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(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > 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(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > >> Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… > >> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > > Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… > > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org

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(a)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(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> 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(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > 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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> >> Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… >> >> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> > Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… >> > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… >> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org

On Tuesday, July 6, 2021, Ciell Wikipedia <ciell.wikipedia(a)gmail.com> wrote: I feel the same. We need much much more of diagramatic content and higher level of organizational understanding for all Wikimedia contributors. 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.

On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 11:17 PM Dggenwp <dggenwp(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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.

Bill/Will mentioned this might be a new organisational chart <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_chart>of 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 &lt;dggenwp(a)gmail.com&gt;om>:

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 &lt;dggenwp(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 at 17:32, Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: "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(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

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 &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt;om>, 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 &lt;faewik(a)gmail.com&gt; 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&titl… 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 &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; >> 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 &lt;faewik(a)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 >> &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)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&searc… >> <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 &lt;faewik(a)gmail.com >> <mailto:faewik@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 at 17:32, Gerard Meijssen >> &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)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(a)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(a)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/message/MW4TOXP2ZRYVBRRIDDSMC4FCXZWF7R7F/> >> To unsubscribe send an email to >> wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org> >> >> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing >> list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… >> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org >

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 &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- __________________________________ ​​ 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