate. Trusteesare
busy with WMF operational oversight and strategy, not lobbyistsfor
how technical implementation might work. A board that starts dictating how projects must function, isprobably
a board that volunteers would never elect, if they have a choice. Thanks, Fae On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 at 15:26, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com <mailto:gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>>wrote:
> > Hoi, > You make your point and you are essentially wrong. When you search in English for "beaver" you do not find beavers. They are mostly false positives related in one way or other to "beaver" but they do not depict a beaver[1] . This is true for all languages. My point is that Commons is not useful when people cannot find what they are looking for. Compare this to a search using the Wikidata labels linked to "depicts" statements in any and all languages, this is where they DO find beavers [2] (this app is by Hay Kranen and it shows the same functionality special:mediasearch used to have in a previous iteration). > > I am totally aware that it is only a subset of the images at Commons that can be found in this way. It however works for a general public and it does work in any language. The current search is however not functional when you "just" want to find a picture. When you argue that special purpose files with a Spanish description are a reason not to provide a functional search, I do wonder what Commons is for. Why have the biggest freely licensed resource of media files when it has no functional search, when it is essentially closed in all languages to the public. > > The reason why I aim to be a member of the board is exactly that we need a public for all the work that we have done. I do not mind when we start with a minimal service that works over a service that does not bring us the attention to Commons that it deserves. We do not truly value the data that we have. > Thanks, > GerardM > > > [1]https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MediaSearch?type=image&search...
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MediaSearch?type=image&search...
> [2] https://hay.toolforge.org/sdsearch/#q=haswbstatement:P180=Q181191 <https://hay.toolforge.org/sdsearch/#q=haswbstatement:P180=Q181191%3E
> > On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 at 13:42, Fæ <faewik@gmail.com <mailto:faewik@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 at 17:32, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com <mailto:gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>>wrote:
>> > >> > Hoi. >> > One reason why I am a candidate for the board of the WMF is that in my opinion one function is lacking. There is no reflection of the fact that all that we do is to share the sum of all knowledge. It is not only about the creation of content but also about sharing the sum all the knowledge that is available to us. >> > >> > For obvious reasons, the contributors to the projects are heard. I do not subscribe to the notion that the "projects" need to be in the organisational chart. With 300 languages and potentially multiple projects for each language it is impossible to have equity among these projects. The point that I have made repeatedly: Commons is not useful in any language but English, this does not need to be as there is software that works equally well in any language dependent on the availability of labels in Wikidata. This is just one example, there are more. >> > Thanks, >> > GerardM >> >> "Commons is not useful in any language but English" is nonsense. The >> idea that displaying "labels" and imposed transclusions from Wikidata >> would make, say, a Commons image page Spanish description of a>> book in Spanish redundant, and an English description is allthat
>> Commons should aim for, disregards the valued work that many Commons >> contributors make to keep the project multilingual. >> >> I would hope that the WMF board would understand how theprojects
>> function and their value to public reuse rather better thanthis.
>> >> Thanks, >> Fae >> -- >> faewik@gmail.com <mailto:faewik@gmail.com> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l> Public archives athttps://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org>_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
--
prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak kierownik katedry MINDS https://nerds.kozminski.edu.pl/, Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
członek korespondent Polskiej Akademii Nauk https://pan.pl/
faculty associate Berkman-Klein Center for Internet and Society https://cyber.harvard.edu/, Harvard University Ważniejsze książki: Collaborative Society https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/collaborative-society (2020, MIT Press, z A. Przegalińską), Thick Big Data https://global.oup.com/academic/product/thick-big-data-9780198839705?cc=gb&lang=en (2020, Oxford University Press), Common Knowledge? https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=24010 (2014, Stanford University Press) *Ostatnie artykuły:*
- Jędrzej Chrzanowski, Julia Sołek, Dariusz Jemielniak, Wojciech
Fendler (2021) Assessing Public Interest Based on Wikipedia’s Most Visited Medical Articles During the SARS-CoV-2 Outbreak https://www.jmir.org/2021/4/e26331/, *Journal of Medical Internet Research*, 23(4)::e26331
- Natalia Banasik-Jemielniak, Dariusz Jemielniak, Wojciech Pędzich
(2021) Intercessory Rote Prayer, Life Longevity and the Mortality of Roman Catholic Bishops: An Exploratory Study https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10943-021-01214-9, *Journal of Religion and Health*, doi.org/10.1007/s10943-021-01214-9
- Natalia Banasik-Jemielniak, Dariusz Jemielniak, Maciej Wilamowski
(2021) Psychology and Wikipedia: Measuring Psychology Journals’ Impact by Wikipedia Citations http://nerds.kozminski.edu.pl/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Psychology-and-Wikipedia-measuring-psychology-journals-impact-by-Wikipedia-citations.pdf , *Social Science Computer Review, *doi.org/10.1177/0894439321993836
- Agata Stasik, Dariusz Jemielniak (2021) Public involvement in risk
governance in the internet era: impact of new rules of building trust and credibility http://nerds.kozminski.edu.pl/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Public-involvement-in-risk-governance-in-the-internet-era-impact-of-new-rules-of-building-trust-and-credibility.pdf, Journal of Risk Research, doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2020.1864008
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org