In a message dated 4/5/2011 6:08:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time, bnewstead@wikimedia.org writes:
Another quick note on the Movement Communications Manager posting that we are hoping to fill at WMF. We have a number of applicants, but very, very few are from the Wikimedia community. We would really love to fill this role with a strong Wikimedian, so if you are interested or know someone who may be interested, please apply or reach out to Jay Walsh or myself.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings/Movement_Communications_Ma nager
The job is written in such a narrow way that it's not very likely you're going to get many candidates from within the community sorry. You want someone with a communications degree, who is a native English speaker, can also communicate in a non-English language, and has experience in CSS, and templates, and Wikimedia projects in general.
Sorry all of those things just do not go together in my mind. Even tech savvy people do not necessarily know much to anything about CSS, and those that do are not journalists and writers in general. So that's your first strike out. People who are journalists with degrees in communications or that sort of field, do not gravitate toward the Wikimedia projects at all. The few that do, are very very unlikely to be able to create or even understand templates. So that's your second strike out.
99% of native English speakers, perhaps even 99.9% can not communicate even minimally in any other language whatsoever. So that's your third strike-out.
It seems the job requirements were written by a computer science degree-holder who thinks somehow knowing how to use IRC is a requirement of communications outreach....
I see the deadline is in two days for submissions :) I prophecy doom.
Dubya the artist formerly known as Will Johnson
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 10:36, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 4/5/2011 6:08:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time, bnewstead@wikimedia.org writes:
Another quick note on the Movement Communications Manager posting that we are hoping to fill at WMF. We have a number of applicants, but very, very few are from the Wikimedia community. We would really love to fill this role with a strong Wikimedian, so if you are interested or know someone who may be interested, please apply or reach out to Jay Walsh or myself.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings/Movement_Communications_Man...
The job is written in such a narrow way that it's not very likely you're going to get many candidates from within the community sorry. You want someone with a communications degree, who is a native English speaker, can also communicate in a non-English language, and has experience in CSS, and templates, and Wikimedia projects in general.
I understood that they wanted someone who was ideally *not* a native English speaker. That was something that concerned me when I read it, because it looked as if the intention was to disadvantage applicants who had English as a first language. Or did I misunderstand it?
"Demonstrated ability to work (speak, read, write at a professional level) effectively in a language other than English (ideally as a native speaker)"
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 10:36, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 4/5/2011 6:08:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time, bnewstead@wikimedia.org writes:
Another quick note on the Movement Communications Manager posting that we are hoping to fill at WMF. We have a number of applicants, but very, very few are from the Wikimedia community. We would really love to fill this role with a strong Wikimedian, so if you are interested or know someone who may be interested, please apply or reach out to Jay Walsh or myself.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings/Movement_Communications_Man...
The job is written in such a narrow way that it's not very likely you're going to get many candidates from within the community sorry. You want someone with a communications degree, who is a native English speaker, can also communicate in a non-English language, and has experience in CSS, and templates, and Wikimedia projects in general.
I understood that they wanted someone who was ideally *not* a native English speaker. That was something that concerned me when I read it, because it looked as if the intention was to disadvantage applicants who had English as a first language. Or did I misunderstand it?
"Demonstrated ability to work (speak, read, write at a professional level) effectively in a language other than English (ideally as a native speaker)"
English speakers and Europeans generally, such as you and I, dominate most Wikimedia conversations. I doubt anyone could function in this position if they didn't understand English, but our hope is to get the rest of the world involved.
However it is hard to imagine an ideal second language that is not European; only Arabic is spoken by a large diverse population with internet access.
Fred
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 12:42, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I understood that they wanted someone who was ideally *not* a native English speaker. That was something that concerned me when I read it, because it looked as if the intention was to disadvantage applicants who had English as a first language. Or did I misunderstand it?
"Demonstrated ability to work (speak, read, write at a professional level) effectively in a language other than English (ideally as a native speaker)"
English speakers and Europeans generally, such as you and I, dominate most Wikimedia conversations. I doubt anyone could function in this position if they didn't understand English, but our hope is to get the rest of the world involved.
However it is hard to imagine an ideal second language that is not European; only Arabic is spoken by a large diverse population with internet access.
Is that kind of bias against national origin allowed when hiring?
Is not a Bias Sarah. Anyone can apply, but they have to know english (if not as 1º language as 2º one) and another language (if english is the 1º one). If this person is american, chinese, brazilian or african (i imagine) that really don't care _____ *Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/ (351) 925 171 484
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a fazer.***
2011/4/15 Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 12:42, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I understood that they wanted someone who was ideally *not* a native English speaker. That was something that concerned me when I read it, because it looked as if the intention was to disadvantage applicants who had English as a first language. Or did I misunderstand it?
"Demonstrated ability to work (speak, read, write at a professional level) effectively in a language other than English (ideally as a native speaker)"
English speakers and Europeans generally, such as you and I, dominate most Wikimedia conversations. I doubt anyone could function in this position if they didn't understand English, but our hope is to get the rest of the world involved.
However it is hard to imagine an ideal second language that is not European; only Arabic is spoken by a large diverse population with internet access.
Is that kind of bias against national origin allowed when hiring?
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 13:07, Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com wrote:
Is not a Bias Sarah. Anyone can apply, but they have to know english (if not as 1º language as 2º one) and another language (if english is the 1º one). If this person is american, chinese, brazilian or african (i imagine) that really don't care _____ *Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/ (351) 925 171 484
It doesn't say that, Béria. It seems to say that, ideally, the successful applicant will not have English as a first language, i.e. will not be from most of Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago, and several more.
That rules out a huge number of Wikimedians (most, in fact) just because of their birthplace and culture.
The ad says: "Demonstrated ability to work (speak, read, write at a professional level) effectively in a language other than English (ideally as a native speaker)"
Sarah
2011/4/15 Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 12:42, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I understood that they wanted someone who was ideally *not* a native English speaker. That was something that concerned me when I read it, because it looked as if the intention was to disadvantage applicants who had English as a first language. Or did I misunderstand it?
"Demonstrated ability to work (speak, read, write at a professional level) effectively in a language other than English (ideally as a native speaker)"
English speakers and Europeans generally, such as you and I, dominate most Wikimedia conversations. I doubt anyone could function in this position if they didn't understand English, but our hope is to get the rest of the world involved.
However it is hard to imagine an ideal second language that is not European; only Arabic is spoken by a large diverse population with internet access.
Is that kind of bias against national origin allowed when hiring?
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
And no English speaker is able to learn a second language? _____ *Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/ (351) 925 171 484
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a fazer.***
2011/4/15 Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 13:07, Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com wrote:
Is not a Bias Sarah. Anyone can apply, but they have to know english (if
not
as 1º language as 2º one) and another language (if english is the 1º
one).
If this person is american, chinese, brazilian or african (i imagine)
that
really don't care _____ *Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/ (351) 925 171 484
It doesn't say that, Béria. It seems to say that, ideally, the successful applicant will not have English as a first language, i.e. will not be from most of Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago, and several more.
That rules out a huge number of Wikimedians (most, in fact) just because of their birthplace and culture.
The ad says: "Demonstrated ability to work (speak, read, write at a professional level) effectively in a language other than English (ideally as a native speaker)"
Sarah
2011/4/15 Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 12:42, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net
wrote:
I understood that they wanted someone who was ideally *not* a native English speaker. That was something that concerned me when I read it, because it looked as if the intention was to disadvantage applicants who had English as a first language. Or did I misunderstand it?
"Demonstrated ability to work (speak, read, write at a professional level) effectively in a language other than English (ideally as a native speaker)"
English speakers and Europeans generally, such as you and I, dominate most Wikimedia conversations. I doubt anyone could function in this position if they didn't understand English, but our hope is to get the rest of the world involved.
However it is hard to imagine an ideal second language that is not European; only Arabic is spoken by a large diverse population with internet access.
Is that kind of bias against national origin allowed when hiring?
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 15 April 2011 15:17, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 13:07, Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com wrote:
Is not a Bias Sarah. Anyone can apply, but they have to know english (if
not
as 1º language as 2º one) and another language (if english is the 1º
one).
If this person is american, chinese, brazilian or african (i imagine)
that
really don't care _____ *Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/ (351) 925 171 484
It doesn't say that, Béria. It seems to say that, ideally, the successful applicant will not have English as a first language, i.e. will not be from most of Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago, and several more.
That rules out a huge number of Wikimedians (most, in fact) just because of their birthplace and culture.
The ad says: "Demonstrated ability to work (speak, read, write at a professional level) effectively in a language other than English (ideally as a native speaker)"
Not quite sure where you're coming from there. Today I've interacted with about 60 professional colleagues. They're all Canadians but I'd venture to guess that at least a third would consider themselves native speakers of at least one other language.
Risker
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 13:29, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 April 2011 15:17, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 13:07, Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com wrote:
Is not a Bias Sarah. Anyone can apply, but they have to know english (if
not
as 1º language as 2º one) and another language (if english is the 1º
one).
If this person is american, chinese, brazilian or african (i imagine)
that
really don't care _____ *Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/ (351) 925 171 484
It doesn't say that, Béria. It seems to say that, ideally, the successful applicant will not have English as a first language, i.e. will not be from most of Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago, and several more.
That rules out a huge number of Wikimedians (most, in fact) just because of their birthplace and culture.
The ad says: "Demonstrated ability to work (speak, read, write at a professional level) effectively in a language other than English (ideally as a native speaker)"
Not quite sure where you're coming from there. Today I've interacted with about 60 professional colleagues. They're all Canadians but I'd venture to guess that at least a third would consider themselves native speakers of at least one other language.
Not sure what you mean, Risker. The point is that the ad is discriminating against people who are native English speakers, i.e. because of their origins and culture. The question is whether that's allowed under whatever employment legislation governs the hiring. And law apart, it seems unfair.
Sarah
I don't see how can be discriminative Sarah.
I (and all no english speaker here) needed to - at some point of their lifes - start to study a second language. We all have problems to speak in a language we are not native and had to spent years to be good in it. The ad forces us to speak one specific language. I.e., if i'm fluent (I'm not) in Portuguese, German, French, Spanish, Italian, Arabic and Japanese but don't speak english, i can't apply. The only thing required for english speaker is be able to talk in other language (*any *language). How that can be discrimative? _____ *Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/ (351) 925 171 484
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a fazer.***
2011/4/15 Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 13:29, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 April 2011 15:17, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 13:07, Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com wrote:
Is not a Bias Sarah. Anyone can apply, but they have to know english
(if
not
as 1º language as 2º one) and another language (if english is the 1º
one).
If this person is american, chinese, brazilian or african (i imagine)
that
really don't care _____ *Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/ (351) 925 171 484
It doesn't say that, Béria. It seems to say that, ideally, the successful applicant will not have English as a first language, i.e. will not be from most of Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago, and several more.
That rules out a huge number of Wikimedians (most, in fact) just because of their birthplace and culture.
The ad says: "Demonstrated ability to work (speak, read, write at a professional level) effectively in a language other than English (ideally as a native speaker)"
Not quite sure where you're coming from there. Today I've interacted
with
about 60 professional colleagues. They're all Canadians but I'd venture
to
guess that at least a third would consider themselves native speakers of
at
least one other language.
Not sure what you mean, Risker. The point is that the ad is discriminating against people who are native English speakers, i.e. because of their origins and culture. The question is whether that's allowed under whatever employment legislation governs the hiring. And law apart, it seems unfair.
Sarah
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Apr 15, 2011, at 12:33 PM, Sarah wrote:
Not quite sure where you're coming from there. Today I've interacted with about 60 professional colleagues. They're all Canadians but I'd venture to guess that at least a third would consider themselves native speakers of at least one other language.
Not sure what you mean, Risker. The point is that the ad is discriminating against people who are native English speakers, i.e. because of their origins and culture. The question is whether that's allowed under whatever employment legislation governs the hiring. And law apart, it seems unfair.
Sarah
Glad to see lots of discussion about this, and I appreciate that the phrasing of the language qualifications may lead to a bit of confusion.
Perhaps a more clear way to write this sentence would have simply been to state that we're looking for a candidate who can speak English as well as another language at the 'native speaker' level - that is, someone who is bilingual.
This is of course not intended to be discriminatory - many of the volunteers I work with on a regular basis speak/write in english very well, but they are native speakers of another language. In many cases they speak/write in more than 2 languages.
On Will's initial note about the qualifications or experience being too limiting, I appreciate those points.
It's unlikely we'll find someone who fits 100% of those qualifications to a tee. It's safe to say that most jobs posted (including those at WMF) have a list of qualifications that are long, but we're unlikely to get all of them.
This is a big, challenging, and perhaps complicated role - and as it's laid out, I agree that it may create the sense that we expect this role to solve a problem/challenge that is likely not solvable... But we do want someone who is excited about that challenge and willing to both take on simpler tasks (like writing or corresponding) while also thinking about the bigger overall challenge: the need to improve the quality and method of the whole conversation between WMF and the community.
It will take time and more than one person to carry that forward, but I do know that within a short period of time this person will be able to help WMF bring more information to everyone, and to help bring more of the movement/communities achievements to the whole community, and to the public at large.
If people feel they embody the spirit of that task, we really hope they'll apply :)
Thanks jay
Jay Walsh Head of Communications WikimediaFoundation.org blog.wikimedia.org +1 (415) 839 6885 x 6609, @jansonw
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 13:53, jay walsh jwalsh@wikimedia.org wrote:
Glad to see lots of discussion about this, and I appreciate that the phrasing of the language qualifications may lead to a bit of confusion.
Perhaps a more clear way to write this sentence would have simply been to state that we're looking for a candidate who can speak English as well as another language at the 'native speaker' level - that is, someone who is bilingual.
This is of course not intended to be discriminatory - many of the volunteers I work with on a regular basis speak/write in english very well, but they are native speakers of another language. In many cases they speak/write in more than 2 languages.
Hi Jay,
Would you mind changing that ad to make clear that you're looking for someone who's highly proficient in a language other than English, rather than "ideally as a native speaker" in that language? That wording strongly suggests to me that you may judge applicants in terms of where they're from. Fred got the same impression, when he talked about Europeans dominating and "our hope is to get the rest of the world involved." That would be an unfair hiring practice, not to mention shooting the Foundation in the foot in terms of cutting off a large number of potential applicants.
Sarah
Sarah I understand your point, but the required qualification just above the non-English states : "Exceptional English writing is critical for this role, including the ability to write time-sensitive, efficient, compelling, and clearly understandable communications products for a wide range of audiences."
To me personally, I cannot see a person for whom English is not a first language being able to pass that requirement at all. Many second-language learners can communicate in English, but I can count on one hand people I've met who can communicate in a way which is compelling. And those who can are more-than-likely not going to be available for a position like this. Sorry to say.
So it still sounds to me like the requirements include English as a first language, and also fluent in a second language.
Will Johnson
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 12:42, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I understood that they wanted someone who was ideally *not* a native English speaker. That was something that concerned me when I read it, because it looked as if the intention was to disadvantage applicants who had English as a first language. Or did I misunderstand it?
"Demonstrated ability to work (speak, read, write at a professional level) effectively in a language other than English (ideally as a native speaker)"
English speakers and Europeans generally, such as you and I, dominate most Wikimedia conversations. I doubt anyone could function in this position if they didn't understand English, but our hope is to get the rest of the world involved.
However it is hard to imagine an ideal second language that is not European; only Arabic is spoken by a large diverse population with internet access.
Is that kind of bias against national origin allowed when hiring?
I don't think it is bias. Giving extra attention to the global south is a legitimate goal. Arabic, Spanish, Portuguese, French, English, and Chinese are commonly spoken there. There are different considerations with respect to each language. Actually I think more people speak Hindi than speak English.
Fred
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 15:26, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I don't think it is bias. Giving extra attention to the global south is a legitimate goal. Arabic, Spanish, Portuguese, French, English, and Chinese are commonly spoken there. There are different considerations with respect to each language. Actually I think more people speak Hindi than speak English.
It might be a laudable goal, but the question is whether it's lawful in the United States, or in California, whichever prevails. Because what it suggests is, if there are two candidates equally qualified -- a person from Ireland whose first language is English (and excellent), and a person from Afghanistan whose second language is English (and excellent) -- the latter will be preferred. Not because their first language is one the Foundation is specifically looking for (which could be justified), but because they were born in a country that did not make them a native English speaker. That is discrimination. Try to imagine an ad that said: "Ideally your native language is not Urdu."
Sarah
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 15:26, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I don't think it is bias. Giving extra attention to the global south is a legitimate goal. Arabic, Spanish, Portuguese, French, English, and Chinese are commonly spoken there. There are different considerations with respect to each language. Actually I think more people speak Hindi than speak English.
It might be a laudable goal, but the question is whether it's lawful in the United States, or in California, whichever prevails. Because what it suggests is, if there are two candidates equally qualified -- a person from Ireland whose first language is English (and excellent), and a person from Afghanistan whose second language is English (and excellent) -- the latter will be preferred. Not because their first language is one the Foundation is specifically looking for (which could be justified), but because they were born in a country that did not make them a native English speaker. That is discrimination. Try to imagine an ad that said: "Ideally your native language is not Urdu."
Sarah
Well, I would not be surprised to be wrong, but I don't think your legal theory would be valid, after all the candidate fluent in Urdo may well be an American citizen and have read at Oxford. The question is whether a global organization hires globally, hiring people who have experience and skill in communicating globally.
Fred
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 16:16, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Well, I would not be surprised to be wrong, but I don't think your legal theory would be valid, after all the candidate fluent in Urdo may well be an American citizen and have read at Oxford. The question is whether a global organization hires globally, hiring people who have experience and skill in communicating globally.
Right, I understand that. But my question is whether an employment ad in America could lawfully say (or imply), "Ideally your native language is not Urdu."
Sarah
On 15 April 2011 23:24, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Right, I understand that. But my question is whether an employment ad in America could lawfully say (or imply), "Ideally your native language is not Urdu."
The problem is that that's not what the ad says. As Risker pointed out, you're going way into left field here.
* What is the question you are asking? * What is the moral point you are attempting to make? * What is your recommended course of action? * Should you have been consulted?
- d.
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 16:30, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 April 2011 23:24, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Right, I understand that. But my question is whether an employment ad in America could lawfully say (or imply), "Ideally your native language is not Urdu."
The problem is that that's not what the ad says. As Risker pointed out, you're going way into left field here.
- What is the question you are asking?
- What is the moral point you are attempting to make?
- What is your recommended course of action?
- Should you have been consulted?
The point seems to me to be an obvious one. The point of substituting Urdu for English is to make the analogy more precise, to bring out the structure of the sentence. Given that we're discussing precision of language, I'm sorry I'm not able to be precise enough to communicate it properly.
But here we see something that happens on this list a lot. Someone questions or disagrees, and they're attacked. Why is that? What is it that makes questioning a bad thing?
Sarah
On 15 April 2011 18:36, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 16:30, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 April 2011 23:24, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Right, I understand that. But my question is whether an employment ad in America could lawfully say (or imply), "Ideally your native language is not Urdu."
The problem is that that's not what the ad says. As Risker pointed out, you're going way into left field here.
- What is the question you are asking?
- What is the moral point you are attempting to make?
- What is your recommended course of action?
- Should you have been consulted?
The point seems to me to be an obvious one. The point of substituting Urdu for English is to make the analogy more precise, to bring out the structure of the sentence. Given that we're discussing precision of language, I'm sorry I'm not able to be precise enough to communicate it properly.
But here we see something that happens on this list a lot. Someone questions or disagrees, and they're attacked. Why is that? What is it that makes questioning a bad thing?
I'm sorry that you're feeling beleaguered, Sarah; that is not my intention. However, I think you're really reading something into the position requirements that just isn't there. Let's take the direct quotes as they relate to language expectations:
Exceptional English writing is critical for this role, including the ability to write time-sensitive, efficient, compelling, and clearly understandable communications products for a wide range of audiences. Demonstrated ability to work (speak, read, write at a professional level) effectively in a language other than English (ideally as a native speaker) Experience leading projects in a multi-lingual environment, including collaboration with volunteers for whom English is not a first language [1]
Nowhere in there is there exclusionary wording about any particular language. In fact, the only language that appears to be critically required is English, and that requires an "exceptional" skill level, whereas any other language requires only a "demonstrated ability".
The prospective employer has determined that the position needs someone with high level ability in at least one other language besides English, and justifies it because the position requires leadership skills in a multi-lingual environment. I guess I'm just not getting where the labour standards concern is coming in.
Risker
[1] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings/Movement_Communications_Man...
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 16:53, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 April 2011 18:36, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 16:30, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
- Should you have been consulted?
But here we see something that happens on this list a lot. Someone questions or disagrees, and they're attacked. Why is that? What is it that makes questioning a bad thing?
I'm sorry that you're feeling beleaguered, Sarah; that is not my intention.
It wasn't you, Risker. It was David's comment: "Should you have been consulted?"
I am tired of seeing these comments on this list. It's the first time one has been directed at me, but I've watched other people be treated the same way. It makes no sense. Questioning, disagreement, and transparency are important; it's what Wikimedia is all about, in fact. I know people sometimes go too far, and occasionally gentle rebukes may be needed, but they happen way too often on this list, with very little provocation -- and they're not gentle.
We can't say we want new editors, old editors to stay, and a good atmosphere onwiki, then have these kinds of exchanges.
I'll reply to the rest of your email some other time, Risker, if that's okay, and I'll try not to labour the point. I do think it's an important issue or I wouldn't be asking about it, but I'm obviously not expressing myself well, so I'll take some time to think about it.
Sarah
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 16:53, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 April 2011 18:36, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 16:30, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
- Should you have been consulted?
But here we see something that happens on this list a lot. Someone questions or disagrees, and they're attacked. Why is that? What is it that makes questioning a bad thing?
I'm sorry that you're feeling beleaguered, Sarah; that is not my intention.
It wasn't you, Risker. It was David's comment: "Should you have been consulted?"
Yes, snippy. Not that you didn't go on and on...
Fred
On 04/15/11 4:02 PM, Sarah wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 16:53, Riskerrisker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 April 2011 18:36, Sarahslimvirgin@gmail.com wrote
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 16:30, David Gerarddgerard@gmail.com wrote:
- Should you have been consulted?
But here we see something that happens on this list a lot. Someone questions or disagrees, and they're attacked. Why is that? What is it that makes questioning a bad thing?
I'm sorry that you're feeling beleaguered, Sarah; that is not my intention.
It wasn't you, Risker. It was David's comment: "Should you have been consulted?"
I am tired of seeing these comments on this list. It's the first time one has been directed at me, but I've watched other people be treated the same way. It makes no sense. Questioning, disagreement, and transparency are important; it's what Wikimedia is all about, in fact. I know people sometimes go too far, and occasionally gentle rebukes may be needed, but they happen way too often on this list, with very little provocation -- and they're not gentle.
We can't say we want new editors, old editors to stay, and a good atmosphere onwiki, then have these kinds of exchanges.
It is a valid point about David's comment. Maybe us old hands have become too accustomed to David's sarcasm. Other than that it seems to have been a conversation where one person was offside to everybody else. I've been there before and know how uncomfortable it can become. The insensitive comment was certainly not essential to the main topic of the thread, but if in raising it the only result would be to have David personally change his ways nothing of significance to the community would have been accomplished. One person would have been fixed while the rest of us could go smugly on believing that that was the end of it.
The continuum from valid on-topic comments, through insensitive sarcasm to outright personal attacks is not made up of discrete and easily identifiable steps. Where is the middle ground between insensitivity and hypersensitivity.
Ray
So nobody has any idea why things are the way they are? Will I have to make a drawing?
Virgilio A. P. Machado (Vapmachado)
At 00:43 16-04-2011, you wrote:
It is a valid point about David's comment. Maybe us old hands have become too accustomed to David's sarcasm. Other than that it seems to have been a conversation where one person was offside to everybody else. I've been there before and know how uncomfortable it can become. The insensitive comment was certainly not essential to the main topic of the thread, but if in raising it the only result would be to have David personally change his ways nothing of significance to the community would have been accomplished. One person would have been fixed while the rest of us could go smugly on believing that that was the end of it.
The continuum from valid on-topic comments, through insensitive sarcasm to outright personal attacks is not made up of discrete and easily identifiable steps. Where is the middle ground between insensitivity and hypersensitivity.
Ray
I feel your pain. Everything is funny as long as it happens to somebody else.
From http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings/Movement_Communications_Man...
REQUIRED QUALIFICATIONS (Don't they know how to write without shouting?)
"Exceptional English writing is critical for this role, including the ability to write time-sensitive, efficient, compelling, and clearly understandable communications products for a wide range of audiences."
This is clearly discriminatory since it excludes 99,999 % of all American citizens and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; national origin is what's at stake here.
"Demonstrated ability to work (speak, read, write at a professional level) effectively in a language other than English (ideally as a native speaker)."
This is clearly discriminatory, since it includes 99,999 % of non-American citizens.
Therefore, as it has been written, these required qualifications discriminate against American citizens and clearly favor a non-American citizen (a.k.a. "bloody foreigner" or "illegal immigrant", please excuse my "bloody language").
These language requirements may indeed be perfectly aligned with everyday practice at anything run by the Wikimedia Foundation, considering the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Article 23 (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
Article 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. [...] (Did you notice "language"?)
Writing "about this was useful and interesting."
Sincerely,
Virgilio A. P. Machado (Vapmachado)
At 00:02 16-04-2011, you wrote:
I am tired of seeing these comments on this list. It's the first time one has been directed at me, but I've watched other people be treated the same way. It makes no sense. Questioning, disagreement, and transparency are important; it's what Wikimedia is all about, in fact. I know people sometimes go too far, and occasionally gentle rebukes may be needed, but they happen way too often on this list, with very little provocation -- and they're not gentle.
We can't say we want new editors, old editors to stay, and a good atmosphere onwiki, then have these kinds of exchanges.
I'll reply to the rest of your email some other time, Risker, if that's okay, and I'll try not to labour the point. I do think it's an important issue or I wouldn't be asking about it, but I'm obviously not expressing myself well, so I'll take some time to think about it.
Sarah
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 16:30, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 April 2011 23:24, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Right, I understand that. But my question is whether an employment ad in America could lawfully say (or imply), "Ideally your native language is not Urdu."
The problem is that that's not what the ad says. As Risker pointed out, you're going way into left field here.
- What is the question you are asking?
- What is the moral point you are attempting to make?
- What is your recommended course of action?
- Should you have been consulted?
The point seems to me to be an obvious one. The point of substituting Urdu for English is to make the analogy more precise, to bring out the structure of the sentence. Given that we're discussing precision of language, I'm sorry I'm not able to be precise enough to communicate it properly.
But here we see something that happens on this list a lot. Someone questions or disagrees, and they're attacked. Why is that? What is it that makes questioning a bad thing?
Sarah
Talking about this was useful and interesting.
Fred
On 15 April 2011 18:24, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 16:16, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Well, I would not be surprised to be wrong, but I don't think your legal theory would be valid, after all the candidate fluent in Urdo may well be an American citizen and have read at Oxford. The question is whether a global organization hires globally, hiring people who have experience and skill in communicating globally.
Right, I understand that. But my question is whether an employment ad in America could lawfully say (or imply), "Ideally your native language is not Urdu."
No, your question was whether or not the ad that the WMF posted for a specific position could seek out candidates who are able to communicate in a language other than English as a native language. The WMF ad didn't say anything about Urdu, so asking about it is a strawman. Please don't do that.
Risker
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 8:24 AM, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 16:16, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Well, I would not be surprised to be wrong, but I don't think your legal theory would be valid, after all the candidate fluent in Urdo may well be an American citizen and have read at Oxford. The question is whether a global organization hires globally, hiring people who have experience and skill in communicating globally.
Right, I understand that. But my question is whether an employment ad in America could lawfully say (or imply), "Ideally your native language is not Urdu."
It looks like the problem here is that there is confusion on what is meant by "as a native speaker".
Some people are taking it to mean "We'd like it to be your first language", in which case Sarah is quite correct that it specifically excludes people whose first language is English from the "ideal" requirements. Others are taking it to mean "We'd like your ability to be as good as if it were your first language", in which case Berìa is correct that it is pragmatic, reasonable, and legitimately useful for the job.
I'd like to invoke the principle of charity and think that Wikimedia means the latter, but I can see why somebody might be interpreting it as the former, since the latter reads a bit more into the words.
It might be easier if you look at it as a numerical scale where "native speaker" is a quality level at or near the top, and someone who speaks none of or only a handful of words in the language is at the bottom. From Jay's clarification:
"Perhaps a more clear way to write this sentence would have simply been to state that we're looking for a candidate who can speak English as well as another language at the 'native speaker' level - that is, someone who is bilingual. "
The way I read this is that they want you to have two languages at the "native speaker" quality level. Or in other words, if an average native English speaker can speak at a 4 out of 5 point scale (hypothetically assume that a full 5 would be reserved for someone like a university English professor or something), then they're asking that you speak both English and one other language at at least 4 out of 5 points.
On Apr 15, 2011, at 8:25 PM, Andrew Garrett wrote:
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 8:24 AM, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 16:16, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Well, I would not be surprised to be wrong, but I don't think your legal theory would be valid, after all the candidate fluent in Urdo may well be an American citizen and have read at Oxford. The question is whether a global organization hires globally, hiring people who have experience and skill in communicating globally.
Right, I understand that. But my question is whether an employment ad in America could lawfully say (or imply), "Ideally your native language is not Urdu."
It looks like the problem here is that there is confusion on what is meant by "as a native speaker".
Some people are taking it to mean "We'd like it to be your first language", in which case Sarah is quite correct that it specifically excludes people whose first language is English from the "ideal" requirements. Others are taking it to mean "We'd like your ability to be as good as if it were your first language", in which case Berìa is correct that it is pragmatic, reasonable, and legitimately useful for the job.
I'd like to invoke the principle of charity and think that Wikimedia means the latter, but I can see why somebody might be interpreting it as the former, since the latter reads a bit more into the words.
-- Andrew Garrett http://werdn.us/
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 16 April 2011 01:48, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
It might be easier if you look at it as a numerical scale where "native speaker" is a quality level at or near the top, and someone who speaks none of or only a handful of words in the language is at the bottom. From Jay's clarification:
"Perhaps a more clear way to write this sentence would have simply been to state that we're looking for a candidate who can speak English as well as another language at the 'native speaker' level - that is, someone who is bilingual. "
The way I read this is that they want you to have two languages at the "native speaker" quality level. Or in other words, if an average native English speaker can speak at a 4 out of 5 point scale (hypothetically assume that a full 5 would be reserved for someone like a university English professor or something), then they're asking that you speak both English and one other language at at least 4 out of 5 points.
In fact we have something very similar on the projects, in the commonly used "Babel" system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Babel
So it appears the requirements for this position are en-5 (professional level of English) and xx-4 or greater (near-native level of another language).
However I did interpret the current wording "as a native speaker" in the same way as Sarah at first, until it was clarified on this list. Perhaps it should be changed on the job openings page.
Pete / the wub
On 15 April 2011 17:46, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 15:26, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I don't think it is bias. Giving extra attention to the global south is a legitimate goal. Arabic, Spanish, Portuguese, French, English, and Chinese are commonly spoken there. There are different considerations with respect to each language. Actually I think more people speak Hindi than speak English.
It might be a laudable goal, but the question is whether it's lawful in the United States, or in California, whichever prevails. Because what it suggests is, if there are two candidates equally qualified -- a person from Ireland whose first language is English (and excellent), and a person from Afghanistan whose second language is English (and excellent) -- the latter will be preferred. Not because their first language is one the Foundation is specifically looking for (which could be justified), but because they were born in a country that did not make them a native English speaker. That is discrimination. Try to imagine an ad that said: "Ideally your native language is not Urdu."
In my area 30% of people are perfectly capable of communicating at a native level in two languages, and others have already shown that an equivalent percentage in California itself can do that too. In Europe, the ratio is probably even higher, as it is in several other countries. Place of birth is no longer the sole determining factor in what languages people communicate in proficiently, and it hasn't been for at least a generation.
The WMF is an international organization, and having employees who are effective in a range of languages is not just a laudable goal, it is crucial to the Foundation's success; that alone is enough to give it an exemption from the "Americans first" rule. And the Urdu line bears no resemblance to anything that is actually in the advertisement.
I tend to agree with Will that it's very unlikely the WMF will find someone who meets every one of their "ideal candidate" criteria; however, finding someone who fits all criteria of a position description at this level is almost impossible for any organization. I'll be saddened but not surprised when the successful candidate is announced and someone immediately pipes up "but s/he doesn't meet criterion 32(b)(ii)! How could you have hired this person!! They're unqualified!!"
Risker
On 04/15/11 2:46 PM, Sarah wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 15:26, Fred Bauderfredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I don't think it is bias. Giving extra attention to the global south is a legitimate goal. Arabic, Spanish, Portuguese, French, English, and Chinese are commonly spoken there. There are different considerations with respect to each language. Actually I think more people speak Hindi than speak English.
It might be a laudable goal, but the question is whether it's lawful in the United States, or in California, whichever prevails. Because what it suggests is, if there are two candidates equally qualified -- a person from Ireland whose first language is English (and excellent), and a person from Afghanistan whose second language is English (and excellent) -- the latter will be preferred. Not because their first language is one the Foundation is specifically looking for (which could be justified), but because they were born in a country that did not make them a native English speaker. That is discrimination. Try to imagine an ad that said: "Ideally your native language is not Urdu."
The Irish candidate would still be required to be equally proficient in a second language, which could be Gaelic. A specific exclusion, such as Urdu would be discriminatory. A native Navaho speaker would probably qualify. Would it be discriminatory if the State Department hired foreign service workers on the basis of language proficiency? If the CIA hired spies that weren't fluent in the language where they would be posted they would be less than effective.
Ray
However it is hard to imagine an ideal second language that is not European; only Arabic is spoken by a large diverse population with internet access.
Hindi and Japanese (chinese too but not all of they have internet acess) ;) _____ *Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/ (351) 925 171 484
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a fazer.***
2011/4/15 Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 10:36, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 4/5/2011 6:08:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time, bnewstead@wikimedia.org writes:
Another quick note on the Movement Communications Manager posting that we are hoping to fill at WMF. We have a number of applicants, but very, very few are from the Wikimedia community. We would really love to fill this role with a strong Wikimedian, so if you are interested or know someone who may be interested, please apply or reach out to Jay Walsh or myself.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings/Movement_Communications_Man...
The job is written in such a narrow way that it's not very likely you're going to get many candidates from within the community sorry. You want someone with a communications degree, who is a native English speaker, can also communicate in a non-English language, and has experience in CSS, and templates, and Wikimedia projects in general.
I understood that they wanted someone who was ideally *not* a native English speaker. That was something that concerned me when I read it, because it looked as if the intention was to disadvantage applicants who had English as a first language. Or did I misunderstand it?
"Demonstrated ability to work (speak, read, write at a professional level) effectively in a language other than English (ideally as a native speaker)"
English speakers and Europeans generally, such as you and I, dominate most Wikimedia conversations. I doubt anyone could function in this position if they didn't understand English, but our hope is to get the rest of the world involved.
However it is hard to imagine an ideal second language that is not European; only Arabic is spoken by a large diverse population with internet access.
Fred
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
To put things in perspective...
On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 12:42 -0600, ext Fred Bauder wrote:
However it is hard to imagine an ideal second language that is not European; only Arabic is spoken by a large diverse population with internet access.
Already in 2009 China had more Internet users than USA had citizens. It is considered that nowadays there are more mobile Internet users in China than citizens in the USA.
This position is offered primarily in California, where 40% of the population are native speakers of a language other than English. Spanish leads the list by large, followed by Chinese. Then you have all the people that has learned other languages and are able to use them at work.
Conclusion: not really a big deal and somewhat expected in a position like this. Combining a degree in journalism with CSS skills is definitely more tricky. I wonder whether this is required at all with the publishing tools available nowadays (including MediaWiki) and the usual (and laudable) focus on clear content this community has.
-- Quim
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org