FYI, list of private wikis: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_wikis#Private_wikis There are 27 private wikis hosted by the WMF, of which 15 for WMF internal organisation (including committees) and 3 for more general Wikimedia matters.

Hi all, There's currently a proposal on the internal mailing list to close it, as well as the internal wiki. Although I don't disagree with closing the internal-l mailing list (it's definitely served its time), I would like us to collectively reconsider using the internal wiki. There is information within the Wikimedia movement that can't be shared publicly. Some of that information has been shared on the internal wiki, but much has been kept confidential within the various Wikimedia organisations that now exist. I think there's a lot of benefit to sharing more of that information in a confidential fashion on an internal wiki, and that we should start doing that much more than we're currently doing. Some examples of what I mean here are: # Agreements, particularly those with global impact, and/or where they affect more than one Wikimedia organisation. Part of the recent Monmouthpedia/Gibraltarpedia situation was caused by a lack of transparency about who had signed what agreements, and when they had been signed - if these had all been shared on an internal wiki then some of this could have been avoided. There's also a lot of experience now with existing agreements that could be reused when new agreements are being written, e.g. for Wikimedians in Residences. Sadly, not all of these can be made publicly available (or at least, they haven't been to date). # Press releases. When there's an upcoming significant press release from a Wikimedia organisation, then it should be good practice to share it with the other movement partners prior to its release, so that they are aware of it, can provide feedback, and can plan around it. Some of this already happens on wmfcc-l, but not consistently - much more could be done here. # Domain names. There is a list of these on internal already, which is actually being maintained by some people. Tackling squatted domain names and keeping track of who owns what is a global problem that should be done collaboratively, but in confidence, rather than just by individual organisations. # Contact information for the various organisations. Some of this can be done publicly, but not all, and it would be good to have a central place for this information anyway. # Notices of sensitive activities. E.g. if there's an upcoming risk of law suits, infrastructure difficulties within organisations, etc. then it would be good to be able to share these and ask for help without publishing them to the world at the same time. That doesn't need a mailing list - it can be done on a wiki. # … and I'm sure there's more examples that can go here, this isn't trying to be a complete list! So, rather than close the internal wiki, I'd like to propose a radical redesign and repurposing of it. Is there the interest and willingness in the WMF and the chapters to share such information with each other? Thanks, Mike (Note: this is a personal viewpoint, not necessarily that of WMUK.) _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Second technical note: a merge from a private wiki to another is very

# Agreements, particularly those with global impact, and/or where they affect more than one Wikimedia organisation. Part of the recent Monmouthpedia/Gibraltarpedia situation was caused by a lack of transparency about who had signed what agreements, and when they had been signed - if these had all been shared on an internal wiki then some of this could have been avoided. There's also a lot of experience now with existing agreements that could be reused when new agreements are being written, e.g. for Wikimedians in Residences. Sadly, not all of these can be made publicly available (or at least, they haven't been to date).

I must confess, I have access to two of those "general" private wikis but very seldom use them all, which probably indicates that in their current form they don't serve much purpose. So bravo to Michael for raising the issue to see if we can squeeze some more function out of them! I'm intruiged by "noboard_chapterswikimedia" though - what is this for?

On Apr 3, 2013 12:27 PM, "Federico Leva (Nemo)" &lt;nemowiki(a)gmail.com <mailto:nemowiki@gmail.com>> wrote: e.g. there's no way I could know who has had access to what I wrote there 5 years ago. I don't remember being consulted about every new user created there after I got myself removed.) But you knew the basis on which internal access is determined and that hasn't changed.

You knew when you posted stuff there that new people would continue to be added, but could reasonably expect that it would continue to be restricted to the same kind of people as it was restricted to at the time, even if the actual people themselves changed. If it was decided to open up internal more widely, as has been discussed from time to time, it would be necessary to either seek permission from people or, more simply, delete things (or move them to a closed wiki that is still restricted). That has generally been part of any discussions on the subject.

On 3 April 2013 03:34, Michael Peel &lt;michael.peel(a)wikimedia.org.uk&gt; wrote: I'd argue against this. From the perspective of the Wikimedia Foundation, I would rather staff bias towards putting information on public wikis wherever possible, and I'd worry that staff energy going into updating a closed private wiki would by necessity pull focus from public work. I'd argue for closing both the internal wiki and the internal mailing list: IMO there's nothing on either that needs to be confidential. Thanks, Sue

wrote:

wrote:

wrote:

Hi all,

Wikimedia organisation, then it should be good practice to share it with the other movement partners prior to its release, so that they are aware of it, can provide feedback, and can plan around it. Some of this already happens on wmfcc-l, but not consistently - much more could be done here.

# Domain names. There is a list of these on internal already, which is actually being maintained by some people. Tackling squatted domain names and keeping track of who owns what is a global problem that should be done collaboratively, but in confidence, rather than just by individual organisations. # Contact information for the various organisations. Some of this can be done publicly, but not all, and it would be good to have a central place for this information anyway. # Notices of sensitive activities. E.g. if there's an upcoming risk of law suits, infrastructure difficulties within organisations, etc. then it would be good to be able to share these and ask for help without publishing them to the world at the same time. That doesn't need a mailing list - it can be done on a wiki. # … and I'm sure there's more examples that can go here, this isn't trying to be a complete list! So, rather than close the internal wiki, I'd like to propose a radical redesign and repurposing of it. Is there the interest and willingness in the WMF and the chapters to share such information with each other? Thanks, Mike (Note: this is a personal viewpoint, not necessarily that of WMUK.) _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Sure, it's so much better to ask to one WMF staff to use his payed time to collect the mail and phone number of each chapters board member, whereas all of this could have been done efficiently with no cost on Internal wiki. The problem is that "old" wikimedians continue to consider internal like a place to do lobbying or secret stuff, whereas new wikimedians just want a place to share efficiently informations that cannot be displayed publicly like for example draft agreement between a chapter and an institution! There is millions way to improve the usage of donors money, and the position "no place to work together" is not one of these. Charles ___________________________________________________________ Charles ANDRES, Chairman "Wikimedia CH" – Association for the advancement of free knowledge – www.wikimedia.ch Skype: charles.andres.wmch IRC://irc.freenode.net/wikimedia-ch Le 3 avr. 2013 à 19:46, Sue Gardner &lt;sgardner(a)wikimedia.org&gt; a écrit : _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Incidently... given that most people would not be willing to publicly post their phone number and possibly other personal information... and that a wiki is actually not necessarily the best place to do such a thing, has it ever been considered to set up something dedicated to actually host contact information ?

There is information within the Wikimedia movement that can't be shared publicly. # Agreements, particularly those with global impact, and/or where they affect more than one Wikimedia organisation.

There's also a lot of experience now with existing agreements that could be reused when new agreements are being written, e.g. for Wikimedians in Residences. Sadly, not all of these can be made publicly available (or at least, they haven't been to date).

# Press releases, prior to release

# Domain names. There is a list of these on internal already

# Contact information for the various organisations.

# Notices of sensitive activities. E.g. if there's an upcoming risk of law suits, infrastructure difficulties within organisations,

> has it ever been considered to set up something dedicated to actually host contact information ?

You're being snarky, but I am going to take this as a good-faith question.... I have access to the office wiki, left-over from being a board member, though I do not edit there and have only accessed it a couple of times over the years. I think I can safely say without violating confidentiality that it is mainly used as a tool to run a discrete, physical, boring office. It is where you will find things like staff phone numbers, info on the employee health plans, how to send to the office printers, and how to submit an expense report. As on internal, there's also lots of outdated stuff, like old notes from 2008 staff meetings; there are scratchpad idea pages that probably could be elsewhere, and there are some pages about department functions and project drafts that I'm sure no one would mind being on meta, but much of the interesting stuff is public (the annual plan, the communications calendar), and as far as I can see with a quick scan there are not large-scale discussions happening there. So, back to the start of the thread: using a wiki effectively does seem like a scoping question, yes, and I think internal (and any other internal/private wiki) would benefit from specific scoping like Mike proposes; his suggestions seem reasonable to me. I think I can also say without violating confidentiality that almost all of the mail to the internal list in the last few months has not been discussion focused, but rather has been notices of chapter board elections, meetings and reports, and I would love to see all that traffic be public (even if it's on a separate list so not everyone has to get the notices if they're not interested) -- there's nothing inherently confidential about it, and it would be nice for that info to be easily findable. -- phoebe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

I keep the raw, unpolished interviews on pages on the password protected: https://office.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Stories knowing that they are available only to myself and staff at the WMF.

I use that raw material to release polished works like this: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Thank_You_All . During the course of an interview, people sometimes say things that when reviewed later, they wish they hadn't. Out of respect and decency for those interviewed, [...] Privacy is very important, and I have to take it seriously. [...]

On 10 April 2013 18:48, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: Trusted to know the real names and backgrounds of other editors? There should never be a situation where volunteers are read into that kind of thing in a post-hoc fashion.

Are you speaking of yourself here? :) As opposed to, speaking as a staffer? Well, I work for Product Development. So the chances of me giving binding policy statements on privacy issues are slim to none :).

Speaking personally: I can't think of a single good reason why Victor's stuff should be released. [...]

An illustration here would be: I've got my engagement strategy for what became Page Curation on officewiki. It's a place where I can write and rewrite it, my bosses can check it for stupid, and if there *is* stupid we catch it before it causes problems.

Someone looking at that in isolation would go "this should totally be public! It's about engagement and deployment timetables,and we should be transparent about it".

And we are transparent about it - because the document later became public, in an altered and finalised form. But the two aren't necessarily linked together, which makes this rather opaque. There are totally some docs on office-wiki that could do with more publicity. But there are far more that are private - fully private - for a good reason, and I'd imagine some of those that look ready for public release were, in fact, released.

Oliver Keyes, 10/04/2013 22:43: No: as opposed to, a staffer that is also not a very active editor. :) The part on personal identifying information is one I understand and that's why I asked about it, but I don't think it should be on officewiki either; the other part on editor background I didn't understand, and I think staffer or editor is the same for that. When I say "editor background" I mean things like their name, their

Neither I do. I only asked if they *require* the compartmentalisation that e.g. Tom described – otherwise they could as well happen in a slightly different context (like for instance "use the internal wiki more", given that's the thread we're in). Yep; there's no reason we should be giving that sort of thing out to

This is fine. Way better than Google Docs shared with few people and then quickly lost! Agreed. Every time someone says "we can just use a google doc!" I groan

The problem of internal communication came up again at WMCON, but only about internal-l, see the couple quick opinions expressed: < https://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_** 2013/Documentation/Day_2/WMF_**board#Charles:_We_need_** Internal-l.2C_what_do_you_**think.3F<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wik… Oliver Keyes, 11/04/2013 17:33: > [...] > Neither I do. I only asked if they *require* the > compartmentalisation that e.g. Tom described – otherwise they could > as well happen in a slightly different context (like for instance > "use the internal wiki more", given that's the thread we're in). > Yep; there's no reason we should be giving that sort of thing out to > random chapters people or trusted volunteers; they have no use case for it. "No reason to" is not a reason not to, so your "yes" means "no" given my question. (And also by analogy, because most people in officewiki won't have a use case for that stuff either.) When the information contains personal data, it is totally a reason not