First, I wanted to highlight the important issue that Heather raises here,
because although it's a separate issue, it's an important one:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 2:38 AM, Heather Ford <hfordsa(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>
> One immediate requirement that I've been talking to others about is
> finding ways of making the case to the WMF as a group of researchers for
> the anonymization of country level data, for example. I've spoken to a few
> researchers (and I myself made a request about a year ago that hasn't been
> responded to) and it seems like some work is required by the foundation to
> do this anonymisation but that there are a few of us who would be really
> keen to use this data to produce research very valuable to Wikipedia -
> especially from smaller language versions/developing countries. Having an
> official process that assesses how worthwhile this investment of time would
> be to the Foundation would be a great idea, I think, but right now there
> seems to be a general focus on the research that the Foundation does itself
> rather than enabling researchers outside. I know how busy Aaron and Dario
> (and others in the team) are so perhaps this requires a new position to
> coordinate between researchers and Foundation resources?
>
> Anyway, I think the big question right now is whether there are any plans
> for RCOM that have been made by the research team and the only people who
> can answer that are folks in the research team :)
>
> Best,
> Heather.
>
>
As a community-run group, RCOM doesn't have any role in making non-public
data available to researchers. However, Aaron and I are putting together a
proposal for a workshop
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:CSCW15_workshop> that would
address issues like this. That's work we're doing in an official capacity,
as opposed to the RCOM work, which is volunteer.
On RCOM more generally... I think clarifying the role of the committee, and
getting a larger and more diverse set of people involved, might help make
RCOM work. But as Aaron can attest, it is difficult to get people to agree
on what RCOMs role should be, let alone get them to work for RCOM.
I've been involved with RCOM for a while, albeit not very actively.
Unfortunately, I think that the fact that the only people who "review"
requests *happen to be** WMF staffers contributes to confusion about RCOM's
role and it's authority. IMO, if RCOM or any other subject recruitment
review process is to succeed, we need:
- more wiki-researchers who are willing to regularly participate in both
peer review *and* in developing better process guidelines and standards
(it's really just Aaron right now)
- more *Wikipedians* who are willing to do the same
- some degree of buy-in from the Wikimedia community as a whole. RCOM
needs legitimacy. But where, and from whom? Subject recruitment is a global
concern, but the proposed subject recruitment process is focused on en-wiki
(mostly because that's where most of the relevant research activities *that
we are aware of* are happening). How to make RCOM more global?
RCOM is in a tough spot right now. We can't force researchers to submit
their proposals, or abide by the
suggestions/recommendations/decisions/whatever that result from their
review. But because we *look like *an official body, it's easy to blame us
for failing to prevent disruptive research (if you're a community member),
for "rubber stamping" research that we like (ditto), or for drowning
research in red tape (if you're a wiki-researcher).
- J
*we were wiki-researchers first!
> Heather Ford
> Oxford Internet Institute <http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk> Doctoral Programme
> EthnographyMatters <http://ethnographymatters.net> | Oxford Digital
> Ethnography Group <http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/?id=115>
> http://hblog.org | @hfordsa <http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa>
>
>
>
>
> On 17 July 2014 08:49, Kerry Raymond <kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, I meant the community/communities of WMF. But the authority of the
>> community derives from WMF, which chooses to delegate such matters. I think
>> that “advise” is a good word to use.
>>
>>
>>
>> Kerry
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* Amir E. Aharoni [mailto:amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, 17 July 2014 5:37 PM
>> *To:* kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com; Research into Wikimedia content and
>> communities
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Wiki-research-l] discussion about wikipedia surveys
>>
>>
>>
>> > WMF does not "own" me as a contributor; it does not decide who can and
>> cannot recruit me for whatever purposes.
>>
>> I don't think that it really should be about WMF. The WMF shouldn't
>> enforce anything. The community can formulate good practices for
>> researchers and _advise_ community members not to cooperate with
>> researchers who don't follow these practices. Not much more is needed.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
>> http://aharoni.wordpress.com
>> “We're living in pieces,
>> I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
>>
>>
>>
>> 2014-07-17 8:24 GMT+03:00 Kerry Raymond <kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com>:
>>
>> Just saying here what I already put on the Talk page:
>>
>>
>>
>> I am a little bothered by the opening sentence "This page documents the
>> process that researchers must follow before asking Wikipedia contributors
>> to participate in research studies such as surveys, interviews and
>> experiments."
>>
>> WMF does not "own" me as a contributor; it does not decide who can and
>> cannot recruit me for whatever purposes. What WMF does own is its
>> communication channels to me as a contributor and WMF has a right to
>> control what occurs on those channels. Also I think WMF probably should be
>> concerned about both its readers and its contributors being recruited
>> through its channels (as either might be being recruited). I think this
>> distinction should be made, e.g.
>>
>> "This page documents the process that researchers must follow if they
>> wish to use Wikipedia's (WMF's?) communication channels to recruit people
>> to participate in research studies such as surveys, interviews and
>> experiments. Communication channels include its mailing lists, its Project
>> pages, Talk pages, and User Talk pages [and whatever else I've forgotten]."
>>
>>
>>
>> If researchers want to recruit WPians via non-WMF means, I don’t think
>> it’s any business of WMF’s. An example might be a researcher who wanted to
>> contact WPians via chapters or thorgs; I would leave it for the
>> chapter/thorg to decide if they wanted to assist the researcher via their
>> communication channels.
>>
>>
>>
>> Of course, the practical reality of it is that some researchers
>> (oblivious of WMF’s concerns in relation to recruitment of WPians to
>> research projects) will simply use WMF’s channels without asking nicely
>> first. Obviously we can remove such requests on-wiki and follow up any
>> email requests with the commentary that this was not an approved request.
>> In my category of [whatever else I’ve forgotten], I guess there are things
>> like Facebook groups and any other social media presence.
>>
>>
>>
>> Also to be practical, if WMF is to have a process to vet research
>> surveys, I think it has to be sufficiently fast and not be overly demanding
>> to avoid the possibility of the researcher giving up (“too hard to deal
>> with these people”) and simply spamming email, project pages, social media
>> in the hope of recruiting some participants regardless. That is, if we make
>> it too slow/hard to do the right thing, we effectively encourage doing the
>> wrong thing. Also, what value-add can we give them to reward those who do
>> the right thing? It’s nice to have a carrot as well as a stick when it
>> comes to onerous processes J
>>
>>
>>
>> Because of the criticism of “not giving back”, could we perhaps do things
>> to try to make the researcher feel part of the community to make “giving
>> back” more likely? For example, could we give them a slot every now and
>> again to talk about their project in the R&D Showcase? Encourage them to be
>> on this mailing list. Are we at a point where it might make sense to
>> organise a Wikipedia research conference to help build a research
>> community? Just thinking aloud here …
>>
>>
>>
>> Kerry
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* wiki-research-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:
>> wiki-research-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org] *On Behalf Of *Aaron
>> Halfaker
>> *Sent:* Thursday, 17 July 2014 6:59 AM
>> *To:* Research into Wikimedia content and communities
>> *Subject:* Re: [Wiki-research-l] discussion about wikipedia surveys
>>
>>
>>
>> RCOM review is still alive and looking for new reviewers (really,
>> coordinators). Researchers can be directed to me or Dario (
>> dtaraborelli(a)wikimedia.org) to be assigned a reviewer. There is also a
>> proposed policy on enwiki that could use some eyeballs:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Research_recruitment
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <
>> nemowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> phoebe ayers, 16/07/2014 19:21:
>>
>> > (Personally, I think the answer should be to resuscitate RCOM, but
>> > that's easy to say and harder to do!)
>>
>> IMHO in the meanwhile the most useful thing folks can do is subscribing
>> to the feed of new research pages:
>> <
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:NewPages&feed=atom&hid…
>> >
>> It's easier to build a functioning RCOM out of an active community of
>> "reviewers", than the other way round.
>>
>> Nemo
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
--
Jonathan T. Morgan
Learning Strategist
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)>
jmorgan(a)wikimedia.org
What about a notice for users from Russia: "We are not able to process
money from Russia now, but you are welcome to donate to Wikimedia Russia by
using this bank account" -- if nothing more creative could be imagined?
On Nov 13, 2014 4:46 AM, "Lisa Gruwell" <lgruwell(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Hello rubin16,
>
> We are not running fundraising in Russia at this time, but I want to assure
> you that this was not a decision motivated by politics.
>
> We take compliance with appropriate laws very seriously in everything we
> do. Out of an abundance of caution, we're not fundraising in Russia right
> now.
>
> Of course, the fact that we are not fundraising in Russia does and will not
> have any impact at all on how the WMF continues to support the Russian
> language Wikipedia, its sister projects, and the Russian Wikimedian
> community.
>
> Thank you,
> Lisa Gruwell
>
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 7:44 PM, rubin.happy <rubin.happy(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > There were no recent changes in sanctions and I don't understand why this
> > turn off in donations happened just now.
> >
> > Ideas about SWIFT kick out are not relevant here, as it was just a
> > discussion some months ago but no such action happened.
> >
> > Furthermore, the sanctions were placed on particular companies and
> > individuals, there were no prohibitions against all financial relations.
> > So, I could understand if donations weren't accepted when they were sent
> > via a couple of banks under sanctions, but I want to repeat that there
> is,
> > for example, no prohibition to receive money from Russians.
> >
> > rubin16
> > 13 нояб. 2014 г. 4:01 пользователь "David Gerard" <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
> > написал:
> >
> > > I'm presuming this is sanctions against Russia kicking in; all sorts
> > > of business has been stopped dead in its tracks, not just charity
> > > donations. There's even serious moves to kick Russia out of the SWIFT
> > > network:
> > >
> >
> http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-09-04/ultimate-sanction-barring-r…
> > > It strikes me as quite unlikely that there's anything at all WMF can
> > > actually do about this. Possibly it could have been handled better,
> > > but that won't change the fact.
> > >
> > > On 13 November 2014 00:12, Craig Franklin <cfranklin(a)halonetwork.net>
> > > wrote:
> > > > I'm sure that you're correct here Joseph, but this is another
> example I
> > > > think where the Foundation should have notified the relevant chapter
> > > > *before* taking the action, so that they would be ready when the
> > > questions
> > > > started rolling in.
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately, I think we're getting back to the bad old days of
> > chapter
> > > > and user group press contacts being the last people to find out about
> > > > potentially controversial issues like this.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Craig Franklin
> > > > (personal view only)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 13 November 2014 10:07, Joseph Seddon <josephseddon(a)gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I would hate to preclude any answer from the foundation. However the
> > > laws
> > > >> that govern the foundation are that of the US. Given the previous
> and
> > > >> renewed ongoing palaver with Ukraine and the presence of economic
> > > sanctions
> > > >> and the increasing likelihood of on top of what is already present,
> I
> > > >> imagine this related to that.
> > > >>
> > > >> Im not sure of what legal risks accepting such donations would
> expose
> > > the
> > > >> foundation to. However such precautions have been made in the past
> > > relating
> > > >> to unrest.
> > > >>
> > > >> Its no slight on the country or its individuals, just a
> precautionary
> > > >> measure.
> > > >>
> > > >> Seddon
> > > >> On 12 Nov 2014 19:48, "Federico Leva (Nemo)" <nemowiki(a)gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> rubin.happy, 12/11/2014 18:48:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> We received some alerts from our users that donations are now
> > blocked
> > > >>>> when user is from Russia:
> > > >>>>
> > >
> http://habrastorage.org/files/31b/b1f/ec9/31bb1fec9b9e45abb6ac4babcc2371
> > > >>>> 84.png
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Thanks for the information. Everyone can see the same warning by
> > > clicking
> > > >>> the "Russia" link in
> > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Ways_to_Give
> > > >>> Through what channels are donations blocked? Did anyone try
> sending a
> > > >>> wire to the EU (SEPA) account (IBAN GB54CHAS60924241034640), or a
> > > PayPal
> > > >>> donation?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Nemo
> > > >>>
> > > >>> P.s.: ROTFLOL "Please email donate(a)wikimedia.org for more
> > information
> > > on
> > > >>> how to make a bank transfer to the Wikimedia Foundation." In case
> > > someone
> > > >>> forgets there is an ocean between Europe and USA.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> _______________________________________________
> > > >>> Fundraiser mailing list
> > > >>> Fundraiser(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/fundraiser
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> Fundraiser mailing list
> > > >> Fundraiser(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/fundraiser
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Could there be a way to have our nicely curated description cake and eat it
too? For example, interpolating data into the description and/or marking
data points which are referenced in the description (so as to mark it as
outdated when they change)?
I appreciate the potential benefits of generated descriptions (and other
things), but Monte's examples might have swayed me towards human
curated—when available.
On Tuesday, August 18, 2015, Monte Hurd <mhurd(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Ok, so I just did what I proposed. I went to random enwiki articles and
> described the first ten I found which didn't already have descriptions:
>
>
> - "Courage Under Fire", *1996 film about a Gulf War friendly-fire
> incident*
>
> - "Pebasiconcha immanis", *largest known species of land snail, extinct*
>
> - "List of Kenyan writers", *notable Kenyan authors*
>
> - "Solar eclipse of December 14, 1917", *annular eclipse which lasted 77
> seconds*
>
> - "Natchaug Forest Lumber Shed", *historic Civilian Conservation Corps
> post-and-beam building*
>
> - "Sun of Jamaica (album)", *debut 1980 studio album by Goombay Dance
> Band*
>
> - "E-1027", *modernist villa in France by architect Eileen Gray*
>
> - "Daingerfield State Park", *park in Morris County, Texas, USA,
> bordering Lake Daingerfield*
>
> - "Todo Lo Que Soy-En Vivo", *2014 Live album by Mexican pop singer Fey*
>
> - "2009 UEFA Regions' Cup", *6th UEFA Regions' Cup, won by Castile and
> Leon*
>
>
>
> And here are the respective descriptions from Magnus' (quite excellent)
> autodesc.js:
>
>
>
> - "Courage Under Fire", *1996 film by Edward Zwick, produced by John
> Davis and David T. Friendly from United States of America*
>
> - "Pebasiconcha immanis", *species of Mollusca*
>
> - "List of Kenyan writers", *Wikimedia list article*
>
> - "Solar eclipse of December 14, 1917", *solar eclipse*
>
> - "Natchaug Forest Lumber Shed", *Construction in Connecticut, United
> States of America*
>
> - "Sun of Jamaica (album)", *album*
>
> - "E-1027", *villa in Roquebrune-Cap-Martin, France*
>
> - "Daingerfield State Park", *state park and state park of a state of the
> United States in Texas, United States of America*
>
> - "Todo Lo Que Soy-En Vivo", *live album by Fey*
>
> - "2009 UEFA Regions' Cup", *none*
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Just trying to make my own bold assertions falsifiable :)
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Monte Hurd <mhurd(a)wikimedia.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mhurd(a)wikimedia.org');>> wrote:
>
>> The whole human-vs-extracted descriptions quality question could be
>> fairly easy to test I think:
>>
>> - Pick, some number of articles at random.
>> - Run them through a description extraction script.
>> - Have a human describe the same articles with, say, the app interface I
>> demo'ed.
>>
>> If nothing else this exercise could perhaps make what's thus far been a
>> wildly abstract discussion more concrete.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Monte Hurd <mhurd(a)wikimedia.org
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mhurd(a)wikimedia.org');>> wrote:
>>
>>> If having the most elegant description extraction mechanism was the goal
>>> I would totally agree ;)
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Dmitry Brant <dbrant(a)wikimedia.org
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dbrant(a)wikimedia.org');>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> IMO, allowing the user to edit the description is a missed opportunity
>>>> to make the user edit the actual *data*, such that the description is
>>>> generated correctly.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 8:02 PM, Monte Hurd <mhurd(a)wikimedia.org
>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mhurd(a)wikimedia.org');>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> IMO, if the goal is quality, then human curated descriptions are
>>>>> superior until such time as the auto-generation script passes the Turing
>>>>> test ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> I see these empty descriptions as an amazing opportunity to give
>>>>> *everyone* an easy new way to edit. I whipped an app editing interface up
>>>>> at the Lyon hackathon:
>>>>> bluetooth720 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VblyGhf_c8>
>>>>>
>>>>> I used it to add a couple hundred descriptions in a single day just by
>>>>> hitting "random" then adding descriptions for articles which didn't have
>>>>> them.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd love to try a limited test of this in production to get a sense
>>>>> for how effective human curation can be if the interface is easy to use...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Jan Ainali <jan.ainali(a)wikimedia.se
>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jan.ainali(a)wikimedia.se');>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nice one!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does not appear to work on svwiki though. Does it have something to
>>>>>> do with that the wiki in question does not display that tagline?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Med vänliga hälsningar,Jan Ainali*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Verksamhetschef, Wikimedia Sverige <http://wikimedia.se>
>>>>>> 0729 - 67 29 48
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Tänk dig en värld där varje människa har fri tillgång till
>>>>>> mänsklighetens samlade kunskap. Det är det vi gör.*
>>>>>> Bli medlem. <http://blimedlem.wikimedia.se>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2015-08-18 17:23 GMT+02:00 Magnus Manske <magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com
>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com');>>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Show automatic description underneath "From Wikipedia...":
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Magnus_Manske/autodesc.js
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To use, add:
>>>>>>> importScript ( 'User:Magnus_Manske/autodesc.js' ) ;
>>>>>>> to your common.js
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:47 AM Jane Darnell <jane023(a)gmail.com
>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jane023(a)gmail.com');>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It would be even better if this (short: 3 field max) pipe-separated
>>>>>>>> list was available as a gadget to wikidatans on Wikipedia (like me). I
>>>>>>>> can't see if a page I am on has an "instance of" (though it should) and I
>>>>>>>> can see the description thanks to another gadget (sorry no idea which one
>>>>>>>> that is). Often I will update empty descriptions, but if I was served basic
>>>>>>>> fields (so for a painting, the creator field), I would click through to
>>>>>>>> update that too.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <
>>>>>>>> nemowiki(a)gmail.com
>>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','nemowiki(a)gmail.com');>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jane Darnell, 15/08/2015 08:53:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes but even if the descriptions were just the contents of fields
>>>>>>>>>> separated by a pipe it would be better than nothing.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +1, item descriptions are mostly useless in my experience.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As for "get into production on Wikipedia" I don't know what it
>>>>>>>>> means, I certainly don't like 1) mobile-specific features, 2) overriding
>>>>>>>>> existing manually curated content; but it's good to 3) fill gaps. Mobile
>>>>>>>>> folks often do (1) and (2), if they *instead* did (3) I'd be very happy. :)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nemo
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Mobile-l mailing list
>>>>>>>> Mobile-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Mobile-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org');>
>>>>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Mobile-l mailing list
>>>>>>> Mobile-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Mobile-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org');>
>>>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Mobile-l mailing list
>>>>>> Mobile-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Mobile-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org');>
>>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Mobile-l mailing list
>>>>> Mobile-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Mobile-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org');>
>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dmitry Brant
>>>> Mobile Apps Team (Android)
>>>> Wikimedia Foundation
>>>> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_mobile_engineering
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
--
EN Wikipedia user page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Brian.gerstle
IRC: bgerstle
We've been testing out Open Sans on the apps team, it's an open source
font. The goals with any font choice is high quality (legible, scannable,
well-kerned, etc), has wide character set, and since every font has its own
personality, we want the font choice to reflect us and our content, and
among that is credible, neutral, and high quality.
Not all fonts are created equal. Helvetica is very widely used not only
because it's such a polished font but it was designed specifically to be
the font that is neutral and to have no implied meanings like many fonts
do. Sounds perfect, except for the not free part.
We're actively looking and trying out helvetica neue alternative that's
open source but it's been challenging. They either don't come with enough
characters, not well-kerned, or has too much personality that is not us.
I understand the preference for an open source font but we are giving up
certain areas that are probably just as important as being open source like
reading experience.
As for Georgia or Helvetica, serif (Georgia) fonts are recommended with
larger texts because they don't reduce well on screen. Sans serif
(Helvetica) fonts are recommended with smaller texts because they retain
their general character shapes better than serif fonts. [1] One might argue
that our web body text is not that small, hence we can use serif. There are
three reasons why I wouldn't recommend that. 1. Content looks large and
fine on the web but when it's displayed on phones and tablets, it's not as
big anymore to use serif. 2. Why don't we use serif on web and sans serif
on other platforms? Because that causes inconsistency. Readers should
experience the same experience regardless of platform. WP content should be
the one that takes center stage, not "why is my content appearing different
on my tablet or phone?" We have fallback font options only when we must
choose an alternative. 3. Helvetica has a neutral font personality. Serif,
on the other hand, has many implications like traditional, Roman, formal,
etc. [2,3]
We know the importance for using an open source font and we have been
looking for an alternative. We also know that we care deeply for our
reader's experience. Helvetica was chosen to use because it helped reflect
our content type, it's high quality, has good amount of character set (and
if it doesn't, it's fairly easy to find a similar-ish font to match). But I
can't lie it's a beautiful font, I can assure you we didn't judge Helvetica
by its cover though. ;P Hope this helps!
[1] http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2013/03/serif-vs-sans-the-final-battle/
[2]
http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/81/PersonalityofFonts.asp
[3] http://opusdesign.us/to-be-or-not-to-be-the-serif-question/
May
On Feb 15, 2014, at 9:07 PM, Ryan Kaldari <rkaldari(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Frankly, I think there has been a large degree of intransigence on both
sides. The free font advocates have refused to identify the fonts that they
want to be considered and why they should be considered other than the fact
that they are free, and the designers have refused to take any initiative
on considering free fonts. The free fonts that I know have been considered
are:
* DejaVu Serif. Conclusion: Widely installed, but horribly ugly and looks
nothing like the style desired by the designers.
* Nimbus Roman No9 L. Conclusion: Basically a clone of Times. Most Linux
systems map Times to Nimbus Roman No9 L, so there is no advantage to
specifying "Nimbus Roman No9 L" rather than "Times" (which also maps to
fonts on Windows and Mac).
* Linux Libertine. Conclusion: A well-designed free font that matches the
look of the Wikipedia wordmark. Unfortunately, it is not installed by
default on any systems (as far as anyone knows) but is bundled with
LibreOffice as an application font. If MediaWiki were using webfonts, this
would likely be the serif font of choice rather than Georgia, but since we
are relying on pre-installed fonts, it would be rather pointless to list it.
* Liberation Sans. Conclusion: Essentially a free substitute for Arial.
Like Nimbus Roman, there is no advantage to specifying "Liberation Sans"
instead of "Arial" (which is at the bottom of the sans-serif stack) since
Linux systems will map to Liberation Sans anyway, while other systems will
apply Arial.
As to proving the quality of Georgia and Helvetica Neue, I don't think the
designers have done that, but I also haven't seen any evidence from the
free font advocates concerning the quality of any free fonts. So in my
view, both sides of the debate have been delinquent.
Ryan Kaldari
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Greg Grossmeier <greg(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> <quote name="Steven Walling" date="2014-02-15" time="16:08:41 -0800">
> > On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Greg Grossmeier <greg(a)wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > <quote name="Federico Leva (Nemo)" date="2014-02-15" time="22:52:31
> +0100">
> > > > And surely, before WMF/"MediaWiki" tell the world that no free fonts
> > > > of good quality exist, there will be some document detailing exactly
> > > > why and based on what arguments/data/research the numerous free
> > > > alternatives were all rejected? Free fonts developers are an
> > > > invaluable resource for serving Wikimedia projects' content in all
> > > > languages, we shouldn't carelessly slap them in their face.
> > >
> > > I just skimmed the entire thread again, and yes, this has been
> requested
> > > a few times but no one from the WMF Design team has responded with that
> > > analysis (or if would respond with an analysis). The first time it was
> > > requested the person was told to ask the Design list, then the next
> > > message CC'd the design list, but no response on that point.
> > >
> > > I don't see much on https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Typography_refresh
> > > nor it's talk page. Nor
> > > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Design/Typography
> > >
> >
> > There wasn't an answer because the question is a fundamental
> > misunderstanding of the way CSS works and options that are within our
> > reach. The question isn't "are there good free fonts?" the question is
> "can
> > we deliver good free fonts to all users?". I'll try to help the UX team
> > document the answer better.
>
> Thanks.
>
> I may be part of the misunderstanding-of-how-things-work-in-font-land
> contingent. Advice/clarity appreciated.
>
> Greg
>
>
> --
> | Greg Grossmeier GPG: B2FA 27B1 F7EB D327 6B8E |
> | identi.ca: @greg A18D 1138 8E47 FAC8 1C7D |
>
> _______________________________________________
> Design mailing list
> Design(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
>
_______________________________________________
Design mailing list
Design(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
There is no question that there is a lot of room for improvement of
autodesc. There are also some instances where a manual description is
vastly superior to an automatic one, where the algorithm can not catch the
point of why that item is important.
However, consider this:
* volunteer time to manually update these descriptions: a few minutes?
(load, read, understand, type, save...)
* volunteer time to have them generated automatically: none (well, mine,
but distributed over 14M items times 250 languages, lim->0)
I noticed there are no biographies in your list, which is surprising,
considering those are most numerous "class" of items. It is also one of the
few classes where autodesc does something more clever than "generic
description". I assume this was not intentional ;-)
The situation, for most languages, is this: No manual descriptions, on
basically any item. And that will remain so for the (near) future.
Automatic descriptions can change that, literally over night, with a little
programming and linguistic effort. Adding a manual description can help
speakers of that language; adding a statement, and thereby improving
automatic descriptions in all languages, helps everyone. With essentially
the same volunteer effort. This is a "force multiplier" of volunteer effort
with a factor of 250. And we ignore that ... why, exactly?
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:25 AM Monte Hurd <mhurd(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Ok, so I just did what I proposed. I went to random enwiki articles and
> described the first ten I found which didn't already have descriptions:
>
>
> - "Courage Under Fire", *1996 film about a Gulf War friendly-fire
> incident*
>
> - "Pebasiconcha immanis", *largest known species of land snail, extinct*
>
> - "List of Kenyan writers", *notable Kenyan authors*
>
> - "Solar eclipse of December 14, 1917", *annular eclipse which lasted 77
> seconds*
>
> - "Natchaug Forest Lumber Shed", *historic Civilian Conservation Corps
> post-and-beam building*
>
> - "Sun of Jamaica (album)", *debut 1980 studio album by Goombay Dance
> Band*
>
> - "E-1027", *modernist villa in France by architect Eileen Gray*
>
> - "Daingerfield State Park", *park in Morris County, Texas, USA,
> bordering Lake Daingerfield*
>
> - "Todo Lo Que Soy-En Vivo", *2014 Live album by Mexican pop singer Fey*
>
> - "2009 UEFA Regions' Cup", *6th UEFA Regions' Cup, won by Castile and
> Leon*
>
>
>
> And here are the respective descriptions from Magnus' (quite excellent)
> autodesc.js:
>
>
>
> - "Courage Under Fire", *1996 film by Edward Zwick, produced by John
> Davis and David T. Friendly from United States of America*
>
> - "Pebasiconcha immanis", *species of Mollusca*
>
> - "List of Kenyan writers", *Wikimedia list article*
>
> - "Solar eclipse of December 14, 1917", *solar eclipse*
>
> - "Natchaug Forest Lumber Shed", *Construction in Connecticut, United
> States of America*
>
> - "Sun of Jamaica (album)", *album*
>
> - "E-1027", *villa in Roquebrune-Cap-Martin, France*
>
> - "Daingerfield State Park", *state park and state park of a state of the
> United States in Texas, United States of America*
>
> - "Todo Lo Que Soy-En Vivo", *live album by Fey*
>
> - "2009 UEFA Regions' Cup", *none*
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Just trying to make my own bold assertions falsifiable :)
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Monte Hurd <mhurd(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>> The whole human-vs-extracted descriptions quality question could be
>> fairly easy to test I think:
>>
>> - Pick, some number of articles at random.
>> - Run them through a description extraction script.
>> - Have a human describe the same articles with, say, the app interface I
>> demo'ed.
>>
>> If nothing else this exercise could perhaps make what's thus far been a
>> wildly abstract discussion more concrete.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Monte Hurd <mhurd(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>
>>> If having the most elegant description extraction mechanism was the goal
>>> I would totally agree ;)
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Dmitry Brant <dbrant(a)wikimedia.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> IMO, allowing the user to edit the description is a missed opportunity
>>>> to make the user edit the actual *data*, such that the description is
>>>> generated correctly.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 8:02 PM, Monte Hurd <mhurd(a)wikimedia.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> IMO, if the goal is quality, then human curated descriptions are
>>>>> superior until such time as the auto-generation script passes the Turing
>>>>> test ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> I see these empty descriptions as an amazing opportunity to give
>>>>> *everyone* an easy new way to edit. I whipped an app editing interface up
>>>>> at the Lyon hackathon:
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VblyGhf_c8
>>>>>
>>>>> I used it to add a couple hundred descriptions in a single day just by
>>>>> hitting "random" then adding descriptions for articles which didn't have
>>>>> them.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd love to try a limited test of this in production to get a sense
>>>>> for how effective human curation can be if the interface is easy to use...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Jan Ainali <jan.ainali(a)wikimedia.se>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nice one!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does not appear to work on svwiki though. Does it have something to
>>>>>> do with that the wiki in question does not display that tagline?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Med vänliga hälsningar,Jan Ainali*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Verksamhetschef, Wikimedia Sverige <http://wikimedia.se>
>>>>>> 0729 - 67 29 48
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Tänk dig en värld där varje människa har fri tillgång till
>>>>>> mänsklighetens samlade kunskap. Det är det vi gör.*
>>>>>> Bli medlem. <http://blimedlem.wikimedia.se>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2015-08-18 17:23 GMT+02:00 Magnus Manske <magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com
>>>>>> >:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Show automatic description underneath "From Wikipedia...":
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Magnus_Manske/autodesc.js
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To use, add:
>>>>>>> importScript ( 'User:Magnus_Manske/autodesc.js' ) ;
>>>>>>> to your common.js
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:47 AM Jane Darnell <jane023(a)gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It would be even better if this (short: 3 field max) pipe-separated
>>>>>>>> list was available as a gadget to wikidatans on Wikipedia (like me). I
>>>>>>>> can't see if a page I am on has an "instance of" (though it should) and I
>>>>>>>> can see the description thanks to another gadget (sorry no idea which one
>>>>>>>> that is). Often I will update empty descriptions, but if I was served basic
>>>>>>>> fields (so for a painting, the creator field), I would click through to
>>>>>>>> update that too.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <
>>>>>>>> nemowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jane Darnell, 15/08/2015 08:53:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes but even if the descriptions were just the contents of fields
>>>>>>>>>> separated by a pipe it would be better than nothing.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +1, item descriptions are mostly useless in my experience.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As for "get into production on Wikipedia" I don't know what it
>>>>>>>>> means, I certainly don't like 1) mobile-specific features, 2) overriding
>>>>>>>>> existing manually curated content; but it's good to 3) fill gaps. Mobile
>>>>>>>>> folks often do (1) and (2), if they *instead* did (3) I'd be very happy. :)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nemo
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Mobile-l mailing list
>>>>>>>> Mobile-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Mobile-l mailing list
>>>>>>> Mobile-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Mobile-l mailing list
>>>>>> Mobile-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Mobile-l mailing list
>>>>> Mobile-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dmitry Brant
>>>> Mobile Apps Team (Android)
>>>> Wikimedia Foundation
>>>> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_mobile_engineering
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Mobile-l mailing list
> Mobile-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
>
Ryan,
Thanks for this analysis, I think it is a good summary of the thinking on
the matter. The current order of fonts specified seems to be the best
ordering seems to achieve the desired look and feel short of loading free
webfonts, which the design team is not opposed to, but it would take more
research.
I do feel the design team has made a good effort to evaluate all of the
fonts suggested by the community, and come to the conclusions that you
clearly enumerated above, which is that specifying any of these fonts has
one or more of the of the following consequences.
1. Penalize Linux users who have purposefully installed non-free fonts
which map to the the desired design goals
2. Have no real effect, other that to appear to be endorsing FOSS fonts
3. Actively choose fonts which either don't look good (according to both
users and the design team)
Long term lets invest (time, money, expertise) to build or extend a
beautiful well designed typeface that suites the needs of our projects.
Let's investigate how this could affect performance of the site, but its a
pretty common practice even for large, popular sites, so i'm sure it's
doable, given enough research.
*Jared Zimmerman * \\ Director of User Experience \\ Wikimedia Foundation
M : +1 415 609 4043 | : @JaredZimmerman<https://twitter.com/JaredZimmerman>
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 9:54 PM, Ryan Kaldari <rkaldari(a)wikimedia.org>wrote:
> Now that I've blamed everyone except for myself, I would like to suggest
> that we stop pointing fingers and get down to brass tacks.
>
> My question for both the designers and the free font advocates is: Are
> there any free fonts that are...
> 1. widely installed (at least on Linux systems)
> 2. easily readable and not distractingly ugly
> 3. would not be mapped to by the existing stack anyway (i.e. are not
> simply clones or substitutes for popular commercial fonts)
>
> If so, I think they deserve at least as much consideration as Georgia and
> Helvetica Neue.
>
> Ryan Kaldari
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 9:07 PM, Ryan Kaldari <rkaldari(a)wikimedia.org>wrote:
>
>> Frankly, I think there has been a large degree of intransigence on both
>> sides. The free font advocates have refused to identify the fonts that they
>> want to be considered and why they should be considered other than the fact
>> that they are free, and the designers have refused to take any initiative
>> on considering free fonts. The free fonts that I know have been considered
>> are:
>> * DejaVu Serif. Conclusion: Widely installed, but horribly ugly and looks
>> nothing like the style desired by the designers.
>> * Nimbus Roman No9 L. Conclusion: Basically a clone of Times. Most Linux
>> systems map Times to Nimbus Roman No9 L, so there is no advantage to
>> specifying "Nimbus Roman No9 L" rather than "Times" (which also maps to
>> fonts on Windows and Mac).
>> * Linux Libertine. Conclusion: A well-designed free font that matches the
>> look of the Wikipedia wordmark. Unfortunately, it is not installed by
>> default on any systems (as far as anyone knows) but is bundled with
>> LibreOffice as an application font. If MediaWiki were using webfonts, this
>> would likely be the serif font of choice rather than Georgia, but since we
>> are relying on pre-installed fonts, it would be rather pointless to list it.
>> * Liberation Sans. Conclusion: Essentially a free substitute for Arial.
>> Like Nimbus Roman, there is no advantage to specifying "Liberation Sans"
>> instead of "Arial" (which is at the bottom of the sans-serif stack) since
>> Linux systems will map to Liberation Sans anyway, while other systems will
>> apply Arial.
>>
>> As to proving the quality of Georgia and Helvetica Neue, I don't think
>> the designers have done that, but I also haven't seen any evidence from the
>> free font advocates concerning the quality of any free fonts. So in my
>> view, both sides of the debate have been delinquent.
>>
>> Ryan Kaldari
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Greg Grossmeier <greg(a)wikimedia.org>wrote:
>>
>>> <quote name="Steven Walling" date="2014-02-15" time="16:08:41 -0800">
>>> > On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Greg Grossmeier <greg(a)wikimedia.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > <quote name="Federico Leva (Nemo)" date="2014-02-15" time="22:52:31
>>> +0100">
>>> > > > And surely, before WMF/"MediaWiki" tell the world that no free
>>> fonts
>>> > > > of good quality exist, there will be some document detailing
>>> exactly
>>> > > > why and based on what arguments/data/research the numerous free
>>> > > > alternatives were all rejected? Free fonts developers are an
>>> > > > invaluable resource for serving Wikimedia projects' content in all
>>> > > > languages, we shouldn't carelessly slap them in their face.
>>> > >
>>> > > I just skimmed the entire thread again, and yes, this has been
>>> requested
>>> > > a few times but no one from the WMF Design team has responded with
>>> that
>>> > > analysis (or if would respond with an analysis). The first time it
>>> was
>>> > > requested the person was told to ask the Design list, then the next
>>> > > message CC'd the design list, but no response on that point.
>>> > >
>>> > > I don't see much on
>>> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Typography_refresh
>>> > > nor it's talk page. Nor
>>> > >
>>> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Design/Typography
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > There wasn't an answer because the question is a fundamental
>>> > misunderstanding of the way CSS works and options that are within our
>>> > reach. The question isn't "are there good free fonts?" the question is
>>> "can
>>> > we deliver good free fonts to all users?". I'll try to help the UX team
>>> > document the answer better.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> I may be part of the misunderstanding-of-how-things-work-in-font-land
>>> contingent. Advice/clarity appreciated.
>>>
>>> Greg
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> | Greg Grossmeier GPG: B2FA 27B1 F7EB D327 6B8E |
>>> | identi.ca: @greg A18D 1138 8E47 FAC8 1C7D |
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Design mailing list
>>> Design(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
>>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Design mailing list
> Design(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
>
>
With the disclaimer that I've carried out surveys myself in the past, I
want to strongly dispute the claim that " Wikipedians were getting tired
of being continually contacted by researchers to fill out *surveys*". As
an editor who is in the Top 100 most active Wikipedians, I'd think I'd
get to see an above average number of requests, where I don't think I
get asked more than once a year. Maybe twice, in a "good" year, with
half not even on my talk page but something I see at WikiProjects I
frequent.
Even Heather says "I certainly haven't seen a huge amount of surveys
myself". I don't think anyone has seen any significant amount of surveys
(and what would be "huge"? would even getting one request a month be too
much, really?).
It is my belief that this type of discussion is driven by a very tiny
and completely unrepresentative group of editors who dislike
science/research and are very vocal about it (i.e. Wikipedia equivalent
of anti-vaccination activists), in other words people who may not get
more than one or two survey requests per year but for whom it is an
occasion to write long rants about how researchers are wasting
everyone's time. Seeing as not taking part in a survey takes a few
seconds of reading and forgetting about an invitation, I think that much
more time is wasted by giving any attention to such complains in the
first place.
Until such a time that someone can show that researchers are indeed
affecting the work of volunteers in any meaningful way (as in, imposing
on them more than asking for few seconds-a minute or two each year,
collectively) I believe this discussion is a storm in a teacup and,
indeed, a waste of our time.
--
Piotr Konieczny, PhD
http://hanyang.academia.edu/PiotrKoniecznyhttp://scholar.google.com/citations?user=gdV8_AEAAAAJhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Piotrus
On 7/17/2014 18:38, Heather Ford wrote:
> Agree with Kerry that we really need to have a more flexible process
> that speaks to the main problem that (I think) RCOM was started to
> solve i.e. that Wikipedians were getting tired of being continually
> contacted by researchers to fill out *surveys*. I'm not sure where
> feelings are about that right now (I certainly haven't seen a huge
> amount of surveys myself) but I guess the big question right now is
> whether RCOM is actually active or not. I must say that I was
> surprised, Aaron, when I read that it is active because I had heard
> from others in your team about a year or two ago that this wasn't
> going to be the vehicle for obtaining permission going forward and
> that a new, more lightweight process was being designed. As Nathan
> discusses on the Wikimedia-l list, there aren't many indications that
> RCOM is still active. Perhaps there has been a recent decision to
> resuscitate it? If that's the case, let us know about it :) And then
> we can discuss what needs to happen to build a good process.
>
> One immediate requirement that I've been talking to others about is
> finding ways of making the case to the WMF as a group of researchers
> for the anonymization of country level data, for example. I've spoken
> to a few researchers (and I myself made a request about a year ago
> that hasn't been responded to) and it seems like some work is required
> by the foundation to do this anonymisation but that there are a few of
> us who would be really keen to use this data to produce research very
> valuable to Wikipedia - especially from smaller language
> versions/developing countries. Having an official process that
> assesses how worthwhile this investment of time would be to the
> Foundation would be a great idea, I think, but right now there seems
> to be a general focus on the research that the Foundation does itself
> rather than enabling researchers outside. I know how busy Aaron and
> Dario (and others in the team) are so perhaps this requires a new
> position to coordinate between researchers and Foundation resources?
>
> Anyway, I think the big question right now is whether there are any
> plans for RCOM that have been made by the research team and the only
> people who can answer that are folks in the research team :)
>
> Best,
> Heather.
>
> Heather Ford
> Oxford Internet Institute <http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk> Doctoral Programme
> EthnographyMatters <http://ethnographymatters.net> | Oxford Digital
> Ethnography Group <http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/?id=115>
> http://hblog.org <http://hblog.org/> | @hfordsa
> <http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa>
>
>
>
>
> On 17 July 2014 08:49, Kerry Raymond <kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com
> <mailto:kerry.raymond@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Yes, I meant the community/communities of WMF. But the authority
> of the community derives from WMF, which chooses to delegate such
> matters. I think that “advise” is a good word to use.
>
> Kerry
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*Amir E. Aharoni [mailto:amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il
> <mailto:amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il>]
> *Sent:* Thursday, 17 July 2014 5:37 PM
> *To:* kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com <mailto:kerry.raymond@gmail.com>;
> Research into Wikimedia content and communities
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Wiki-research-l] discussion about wikipedia surveys
>
> >WMF does not "own" me as a contributor; it does not decide who can
> and cannot recruit me for whatever purposes.
>
> I don't think that it really should be about WMF. The WMF
> shouldn't enforce anything. The community can formulate good
> practices for researchers and _advise_ community members not to
> cooperate with researchers who don't follow these practices. Not
> much more is needed.
>
>
>
> --
> Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
> http://aharoni.wordpress.com
> “We're living in pieces,
> I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
>
> 2014-07-17 8:24 GMT+03:00 Kerry Raymond <kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com
> <mailto:kerry.raymond@gmail.com>>:
>
> Just saying here what I already put on the Talk page:
>
> I am a little bothered by the opening sentence "This page
> documents the process that researchers must follow before
> asking Wikipedia contributors to participate in research
> studies such as surveys, interviews and experiments."
>
> WMF does not "own" me as a contributor; it does not decide who
> can and cannot recruit me for whatever purposes. What WMF does
> own is its communication channels to me as a contributor and
> WMF has a right to control what occurs on those channels. Also
> I think WMF probably should be concerned about both its
> readers and its contributors being recruited through its
> channels (as either might be being recruited). I think this
> distinction should be made, e.g.
>
> "This page documents the process that researchers must follow
> if they wish to use Wikipedia's (WMF's?) communication
> channels to recruit people to participate in research studies
> such as surveys, interviews and experiments. Communication
> channels include its mailing lists, its Project pages, Talk
> pages, and User Talk pages [and whatever else I've forgotten]."
>
> If researchers want to recruit WPians via non-WMF means, I
> don’t think it’s any business of WMF’s. An example might be a
> researcher who wanted to contact WPians via chapters or
> thorgs; I would leave it for the chapter/thorg to decide if
> they wanted to assist the researcher via their communication
> channels.
>
> Of course, the practical reality of it is that some
> researchers (oblivious of WMF’s concerns in relation to
> recruitment of WPians to research projects) will simply use
> WMF’s channels without asking nicely first. Obviously we can
> remove such requests on-wiki and follow up any email requests
> with the commentary that this was not an approved request. In
> my category of [whatever else I’ve forgotten], I guess there
> are things like Facebook groups and any other social media
> presence.
>
> Also to be practical, if WMF is to have a process to vet
> research surveys, I think it has to be sufficiently fast and
> not be overly demanding to avoid the possibility of the
> researcher giving up (“too hard to deal with these people”)
> and simply spamming email, project pages, social media in the
> hope of recruiting some participants regardless. That is, if
> we make it too slow/hard to do the right thing, we effectively
> encourage doing the wrong thing. Also, what value-add can we
> give them to reward those who do the right thing? It’s nice to
> have a carrot as well as a stick when it comes to onerous
> processes J
>
> Because of the criticism of “not giving back”, could we
> perhaps do things to try to make the researcher feel part of
> the community to make “giving back” more likely? For example,
> could we give them a slot every now and again to talk about
> their project in the R&D Showcase? Encourage them to be on
> this mailing list. Are we at a point where it might make sense
> to organise a Wikipedia research conference to help build a
> research community? Just thinking aloud here …
>
> Kerry
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org
> <mailto:wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org>
> [mailto:wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org
> <mailto:wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org>] *On
> Behalf Of *Aaron Halfaker
> *Sent:* Thursday, 17 July 2014 6:59 AM
> *To:* Research into Wikimedia content and communities
> *Subject:* Re: [Wiki-research-l] discussion about wikipedia
> surveys
>
> RCOM review is still alive and looking for new reviewers
> (really, coordinators). Researchers can be directed to me or
> Dario (dtaraborelli(a)wikimedia.org
> <mailto:dtaraborelli@wikimedia.org>) to be assigned a
> reviewer. There is also a proposed policy on enwiki that
> could use some eyeballs:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Research_recruitment
>
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
> <nemowiki(a)gmail.com <mailto:nemowiki@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> phoebe ayers, 16/07/2014 19:21:
>
> > (Personally, I think the answer should be to resuscitate
> RCOM, but
> > that's easy to say and harder to do!)
>
> IMHO in the meanwhile the most useful thing folks can do is
> subscribing
> to the feed of new research pages:
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:NewPages&feed=atom&hid…>
> It's easier to build a functioning RCOM out of an active
> community of
> "reviewers", than the other way round.
>
> Nemo
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> <mailto:Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> <mailto:Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> <mailto:Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 10:41 PM, koltzenburg(a)w4w.net <koltzenburg(a)w4w.net>
wrote:
> ____Aaron wrote:
> "higher quality survey data"
> well, and how does one recognize low quality and how come it is so low?
> and "quality" by whose epistemological aims and standards?
>
> "causes and mechanisms that drive the gender gap (and related
> participation gaps)"
> which "related participation gaps" do you have in mind here?
>
Jane's response was helpful and similar to mine.
Based on existing surveys, there are demographic and social categories of
people who are underrepresented among current editors. I don't have
specifics off the top of my head, but if you look at WMF survey results for
US editors and compare the findings to US census data (for example), you
can get an idea of some categories. Women are underrepresented to an
extreme degree, but they are not the only population that does not seem to
edit en:WP. I am less knowledgeable about other WPs, but I suspect there
are other inequalities and gaps on other wikis.
> where would these gaps be situated in terms of areas of participation?
>
See above.
> and, again, in which language version(s)?
>
See above.
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 11:38 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> Speaking of which, the WMF doesn't have resources to appropriately
> process the 2012 survey data, so results aren't available yet. Did you
> consider offering them to take care of it, at least for the gendergap
> number? You would then be able to publish an update.
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Wikipedia_Editor_Survey_2012#…
As before, my understanding is that the method by which respondents were
selected to participate in the survey does not meet standard methods of
survey sampling (see this chunk
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_Editor_Survey_2012#When.…>
of
the description of the survey). As a result, I do not trust the results of
the 2012 survey to generate precise estimates of the gender gap or other
demographic details about participation. I've spoken to some very receptive
folks at the foundation about this and I hope that they/we will be able to
improve it in the future. I'm eager to help improve the survey data
collection procedures. Unfortunately, I do not have the capacity to analyze
the current survey data in greater depth.
The thing that allowed Mako and I to do the study that we published in
PLOSONE was the fact that (1) the old UNU-Merit & WMF survey sought to
include readers as well as editors; *and* (2) at the exact same time Pew
carried out a survey in which they asked a nearly identical question about
readership. We used the overlapping results about WP readership from both
surveys to generate a correction for the data about editorship. Without
similar data on readership and similar data from a representative sample of
some reference population (in the case of the pew survey, US adults), we
cannot perform the same correction. As a result, I do not feel comfortable
estimating how biased (or unbiased) the 2012 survey results may be.
a
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 12:00 AM, Jane Darnell <jane023(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Claudial,
> I responded to your questions in the text - hope it's readable.
> Jane
>
> ____WereSpielChequers wrote:
> "the community is more abrasive towards women"
>
> I think he is simply referring to earlier discussions where the
> conclusion was "the community can be perceived to be abrasive" and this
> conclusion, in yet other discussions led to this conclusion, which should
> be rephrased as "the community is more often perceived as abrasive by women
> than by men"
>
> ____Kerry wrote:
> "But I would agree that if an organisation sets a target (25% women in this
> particular case) and then does not put in place a means of measuring the
> progress against that target, one has to question the point of
> establishing a
> target."
>
> ___Claudia (responding to Kerry):
> I think one has to question the point of not putting in place a means of
> measuring the progress...
> and also ask why, if the issue is a high priority (allegedly, one might
> add, in
> speeches at meetings, in interviews with the press...) this organisation
> does
> not fund any top level research... - or does it?
>
> I think here you are forgetting about the "holy shit graph" which shows
> a reduction in the number of active editors over time. This is much more of
> a direct threat to the Wikiverse than the gendergap, which, as has been
> stated before, is only one of many serious gaps in knowledge coverage.
> Oddly, I think it is one of the easiest of all "participatory gaps" to
> measure, but we seem to constantly get stranded in objections to ways that
> previous editor surveys have been held, leading to the strange situation of
> never actually being able to run even one editor survey twice. Since we
> have not yet been able to establish any trend at all, we are only comparing
> apples to oranges.
>
> ____Aaron wrote:
> "higher quality survey data"
> __Claudia (responding to Aaron): ...how does one recognize low quality..?
> Hmm. I just looked and I couldn't find the criticism of the various editor
> surveys. Is this stashed somewhere on meta? Or do we need to sift through
> reams of emails until we find all the various objections? Objections
> galore, as I recall.
>
> ___Claudia: which "related participation gaps" do you have in mind here?
> Off the top of my head, some of these would be
>
> 1) lack of geographical editor coverage such as active editors in rural
> areas or even in whole states such as Wyoming or South Dakota and the whole
> "Global South participation problem" (the Global South participation
> problem is even helped along inadvertently by the new read-only
> "Wikipedia-zero" effect);
> 2) lack of topical expertise on subjects that technically don't lend
> themselves well to the Wikiverse, such as auditory fields (musical
> production) or visual fields (how to paint, how to make movies, how to
> choreograph motion)
> 3) lack of topical expertise on subjects that legally don't lend
> themselves well to the Wikiverse, such as articles about artworks under
> copyright that cannot be illustrated in an article;
> 4) lack of topical editor coverage on subjects previously shut out - there
> is still unwillingness by a whole group to re-enter the Wikiverse after
> being banned (earlier shut-outs such as blocking whole institution-wide ip
> ranges for vandalism or whole areas of expertise such as groups of writers
> for their COI editing, carry with them a history of anti-Wikipedia
> sentiment that lasts a long time in various enclaves)
>
> ___Claudia:
> and, again, in which language version(s)?
> That's easy - the languages that we can technically support but don't yet
> have Wikipedias for and the languages for which we don't even have the
> fonts to display them.
>
> best,
> Claudia
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 7:41 AM, <koltzenburg(a)w4w.net> wrote:
>
>> Hi WereSpielChequers, Kerry, Aaron and all,
>>
>> ____WereSpielChequers wrote:
>> "the community is more abrasive towards women"
>>
>> this may be stats expert discourse, but let me show you how the question
>> itself has a gendered slant.
>> imagine what would happen - also in your research design - if it read:
>> "the
>> community is less abrasive towards men" - how does this compare to the
>> first question re who are "the community"?
>>
>> and again, re phasing ten years in 2011 and four years on, which language
>> version(s) are hypotheses based on?
>>
>> ____Kerry wrote:
>> "But I would agree that if an organisation sets a target (25% women in
>> this
>> particular case) and then does not put in place a means of measuring the
>> progress against that target, one has to question the point of
>> establishing a
>> target."
>>
>> I think one has to question the point of not putting in place a means of
>> measuring the progress...
>> and also ask why, if the issue is a high priority (allegedly, one might
>> add, in
>> speeches at meetings, in interviews with the press...) this organisation
>> does
>> not fund any top level research... - or does it?
>>
>> ____Aaron wrote:
>> "higher quality survey data"
>> well, and how does one recognize low quality and how come it is so low?
>> and "quality" by whose epistemological aims and standards?
>>
>> "causes and mechanisms that drive the gender gap (and related
>> participation gaps)"
>> which "related participation gaps" do you have in mind here?
>> where would these gaps be situated in terms of areas of participation?
>> and, again, in which language version(s)?
>>
>> best,
>> Claudia
>>
>> ---------- Original Message -----------
>> From:aaron shaw <aaronshaw(a)northwestern.edu>
>> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
>> l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
>> Sent:Mon, 16 Feb 2015 20:50:17 -0800
>> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
>> [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>>
>> > Hi all!
>> >
>> > Thanks, Jeremy & Dariusz for following up.
>> >
>> > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 5:58 AM, Dariusz
>> > Jemielniak <darekj(a)alk.edu.pl> wrote:
>> >
>> > > As far as I recall, they did a follow-up on this topic, and maybe a
>> > > publication coming up?
>> >
>> > Sadly, no follow ups at the moment.
>> >
>> > If we want to have a more precise sense of the
>> > demographics of participants the biggest need in
>> > this space is simply higher quality survey data.
>> > My paper with Mako has a lot of detail about why
>> > the 2008 editor survey (and all subsequent editor
>> > surveys, to my knowledge) has some profound limitations.
>> >
>> > The identification and estimation of the effects
>> > of particular causes and mechanisms that drive the
>> > gender gap (and related participation gaps)
>> > presents an even tougher challenge for
>> > researchers and is an area of active inquiry.
>> >
>> > all the best,
>> > Aaron
>> ------- End of Original Message -------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
>
>
Thanks Peter,
let's always remember that "those who cannot or will not edit" for now
includes the majority of individual (as opposed to majority of
usage-incident) Wikipedia users who a) struggle with connectivity and b)
are probably non-hegemonic-language speakers even though they accept that
hegemonic-language WPs (currently English, French, German, Arabic, Spanish,
Mandarin) have the most useful reference resources.
That said, we do have a duty of care to emphasise that static/offline wikis
are a compromise and that editing by all should be a default position. Note
that offline resources offered by Kiwix can include WikiFundi which *is*
editable, although the issue of version control is thereby complicated.
Regards,
On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 2:01 PM <wikimediaza-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
wrote:
> Send WikimediaZA mailing list submissions to
> wikimediaza(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaza
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> wikimediaza-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wikimediaza-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of WikimediaZA digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Fwd: Offline-l Digest, Vol 100, Issue 10 (Peter Southwood)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2020 11:57:26 +0200
> From: "Peter Southwood" <peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net>
> To: <wikimediaza(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia ZA] Fwd: Offline-l Digest, Vol 100, Issue 10
> Message-ID: <001101d64ad7$19f9be70$4ded3b50$(a)telkomsa.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> I am not an expert, but from what I understand it looks like a good thing
> for those who cannot or will not edit. It will not help build the
> encyclopaedias, but at least could make what exists more accessible.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: WikimediaZA [mailto:wikimediaza-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Michael Graaf
> Sent: 24 June 2020 23:57
> To: wikimediaza(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: [Wikimedia ZA] Fwd: Offline-l Digest, Vol 100, Issue 10
>
> Dear Wikimedians,
>
> I'm sharing with all of you a digest email from the "offline-l list" to
> which I subscribe since I believe it has two items of wider interest than
> the usual ones on that list.
>
> The first one concerns a new facility called Open ZIMfarm which automates
> the curation of offline archives of web material (not just wikis). I
> believe this is bringing a step-change in the possibilities of
> decentralised content hosting.
>
> The second describes the recent deployment of the Kiwix-serve application
> in a commercial telecoms network in West Africa (Kiwix stores and presents
> the very same ZIM files created by ZIMfarm). Given that the Wikimedia
> Foundation no longer funds zero-rating of its products, this represents a
> new way to bring content to people free of charge. Not only cellular
> networks but local-government-supported WiFi providers such as Project
> Isizwe as well as community-owned and -operated networks can do this.
>
> I will be interested to know the feelings of the community on these.
>
> Regards,
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: <offline-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 6:01 PM
> Subject: Offline-l Digest, Vol 100, Issue 10
> To: <offline-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
>
>
> Send Offline-l mailing list submissions to
> offline-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/offline-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> offline-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> offline-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Offline-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: [KIWIX] Our openZIM farm... (Samuel Klein)
> 2. Re: [KIWIX] Our openZIM farm... (Emmanuel Engelhart)
> 3. [AAR] Interesting online/offline use case across West Africa
> (Stephane Coillet-Matillon)
> 4. Re: [AAR] Interesting online/offline use case across West
> Africa (Federico Leva (Nemo))
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 10:09:04 -0400
> From: Samuel Klein <meta.sj(a)gmail.com>
> To: Using Wikimedia projects and MediaWiki offline
> <offline-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Offline-l] [KIWIX] Our openZIM farm...
> Message-ID:
> <
> CAAtU9WJ14yPAJqikYqownk2Nh1mBnStC5TpROU8h+iJcDfuGMQ(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Wow, this is fabulous. If a new zimfarm starts up, can it coordinate with
> existing ones?
>
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 3:23 AM Emmanuel Engelhart <kelson(a)kiwix.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > There is a topic I wanted to talk about here for a long time and for
> > which I never have achieved to take the time to write something. A few
> > recent events have been a healthy remember that I should present one our
> > most recent and most useful tool: Zimfarm.
> >
> > The Zimfarm is the online tool which is in charge of building and
> > publishing all our ZIM files. After years of creating ZIM files by
> > launching scrapers more or less manually, we had to automatise the
> > process to just be able to scale the operations, ie. publishing more and
> > more often ZIM files.
> >
> > The effort started 3 years ago with the support of the WMF but we use it
> > only since Spring 2019 in production. The tool is now perfectly running
> > and we fully rely on it now. If we can publish an update of all our
> > wikis one time a month, this is thanks to this piece of software too.
> >
> > The Zimfarm is a half-decentralized solution which has a central node
> > (called "dispatcher") in charge of orchestrating the work to do and
> > multiple decentralized nodes (called "workers") which run the scraping
> > tasks.
> >
> > The dispatcher provides an API to manage the ZIM recipes and tasks, have
> > a look to https://api.farm.openzim.org/. We have setup a Web frontend on
> > this API to allow easy mgmt through a Web browser. For a better
> > transparency, even anonymous users can have a look and monitor what is
> > going on. Look at https://farm.openzim.org/.
> >
> > One important point is that, like all the rest of our infrastructure,
> > the whole system is Dockerized. Which means, this is really easy to
> > install a Zimfarm worker and we invite anybody having a spare server to
> > help us to provide offline snapshots of the best of the Web. The
> > procedure is documented and a few volunteers have already joined in.
> > Look at https://farm.openzim.org/about for more details.
> >
> > The development is fully transparent at
> > https://github.com/openzim/zimfarm. We have a few things which are on
> > the roadmap which would welcome volunteer Python developers. Look at the
> > good first issues and make your first PR!
> >
> >
>
> https://github.com/openzim/zimfarm/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%2…
> >
> > Regards
> > Emmanuel
> >
> > --
> > Kiwix - Wikipedia Offline & more
> > * Web: https://kiwix.org/
> > * Twitter: https://twitter.com/KiwixOffline
> > * Wiki: https://wiki.kiwix.org/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Offline-l mailing list
> > Offline-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/offline-l
> >
>
>
> --
> Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266
>
Hello, Lisa.
Could you, please, provide us with more details?
- why did it happen just now though restrictions due to the US sanctions
were I'mposed quite a long time ago? Probably, you have received some
warning from authorities, haven't you?
- what is the exact problem and applicable legislative restriction? Have
your bank stopped processing of payments from Russia or have something else
happen?
- is it an indefinite stop of fundraising here (till the end of sanctions)?
You know, relations between Russia and the US are not in their perfect
state and this a sensitive question where we need maximum of information to
make readers believe that it is not a political campaign of US-based WMF .
rubin16
13 нояб. 2014 г. 6:46 пользователь "Lisa Gruwell" <lgruwell(a)wikimedia.org>
написал:
> Hello rubin16,
>
> We are not running fundraising in Russia at this time, but I want to assure
> you that this was not a decision motivated by politics.
>
> We take compliance with appropriate laws very seriously in everything we
> do. Out of an abundance of caution, we're not fundraising in Russia right
> now.
>
> Of course, the fact that we are not fundraising in Russia does and will not
> have any impact at all on how the WMF continues to support the Russian
> language Wikipedia, its sister projects, and the Russian Wikimedian
> community.
>
> Thank you,
> Lisa Gruwell
>
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 7:44 PM, rubin.happy <rubin.happy(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > There were no recent changes in sanctions and I don't understand why this
> > turn off in donations happened just now.
> >
> > Ideas about SWIFT kick out are not relevant here, as it was just a
> > discussion some months ago but no such action happened.
> >
> > Furthermore, the sanctions were placed on particular companies and
> > individuals, there were no prohibitions against all financial relations.
> > So, I could understand if donations weren't accepted when they were sent
> > via a couple of banks under sanctions, but I want to repeat that there
> is,
> > for example, no prohibition to receive money from Russians.
> >
> > rubin16
> > 13 нояб. 2014 г. 4:01 пользователь "David Gerard" <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
> > написал:
> >
> > > I'm presuming this is sanctions against Russia kicking in; all sorts
> > > of business has been stopped dead in its tracks, not just charity
> > > donations. There's even serious moves to kick Russia out of the SWIFT
> > > network:
> > >
> >
> http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-09-04/ultimate-sanction-barring-r…
> > > It strikes me as quite unlikely that there's anything at all WMF can
> > > actually do about this. Possibly it could have been handled better,
> > > but that won't change the fact.
> > >
> > > On 13 November 2014 00:12, Craig Franklin <cfranklin(a)halonetwork.net>
> > > wrote:
> > > > I'm sure that you're correct here Joseph, but this is another
> example I
> > > > think where the Foundation should have notified the relevant chapter
> > > > *before* taking the action, so that they would be ready when the
> > > questions
> > > > started rolling in.
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately, I think we're getting back to the bad old days of
> > chapter
> > > > and user group press contacts being the last people to find out about
> > > > potentially controversial issues like this.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Craig Franklin
> > > > (personal view only)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 13 November 2014 10:07, Joseph Seddon <josephseddon(a)gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I would hate to preclude any answer from the foundation. However the
> > > laws
> > > >> that govern the foundation are that of the US. Given the previous
> and
> > > >> renewed ongoing palaver with Ukraine and the presence of economic
> > > sanctions
> > > >> and the increasing likelihood of on top of what is already present,
> I
> > > >> imagine this related to that.
> > > >>
> > > >> Im not sure of what legal risks accepting such donations would
> expose
> > > the
> > > >> foundation to. However such precautions have been made in the past
> > > relating
> > > >> to unrest.
> > > >>
> > > >> Its no slight on the country or its individuals, just a
> precautionary
> > > >> measure.
> > > >>
> > > >> Seddon
> > > >> On 12 Nov 2014 19:48, "Federico Leva (Nemo)" <nemowiki(a)gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> rubin.happy, 12/11/2014 18:48:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> We received some alerts from our users that donations are now
> > blocked
> > > >>>> when user is from Russia:
> > > >>>>
> > >
> http://habrastorage.org/files/31b/b1f/ec9/31bb1fec9b9e45abb6ac4babcc2371
> > > >>>> 84.png
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Thanks for the information. Everyone can see the same warning by
> > > clicking
> > > >>> the "Russia" link in
> > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Ways_to_Give
> > > >>> Through what channels are donations blocked? Did anyone try
> sending a
> > > >>> wire to the EU (SEPA) account (IBAN GB54CHAS60924241034640), or a
> > > PayPal
> > > >>> donation?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Nemo
> > > >>>
> > > >>> P.s.: ROTFLOL "Please email donate(a)wikimedia.org for more
> > information
> > > on
> > > >>> how to make a bank transfer to the Wikimedia Foundation." In case
> > > someone
> > > >>> forgets there is an ocean between Europe and USA.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> _______________________________________________
> > > >>> Fundraiser mailing list
> > > >>> Fundraiser(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/fundraiser
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> Fundraiser mailing list
> > > >> Fundraiser(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/fundraiser
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>