Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod(a)mccme.ru> wrote:
> actually, I am pretty sure we did discuss the procedure which requires
> endorsement (we did not call it approval), either at the extraordinary
> meeting in December (related to the survey banner story) or in the RCom
> mailing list in the thread related to the same story....
The discussion in the RCom mailing list archives is fairly summarized by
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/rcom-l/2011-December/000506.html
"I rather suspect that there isn't consensus on this committee to restrict
researchers in their requesting community members to complete research
questionnaires."
The subsequent etherpad minutes for the December 22, 2011 meeting,
discuss a "future subject recruitment policy" which the participants
state they do not understand how to craft.
> do not call other people liars unless you have very strong proofs....
Is there any way to interpret these two statements such that one of
them is not a lie?
"this is a policy that we're enforcing ... approval is required"
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Research_talk%3AFAQ&diff=344130…
"due to the lack of a formal policy, the RCom has never been in a
position to grant any kind of "definitive approval" to recruit
participants"
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/2012-March/001896.html
The first of those two statements was made in an effort to accuse me
of misconduct. I stand by my statements, and I am certain that I have
acted ethically.
It would be best if this issue were addressed as a mistake on the part
of those who have contradicted themselves.
Sincerely,
James Salsman
Lane,
Thanks for your message:
> James: I made the edit stating the research should get approval,
> and I did that by jumping into the game and just making the edit
> based on what I read in discussion boards. I did not consider it
> to be a new requirement....
For the benefit of those who haven't clicked on the link, you edited
[[meta:Research:Subject recruitment]] to read, at the top:
"If you are doing research which involves contacting Wikimedia project
editors or users then you must first notify the Wikimedia Research
Committee by describing your project. After your project gets approval
then you may begin."
How could that not be seen as a requirement? Do you think there is a
way to phrase it so that it would not be seen as a requirement?
Certainly this is not your fault. As you read, Dario Taraborelli
stated on February 15, "this is a policy that we're enforcing ...
approval is required"
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Research_talk%3AFAQ&diff=344130…
And after you made that edit, Dario thanked you for it, saying, "I
appreciate the documentation on the review procedure" -- even though
the Research Committee had explicitly rejected an approval policy
requirement in September 2010, has not discussed it since, and neither
the community or the Foundation has ever endorsed any of the earlier
policy proposals.
I would not be so upset about this if I hadn't been repeatedly accused
of misconduct in failing to obtain RCom approval.
Given the ease and lack of remorse with which Dr. Taraborelli, Mr.
Walling, and Mr. Beaudette have all repeatedly lied about me while
accusing me of misconduct, I have lost all confidence in the ability
of Foundation staff to adhere to basic ethics. I intend to continue to
raise this issue until it is addressed sufficiently.
Sincerely,
James Salsman
Hi Lane,
your proposed workflow is a good description of how I would like the SR procedure to function in an ideal world. I am not myself at the forefront of SR discussions, but I'd definitely like to see a more streamlined process and a better way of signaling to participants which projects are flagged as reviewed and which aren't. Part of the discussion that we had during the last RCom meeting of the RCom was precisely focused on this issue [1].
If you want to contribute to the SR discussion, I strongly recommend you post your proposal on this page [2] so it can be seen and discussed by others. It would also probably make sense to move the entire SR discussion to a dedicated list as I suspect many wiki-research-l subscribers are not interested in following this thread. I'll also forward this to the RCom members who have been involved in SR as they will be able to make a better judgment than mine on these matters
Dario
[1] http://etherpad.wikimedia.org/RComDec2011
[2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Committee/Areas_of_interest/Su…
> Is such a flagging system already in place? If not, shall we start one?
>
> This is what I imagine is what we have consensus to do - is this how it is supposed to work?
> Researcher jumps on Wikipedia unannounced and starts recruiting for surveys
> Some Wikipedian tells the researcher to submit their project for review
> Researcher goes to landing page and completes a form for their proposal
> The proposal is posted publicly
> Any volunteer can check the proposal to see if all fields are completed
> Volunteers tag the form as being completed or incomplete - no quality review
> Completed forms eventually get reviewed by RCom according to criteria which are currently undefined
> Approved projects get a template to stick on their project page.
> Researchers must show their research page to all research recruitment candidates, who would be able to see the completed form, the flagging by a volunteer, and the approval by RCom. The approval template would also link to more information about research on Wikipedia.
> Research subjects would only be able to agree to participate in research by following instructions at the bottom of the research description form, so they would see default notices like "unflagged" or "unreviewed" if no one has checked it.
All,
We’re happy to announce our fourth employee at the UK chapter – Stevie
Benton. Stevie will be taking on the communications role for the
charity. He has worked in non-profit communications for over eight years
in a variety of disciplines, including internal communications, press,
online and multimedia. He believes that education and access to
information are fundamental to the development of humanity.
He’ll be working from the office in Old Street, but believes in being
very hands-on and is looking forward to getting out and meeting as many
Wikimedians, volunteers and partners as possible. Stevie is interested
in all kinds of art, literature and music, enjoys video games and is a
long-suffering fan of the Philadelphia Eagles NFL team.
Over the next few weeks Stevie will be working with Wikipedians to
promote the Monmouthpedia Project in April and our AGM in the Science
Museum in early May. He can be contacted at at
stevie.benton(a)wikimedia.org.uk, or by phone on 0207 065 0993.
Richard Symonds
Office& Development Manager
Wikimedia UK
+44 (0) 207 065 0992
--
Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited, a Charitable Company
Registered in England and Wales, No: 6741827. Charity No:1144513 Office: 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street,
London EC2A 4LT.
Wikimedia UK is the local chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate
Wikipedia, amongst other projects). It is an independent non-profit
organization with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for
its contents.
_______________________________________________
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Foundation-L, the public mailing list about the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects. For more information about Foundation-L:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
WikimediaAnnounce-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
Dario Taraborelli <dtaraborelli(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>... due to the lack of a formal policy, the RCom has never been
> in a position to grant any kind of "definitive approval" to recruit
> participants....
I appreciate that clarification, but it strictly contradicts this edit from
11 days ago:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Research:Subject_recruitment&di…
about which Dario said, "I appreciate the documentation on the
review procedure" at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Subject_recruitment
I think there are some very serious ethical issues here. Requiring
Research Committee approval to contact editors or users was
explicitly rejected by the Research Committee:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Committee/Meetings/Meeting_2010-09-…
As far as I can tell, the Research Committee has not discussed the
topic since.
I wonder what the community thinks of this new requirement.
Sincerely,
James Salsman
Friends from the Oxford Internet Institute well-known for their global Wikipedia research, including Mark Graham, are organizing a workshop for Middle East contributors to Wikipedia in Amman next month. But interest in participating has been so low that they may need to postpone. If you edit Middle East articles and are from the region, or if you know anyone who fits the criteria, please see the invites below:
http://www.zerogeography.net/2012/02/open-invitation-to-workshop-in-amman.h…http://www.zerogeography.net/2012/02/blog-post_01.html
There are some travel grants available too. This is a really great initiative and it would be sad for them to have to cancel!
Best,
Heather.
Heather Ford
Ethnographer: Ushahidi / SwiftRiver
http://ushahidi.com | http://swiftly.org
@hfordsa on Twitter
http://hblog.org
Dear friends,
After weeks of full work, this is the draft charter that has been
worked on. I copy for you here the introduction and the link to meta.
If you have questions about it, you may put them on the talk page or
send them to me.
Kind regards
Ziko
In February 2012, in Paris, Chapter representants agreed on creating a
new organization. As there was no person or group assigned to write a
draft charter, finally, after having talked to some people on general
questions, I took the task on me. Subsequently I presented this page
(March 7th) which was very much altered in the meanwhile.
I have tried to integrate Paris texts, parts from the models B and
KISS, and I have contacted a lot of the people who are going to Berlin
(end of March; alas I did not find all e-mails but I believed I
contacted every participating chapter). There were some phone calls
and chats e.g. with Sebastian Moleski. There is also another draft, by
Tango, which I (and others) have read carefully.
Now we nearly arrived March 18th, on which, according to the timeline,
a draft charter is supposed to be ready. Whatever that means, I would
like to call the draft provisorily ready (there will be certainly
changes, especially for the final incorporation) and invite people
again to read.
...
The idea is to have an organization with a kind of parliament
(Council) and a kind of government (Secretariat). A Judicial Board has
the task to arbitrate in severe cases of conflict; this could have
been a simple Council committee, but for general reasons a seperate
organ is better: the Council or Council members could be part of a
conflict. We hope that the Judicial Board will have nothing to do.
Normally, the members of the organs are elected for a certain term.
This is important to give them a certain independence. There must be a
relationship between work, responsibility and the right to make
decisions. But if there is a severe problem, then the Council can
dismiss people (by a 2/3 majority).
There was a lenghy discussion on several levels about the position of
the Council members, the Representatives. Now, according to the
general principle, the Representative has a fixed term and can be
dismissed in certain cases. But the Representative can have a position
in a chapter (in contrary to a former model).
Maybe the most important question to be answered: If a chapter joins,
what are the consequences and obligations? First of all: A chapter
joins only if it wants to, it does not become a member automatically.
A chapter agrees to elect a Representative and pay an annual
contribution. Later in the year 2012, there will be a budget.
Possibly, the chapters will have to pay some % of their annual chapter
budget. Of course the Wikimedia Chapters Association will consider the
financial possibilities of the chapters.
Why is it good for a chapter to join? The Association will support the
chapters and represent their interests. A lot of international
coordination work, that now has to be done by chapter boards, will be
done (or supported by) the organs of the Association. Even if a
chapter is already big and mature - it is good for every chapter to
belong to a big family of well organized chapters.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapters_Council/Draft_charter_of_the_Wikime…
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland
dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter
http://wmnederland.nl/
Wikimedia Nederland
Postbus 167
3500 AD Utrecht
-----------------------------------------------------------
Those of you who have been around for a few years may remember
user:Tlogmer, aka Ben Yates -- co-author with Charles Matthews and I
on "How Wikipedia Works."
I got an email from his mother this morning with the very sad news
that Ben passed away yesterday. I do not know the details. He was in
his 20s and lived in Michigan, USA.
There will be a memorial service in Michigan on Friday; contact me if
you want that information. His userpages are
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tlogmer
and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tlogmer
For several years Ben wrote a blog about Wikipedia that was incisive
and widely read. Older posts can be found here:
http://wikip.blogspot.com/
He also designed the Wikimania logo with the two "w"s; originally
designed for Wikimania 2006, we use it to this day:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimania_%28spacing%29.png
Ben was a skilled artist and designer and was responsible for all of
the figures in "How Wikipedia Works." He also designed posters and
graphic materials for Wikimania and proposed many other merchandise
designs to promote Wikipedia.
He was funny, smart, and shy; I never had a bad interaction with him.
I worked with him intensively for many months but never got a chance
to meet him in person, but I counted him as a friend long after we
finished the book. He will be missed.
If you have any comments that you would like to be given to his family
or read at the service, please post them on Ben's talk page or send to
me directly. Wikimedia was meaningful to Ben, and it would mean a lot
to let his mom that people cared about her son as a colleague and
friend.
thanks,
-- Phoebe
Short version:
A few countries currently do not participate in international
copyright treaties. Most such countries have domestic copyright laws;
however, many works originating in these countries are considered to
be in the public domain in the United States due to the lack of a
treaty relationship. In 2005, Jimbo declared that we would
nonetheless respect the copyright laws of non-treaty countries as best
we can [1]. Since mid-January, English Wikipedia has been having a
well-advertised, but poorly-attended discussion that contemplates
overturning this Jimbo-created rule.
The proposed change would mean all works where the "country of origin"
(as legally defined by US statutes) is a non-treaty state would be
declared as public domain for the purpose of Wikipedia and allowed to
be freely used. The current discussion features a 9-3 "consensus" in
favor of this outcome [2], and some participants are now pushing for
implementation on this basis [3].
Though all participants agree there no US copyright protection for
works originating in non-treaty nations, this proposal raises a number
of ethical and logistical problems.
Longer version:
As September 2010, Afghanistan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, San
Marino and Turkmenistan have no copyright relations with the US. [4]
All works published in these countries by nationals of these countries
are considered to be in the public domain in the US unless they were
also published in a country that has US copyright relations within 30
days of their original appearance.
This means many modern and historical works originating in these
countries may currently be used freely in the US.
Nonetheless, most of these countries have domestic copyright laws
protecting the intellectual property rights of their nationals.
The law here is not in dispute, the question is how Wikipedia should
respond to these works. Under Jimbo-created policy originating in
2005, we treat works from these countries as if they the countries DID
have copyright relations with the US, even though they do not. This
means excluding many works from Wikipedia that we would be legally
entitled to.
Personally, I agree with Jimbo that respecting the intellectual
property rights of authors in non-treaty states is ethically the right
thing to do. Simply appropriating all content published in Iran,
Iraq, etc., as free is disrespectful to the authors involved. This is
especially true since individual authors in these countries generally
have no influence over whether their government chooses to participate
in international copyright agreements.
Allowing such images to be used on Wikipedia would also create a
number of foreseeable problems for us and for reusers. Firstly, works
in the public domain due to non-treaty status can be restored to
copyright if the nation at issue chooses to join the relevant
treaties. At the stroke of a pen, these nations could ensure their
works were no longer usable. Such a change could create significant
additional work for Wikipedians and numerous hassles for any reusers
that chose to rely on such images. It is unclear how likely these
countries are to seek treaty status in the future. However,
membership in international copyright treaties is generally seen as a
prerequisite for full member status in the World Trade Organization.
Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Ethopia all have been applying for full
member status in the WTO (the process takes years, and Iran began the
application in 1996). The desire to join the WTO would appear to make
it significantly more likely that these countries will join
international copyright treaties in the foreseeable future.
Personally, I think Wikipedia ought to focus on truly free content
rather than "public domain" content with a significant chance of being
revoked in the future.
There are also practical problems with determining that a work
originates in a non-treaty state, that the authors are all nationals
of that country, and that the work was not also published in a treaty
state. (Some US courts have suggested that placing a work on the
internet actually counts as publishing in all countries were it is
available, which would imply that internet works would be frequently
covered by treaty obligations.)
Anyway, I think a change of this magnitude needs a more thorough
vetting by the community. A "consensus" of 9-3 shouldn't really be
sufficient to change how Wikipedia deals with content from non-treaty
states. Though this discussion has been presented to RFC and has been
open for quite a while, I suspect that the way the issue was framed
made it hard for most people to participate.
I'm raising the issue here, because I know many people on foundation-l
care about issues surrounding copyright and reuse, and a change like
this could set a precedent for what we ultimately do on the other
projects.
-Robert Rohde
[1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-August/027373.html
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#Usage_Option_1_Suppo…
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#RfC:_What_to_do_with…
[4] http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ38a.pdf
Dear all,
Please find the February 2012 report of Wikimedia Hungary available at:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters/Reports/Wikim%C3%A9dia_Ma….
Reports covering the September-November 2011 period have also been
published in Hungarian at:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters/Reports/Wikim%C3%A9dia_Ma….
We hope to use the Translate extension so that over time our Hungarian
reports can be read in English and our English reports in Hungarian. In the
mean time, we are happy to answer any questions.
For your convenience, the February report is copied below.
Best regards,
Bence Damokos
Wikimedia Hungary
'''Wikimedia Hungary Report'''
'''Vol 5 Issue 2'''
'''February 2012'''
''Prepared by: Bence Damokos''
This is an update on Wikimedia Hungary's activities covering the February
2012 period. We have recently uploaded to Meta our reports for the
September-November 2011 period in Hungarian, you can find them
[[Wikimedia_chapters/Reports/Wikimédia_Magyarország|here]].
==Activities ==
* We have awarded one small grant to buy a book to help improve articles on
[[:en:Franz Liszt|Franz Liszt]]. Furthermore, we have created info pages
about our programs to provide funding for community projects[1] and
travel[2].
* Work has been ongoing on replenishing our stock of Wikipedia themed
merchandise. Tangible results are expected by end of March, early April.
* We held two smaller scale meetups for our members, at one of them Milos
Rancic from Wikimedia Serbia was also present.
* Furthermore, a full-day board meeting was held with the main topic being
the implementation of our annual plan.[3]
* Orsolya, one of our members has participated in the Open Wiki GLAM of
Serbia event in Belgrade.[4]
* Bence, our vice-president participated in the Paris finance summit.[5]
* Bence (later joined by Ting Chen, Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation) has
spent a weekend as a guest of Slovene Wikipedians as they were celebrating
the tenth anniversary of the Slovene Wikipedia.[6] The anniversary has
garnered substantial media attention. On the visit, Bence has discussed the
idea of a Slovene Wikipedia chapter and the general process and
requirements of establishing a local Wikimedia organisation.
* Our office manager has participated in a conference and training about
the new laws and regulations governing Hungarian civil society, and has
prepared a summary of the regulatory context.[7]
* Our website was restored following a crash in January[8]
* We have started preparing a campaign to collect 1% income tax allocations
from Hungarian donors. A specialized fundraising agreement with the
Wikimedia Foundation was agreed to and (as of March 2012) signed.
* Csongor Gál has joined our ranks as a communications intern until about
April.
== Financials ==
The following financial data is provided for informational purposes only.
The data presented is not audited and may change slightly as all invoices
come in. Amounts are in Hungarian Forints.
=== Expenses ===
[[File:Wikimedia Hungary expenses in 2012.png|right|thumb|Expenses by month
of Wikimedia Hungary in 2012]]
{|
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Category'''
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''January'''
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''February'''
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Total YTD'''
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Plan 2012'''
|-
| postage fees|| 18 286 || 2 315 || 20 601 || 30 000
|-
| server maintenance|| 34 375 || 34 375 || 68 750 || 420 000
|-
| employee and employment costs|| 17 705 || 235 038 || 252 743 ||
2 500 000
|-
| office space|| 13 875 || 9 398 || 23 273 || 60 000
|-
| telephone|| 11 553 || 5 135 || 16 688 || 100 000
|-
| printer and printing costs|| 33 610 || - || 33 610 || 70 000
|-
| debt to Wikimedia Austria|| 61 100 || - || 61 100 || 50 000
|-
| banking fees|| 7 165 || 3 850 || 11 015 || 50 000
|-
| community travel|| 4 320 || - || 4 320 || 1 725 000
|-
| board travel|| - || 119 200 || 119 200 || 650 000
|-
| board meeting|| - || 46 818 || 46 818 || 100 000
|-
| small grants programme|| - || 3 200 || 3 200 || 100 000
|-
| accountant|| 13 208 || - || 13 208 || 300 000
|-
| '''Total:'''|| '''215 197''' || '''459 329''' || '''674 526''' ||
|}
=== Revenues===
[[File:Wikimedia_Hungary_income_in_2012.png|right|thumb|Revenues by month
of Wikimedia Hungary in 2012]]
{|
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Category'''
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''January'''
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''February'''
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Total YTD'''
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Plan 2012'''
|-
| donations|| 9 500 || 113 000 || 122 500 || -
|-
| interest|| 39 705 || 36 406 || 76 111 || -
|-
| membership fees|| 19 000 || 6 000 || 25 000 || 100 000
|-
| other|| - || 23 985 || 23 985 || -
|-
| '''Total:'''||'''68 205'''||'''179 391'''||'''247 596'''||
|}
==Links==
* [1]:
http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Wikim%C3%A9dia_Magyarorsz%C3%A1…
* [2]:
http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Wikim%C3%A9dia_Magyarorsz%C3%A1…
* [3]: http://wikimedia.hu/wiki/2012-es_programterv/en
* [4]: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Open_Wiki_GLAM_of_Serbia
* [5]: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Finance_meeting_2012
* [6]: http://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:10
* [7]:
http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szerkeszt%C5%91:Samat_(WMM)/Civil_szervezetek_…
(in Hungarian)
*[8]:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters/Reports/Wikim%C3%A9dia_Ma…
* Blog posts published in February:
http://huwiki.blogspot.com/2012_02_01_archive.html
_______________________________________________
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Foundation-L, the public mailing list about the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects. For more information about Foundation-L:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
WikimediaAnnounce-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
.png){kind=link}