Hello everyone,
We’ll be holding IRC office hours on Monday, March 23 at 18:00 UTC / 11:00
PDT to discuss the Wikimedia Foundation’s decision to file suit against the
NSA <http://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/03/10/wikimedia-v-nsa/>. Wikimedia
Foundation Executive director Lila Tretikov will be there to answer
questions about why we decided to file suit, the importance of this action,
and to hear your thoughts on the issue.
The office hours will be held in #Wikimedia-office on the Freenode network.
You can find information on how to get online, including a link to a
webchat option if you don't have an IRC client, on the meta office hours
page <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours#How_to_participate>.
You can also find a time converter for the start of the start of the hour
here
<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=IRC+Office+Hours%3…>.
Note that the U.S. has just switched to Daylight Savings Time, so you may
want to double check for the time in your location.
Like most of our public office hours, this one will be publicly logged and
will be posted on the meta office hour page shortly after it's conclusion.
Due to the legal issues surrounding this topic, this will be a moderated
session and Lila will not be able to comment on specific legal arguments or
theory. We are currently finalizing the selection of a moderator and will
update the meta office hours page prior to the office hours.
Also, tomorrow (Friday, March 20), Jimmy, Lila, and ACLU attorney Jameel
Jaffer will be doing a Reddit AMA at 4:00 PM UTC to answer questions about
this topic. Anyone who would like to join can do so via this link:
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA.
Thank you,
Philippe
*Philippe Beaudette * \\ Director, Community Advocacy \\ Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc.
T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 | philippe(a)wikimedia.org | : @Philippewiki
<https://twitter.com/Philippewiki>
Greetings,
Please join me in congratulating Tec de Monterrey Wiki Learning on having
their Wikimedia User Group application approved by the Affiliations
Committee.[1] The group will be officially recognized once they have signed
the new Wikimedia User Group agreement and code of conduct.
As a quick bit of info, the agreement and code of conduct are currently
being redrafted and will soon be made available on Meta-Wiki for comment
before being officially put in place.
Tec de Monterrey Wiki Learning is a group for "Professors and students at
the Tecnológico de Monterrey dedicated to the development of open source
knowledge, working primarily with Wikimedia. Participants work to improve
knowledge in topics related to Mexico as well as general knowledge in the
languages of the country, primarily Spanish."
You can find more information about this group on their page and
application:
-
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_user_groups/Applications/Tec_de_M…
-
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/Countries/México/Tec_de_Monte…
Again, congratulations to our latest Wikimedia User Group.
-greg aka varnent
Vice Chair, Wikimedia Affiliations Committee
[1] -
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Resolutions/Tec_de_M…
Dear All
if this is the wrong place to post this, please accept my apologies.
If a scientist has published works - papers and books - on a specific
area of expertise, and that scientist is also a Wikipedia editor,
USING a made up username
1. can they use/ cite their own works as sources and base arguments on
those sources?
2. should they disclose somewhere (user page) that they are in fact
the author of the works? This would mean that the link between
username and real name would be established.
3. If they have a close relationship with a major source - such as
Britannica, CIA fact book, National Geographic - and repeatedly use
and defend the use of that source, should they disclose the
relationship? By close relationship I mean they are part of the team
of expert consultants, they are otherwise involved in the reegular
activities of the publisher, they defend the publisher in public
foruns on the internet, they publish regularly in the name of the
publisher.
4. And if said user denies that they are the same person as the
author, depite overwhelming proof in the WP and the internet?
Does any of these situations constitute a conflict of interests and
should they come clean and disclose the association?
Any constructive constributions via the list or directly to my address
will be welcome.
Regards,
Rui Correia
--
_________________________
Rui Correia
Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant
Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
_______________
Really. Who thought it was a good idea to MAKE THE BANNER FOLLOW YOU
DOWN THE PAGE?
There must be an identifiable person who actually said "yes, this is a
good decision, I shall make this decision."
- d.
> when "ticketed", this is usually to control numbers when
> space is limited. This model works pretty well and makes them
> popular events; indeed, they're one of our most visible public activities.
> I don't see where the benefit would come from selling - or raffling,
> auctioning, etc- tickets.
We should be treating editing wikipedia as one of the most profoundly
influential things a person can do in society, because there are
pretty good reasons to believe that it is. We should present
editathons led by skilled wikipedians as the premier cultural events
that they are. We are recruiting the people who will teach those who
are not in school, who answer questions and direct those in need of
assistance to the best resources. Wikipedia is the most monumental
feat of literature that civilization has yet produced. The idea that
art or sculpture exhibits should raise more money than training new
editors is, frankly, preposterous, and stems from the same fallacies
which keep the rest of the developed world from achieving teacher
salaries on par with Korea's.
> It would invariably deter attendees and reduce uptake
I propose that this be measured, because there is reason to believe
that transitioning to a half-auction, haff-raffle model could increase
public interest for a variety of reasons: acknowledging them as the
literary events that they are, the novelty (which may or may not
last), the opportunity for anyone to mingle with those who were able
to afford tickets if an when such events do become popular, etc. If at
some point an auction raises an unexpectedly large amount of money,
other cultural institutions might start to take notice, offer to host
editathons, or even start their own.
> why would making them more exclusive be a *good* thing?
"Exclusive" has both positive and negative connotations. Exclusive
access to important sources is good for those who have access, but bad
for everyone else. The half-raffle aspect keeps everyone involved
without precluding the possibility of the events paying for
themselves, paying all the bills in advance, and not risking low
turnout or exceeding the size of the venue, which very substantially
lowers the risk of organizing and hosting them. Presumably that could
serve to make them easier and make them more likely to be held.
> I worry that running an auction and a raffle for each - or even some -
> editathons would be a lot of work
I think software support should be easy, or even administration by
email. Any auction bid, even 0, will enter the raffle, and auction
bids would be accepted as payment from half of the available seats.
When fewer nonzero bids than half the seats are received, then they
would all be accepted and the remaining seats would be raffled.
> You'd be paying volunteers, which in this country would make them
> staff, which means they'd need a minimum wage, taxes, and even a
> pension.
Isn't there a way to put the requirement of taking care of those tasks
and expenses in the job responsibilities? Aren't there service agencies
who do that as a flat fee for the mass commercial market?
> there's no shortage of volunteers to run editathons in the UK
I wish other countries could say the same. But compare editathons to,
for example, poetry slams, or street protests, in any country. Which
are more common and which do we need more of? I am asking that someone
measure the proposed way which may be able to substantially increase
their number.
Best regards,
James
Wikimedia UK certainly doesn't have a veto power on editathon's in the UK,
we do try to coordinate in order to minimise clashes, but all we can do
there is to request that people not have multiple editathons in the same
city on the same day. There are things that we have that make editathon's
easier to do or more inclusive - trained trainers, spare laptops, mobile
Wifi and a hearing loop for starters, though the price for that support is
that we do need to collect data for metrics. When someone independently
organises an event in the UK we are likely to get in touch and offer spare
laptops and other support.
Spare laptops in particular are very frequently used at UK editathons, and
I believe "bring a laptop or book one of ours" is a much more inclusive way
to run an event. Than "bring a laptop", and when someone discovers that
they don't have a power lead or they weren't given the password for the
laptop they brought it is really nice to be able to just hand them a
laptop. So I always try to have one more than was ordered.
Regards
Jonathan Cardy
GLAM Organiser Wikimedia UK
>> after that it started to become impossible to organize an editathon
>> without first having an employee agreeing it
>That seems... wrong.
>For one, that experience may be WMUK's but it's certainly far from
>universal. WMCA organizes monthly editathons in Montréal, at the very
>least, at zero cost. (They are organized/moderated by volunteers and
>the venue is provided at no cost by the Bibilothèque et Archive
>Nationale du Québec). I've never attended, but I'm told that they are
>fairly popular and well-liked.
>If WMUK /chose/ do have a more structured (and more expensive) framework
>to organize similar events themselves, it in no way prevents volunteers
>or other organisms to do so without a penny of Foundation (or chapter)
>funding.
I really like editathons because of the ease with which they can be
designed to address systemic bias, but I'm not sure having them supported
by the Foundation is optimal from the perspective of time and money both.
Therefore, I propose that someone try some editathons where half the
tickets are auctioned, the other half are raffled, and the Foundation pays
to support them if and only if the auction fails to pay all of the expenses
in advance, and then only the difference. This will allow them to become
more exclusive, but not completely exclusive, and it will incentivize the
organizing wikipedians by allowing them to pay themselves some contingent
portion of the proceeds to be negotiated with the Foundation, and which
could, for example, include an open-ended proportion of auction proceeds.
Please share your thoughts on this proposal. I am also making diagrams for
nine of the twelve steps listed on http://mediawiki.org/wiki/Accuracy_review
and its talk page, where I will soon be proposing a different alternate
funding model to avoid relying on Google Summer of Code. I would also be
most interested in comments on that. Thank you!
