Hello,
The Maps team at the Wikimedia Foundation is getting closer to make it
possible to add interactive maps <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Maps> to
Wikipedia. If you've ever used services like Google Maps or Mapquest you
may be familiar with interactive maps. We’d like to invite editors to have
a conversation on how these maps might be used within articles. We've put
together information on how these maps and their style works from a
technical perspective
<https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Maps/Conversation_about_interactive_map_use>
– where the data comes from, how maps are styled, how to add an interactive
map, and a few example use cases.
In particular we would like to focus the discussion around three key
questions (open discussion outside these questions is welcome too).
* What types of articles would use interactive maps?
* How do these articles differ in their requirements?
* Are there any classes of articles whose map styling requirement is
fundamentally in conflict with other article classes, thus requiring
multiple styles?
If you are interested, please visit
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Maps/Conversation_about_interactive_map_use
to learn more and get involved.
--
Yours,
Chris Koerner
Community Liaison - Discovery
Wikimedia Foundation
I have some comments on Denny’s summary of events but I would like to
preface my comments by noting that I have Board experience. I served
several years on the Board of an organization of professions, two years on
a governmental board, and (currently) on the board of a non-profit
organization. I am also an active Wikipedian, who understands, but doesn’t
fully buy the message in the guideline “Be Bold” (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold). To oversimplify, one of
the arguments in favor of Be Bold is that errors are (usually) easily
rectified. While generally true in the Wikipedia world, it is not always
true in other worlds, so one ought to take care in other venues, such as
board actions.
I suspect I share an attribute with many board members – when I learn about
a problem, I want to fix it. This typically involves (or should involve)
gathering information so as to make an informed decision or recommendation.
If I were a Board member and multiple employees reached out to say that
there are concerns requiring action, my first instinct would be to attempt
to gather more information. However, my second instinct, which I hope would
take over before the first is acted upon, is to remember that this isn’t
Wikipedia where a bungled attempt at a fix can be reverted easily. One is a
member of a Board, and one has responsibilities very different than a
Wikipedia editor. We may think that Wikipedia has too much bureaucracy, but
sometimes there are good reasons for processes, and one thing one should
not do is start interactions with employees without the knowledge of other
board members, one should not be promising confidentially if one
simultaneously has a responsibility to share some information with fellow
board members.
In other words, an honest and undoubtedly heartfelt intention to address
and solve a problem as quickly as possible turned into a sticky wicket.
Some board members managed to get themselves into a situation where they
now had information they were both obligated to share, and had promised not
to share. Once down that road, there was no “revert” button.
Retrospect, as if often said, is so clear, but in retrospect, the early
indications that there were some concerns by employees should have been
handled differently.
Phil (Sphilbrick)
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 1:43 PM, <wikimedia-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
wrote:
> Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
> wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> wikimedia-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wikimedia-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal
> (Denny Vrandečić)
> 2. Re: What New Thing is WMF Doing w. Cookies, & Why is Legal
> Involved? (Gergo Tisza)
> 3. Re: Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal
> (Michel Vuijlsteke)
> 4. Re: Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal
> (Adam Wight)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 17:10:21 +0000
> From: Denny Vrandečić <vrandecic(a)gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James
> Heilman's removal
> Message-ID:
> <
> CAJVtBfdDkwGvRvNzOQm9eH-HoxR1xYBEKcpUK_9_eQozaZy8CA(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> In the following I want to present a personal account of events leading to
> James’ removal as a Board member, as I remember them. It was written while
> I was still on the Board, and the Board agreed on having it sent. The text
> was heavily discussed and edited amongst members of the Board, but in the
> end it remains my personal account. I realize that it potentially includes
> post-factum sensemaking, affecting my recollection of events.
>
> October 1 and 2 2015, Dariusz, James, Patricio and I received phone calls
> from a small number of Wikimedia Foundation staff expressing concerns about
> the Foundation. They asked explicitly for confidentiality. I wanted to
> approach the whole Board immediately, but due to considerations for
> confidentiality, the sensitive nature of the topic, and the lack of an HR
> head at the time, the others decided against at this moment. Effectively,
> this created a conspiracy within the Board from then on for the following
> weeks.
>
> With Patricio’s approval, Dariusz and James started to personally collect
> and ask for reports from staff. Unfortunately, this investigation was not
> formally approved by the whole Board. It was also conducted in a manner
> that would not secure a professional and impartial process. After a few
> weeks, we finally reached out to the rest of Board members. They
> immediately recognized the necessity for a separate formal task force which
> was set up very quickly.
>
> The formal task force was created end of October. This task force involved
> outside legal counsel and conducted professional fact finding. The first
> request of the task force to the Board members was to ask for all documents
> and notes pertaining to the case. Unfortunately, although there has been
> more than a week of time, this has not happened in full.
>
> The task force presented its result at the November Board meeting, where it
> was discovered during the second day of the Board meeting that the previous
> investigation has not provided all available information. Thus, the fact
> finding had to be extended into the Board meeting. At the Board meeting
> itself, James in particular was repeatedly asked to share his documents,
> which only happened on the very last day of the retreat and after several,
> increasingly vigorous requests. Some members of the Board were left with an
> impression that James was reluctant to cooperate, even though it was
> expected that since he participated in an investigation done in an improper
> manner, that he would be more collaborative to make up for these mistakes.
>
> Due to that lack of transparency and information sharing, the Board retreat
> in November turned out to be extremely ineffective. If we had all
> information that was gathered available to the Board in due time, and if
> that information was gathered more openly in the first place, the Board
> could have acted more effectively.
>
> I was worried that the confidentiality of the Board would not be
> maintained, and I was particularly worried about James’ lack of
> understanding of confidential matters, a perception also fueled by his
> noncooperation and conduct. Some of his behaviour since unfortunately
> confirmed my worries. I raised this as an issue to the Board.
>
> While discussing the situation, James remained defensive, in my eyes
> answered questions partially, and, while formally expressing apologies,
> never conveyed that he really took ownership of his actions or understood
> what he did wrong. This lead to a malfunctioning Board, and in order to fix
> the situation I suggested James’ removal.
>
> I voted for James’ removal from the Board because of his perceived
> reluctance to cooperate with the formal investigation, his withholding of
> information when asked for, his secrecy towards other Board members, even
> once the conspiracy was lifted, and him never convincingly taking
> responsibility for and ownership of his actions and mistakes. This is why I
> get triggered if he positions himself as an avatar of transparency. The
> whole topic of the Knowledge Engine - although it played a part in the
> events that lead to the November meeting - did not, for me, in any way
> influence the vote on James’ removal. It was solely his conduct during and
> following the November meeting.
>
> I am glad to see that, since James’ removal until I left, the Board has
> been functioning better.
>
> I hope that this account helps a little bit towards renewing our culture of
> transparency, but even more I hope for understanding. The Board consists of
> volunteers and of humans - they cannot react in real-time to events, as the
> Board was never set up to do so. Trustees - myself included - made
> mistakes. By opening up about them, I hope that we can facilitate a faster
> and more complete healing process, and also have this knowledge and
> experience available for future Board members and the community.
>
> Denny
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 19:23:17 +0200
> From: Gergo Tisza <gtisza(a)wikimedia.org>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] What New Thing is WMF Doing w. Cookies, &
> Why is Legal Involved?
> Message-ID:
> <CAEVcXn1x2kwVTthdzH+Rnpb3jQ1AjbyOKMLM7dw3n+=
> PBPDTfw(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Johan Jönsson <jjonsson(a)wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
>
> > One of the problems here is that much of the information about how the
> > Wikimedia sites collect information is so spread out, because different
> > parts of the WMF have different solutions for different problems (e.g.
> > Analytics or Fundraising). The mentioned
> > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Cookie_statement is a good way to
> > collect all information about cookies
>
>
> It really isn't. A policy document with very limited edit rights would be a
> maintenance nightmare and never up to date. Indeed that document omits most
> of the cookies used on the sites. And it never claims to list them all -
> while that could be made more clear, the table is actually presented as a
> list of examples .
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 19:39:38 +0200
> From: Michel Vuijlsteke <wikipedia(a)zog.org>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James
> Heilman's removal
> Message-ID:
> <
> CAHnyd4drrW8CDF4BYaguxN-8PnSD5Z-TrSYu-ZcZeKWc7nc+eA(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Just to be sure I understand the issue: staff members reached out
> specifically to the four of you and asked for confidentiality, and then the
> Board demanded 'all documents', presumably including some confidential
> staff information, and James only very reluctantly shared it?
>
> Michel
> On 2 May 2016 19:10, "Denny Vrandečić" <vrandecic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In the following I want to present a personal account of events leading
> to
> > James’ removal as a Board member, as I remember them. It was written
> while
> > I was still on the Board, and the Board agreed on having it sent. The
> text
> > was heavily discussed and edited amongst members of the Board, but in the
> > end it remains my personal account. I realize that it potentially
> includes
> > post-factum sensemaking, affecting my recollection of events.
> >
> > October 1 and 2 2015, Dariusz, James, Patricio and I received phone calls
> > from a small number of Wikimedia Foundation staff expressing concerns
> about
> > the Foundation. They asked explicitly for confidentiality. I wanted to
> > approach the whole Board immediately, but due to considerations for
> > confidentiality, the sensitive nature of the topic, and the lack of an HR
> > head at the time, the others decided against at this moment. Effectively,
> > this created a conspiracy within the Board from then on for the following
> > weeks.
> >
> > With Patricio’s approval, Dariusz and James started to personally collect
> > and ask for reports from staff. Unfortunately, this investigation was not
> > formally approved by the whole Board. It was also conducted in a manner
> > that would not secure a professional and impartial process. After a few
> > weeks, we finally reached out to the rest of Board members. They
> > immediately recognized the necessity for a separate formal task force
> which
> > was set up very quickly.
> >
> > The formal task force was created end of October. This task force
> involved
> > outside legal counsel and conducted professional fact finding. The first
> > request of the task force to the Board members was to ask for all
> documents
> > and notes pertaining to the case. Unfortunately, although there has been
> > more than a week of time, this has not happened in full.
> >
> > The task force presented its result at the November Board meeting, where
> it
> > was discovered during the second day of the Board meeting that the
> previous
> > investigation has not provided all available information. Thus, the fact
> > finding had to be extended into the Board meeting. At the Board meeting
> > itself, James in particular was repeatedly asked to share his documents,
> > which only happened on the very last day of the retreat and after
> several,
> > increasingly vigorous requests. Some members of the Board were left with
> an
> > impression that James was reluctant to cooperate, even though it was
> > expected that since he participated in an investigation done in an
> improper
> > manner, that he would be more collaborative to make up for these
> mistakes.
> >
> > Due to that lack of transparency and information sharing, the Board
> retreat
> > in November turned out to be extremely ineffective. If we had all
> > information that was gathered available to the Board in due time, and if
> > that information was gathered more openly in the first place, the Board
> > could have acted more effectively.
> >
> > I was worried that the confidentiality of the Board would not be
> > maintained, and I was particularly worried about James’ lack of
> > understanding of confidential matters, a perception also fueled by his
> > noncooperation and conduct. Some of his behaviour since unfortunately
> > confirmed my worries. I raised this as an issue to the Board.
> >
> > While discussing the situation, James remained defensive, in my eyes
> > answered questions partially, and, while formally expressing apologies,
> > never conveyed that he really took ownership of his actions or understood
> > what he did wrong. This lead to a malfunctioning Board, and in order to
> fix
> > the situation I suggested James’ removal.
> >
> > I voted for James’ removal from the Board because of his perceived
> > reluctance to cooperate with the formal investigation, his withholding of
> > information when asked for, his secrecy towards other Board members, even
> > once the conspiracy was lifted, and him never convincingly taking
> > responsibility for and ownership of his actions and mistakes. This is
> why I
> > get triggered if he positions himself as an avatar of transparency. The
> > whole topic of the Knowledge Engine - although it played a part in the
> > events that lead to the November meeting - did not, for me, in any way
> > influence the vote on James’ removal. It was solely his conduct during
> and
> > following the November meeting.
> >
> > I am glad to see that, since James’ removal until I left, the Board has
> > been functioning better.
> >
> > I hope that this account helps a little bit towards renewing our culture
> of
> > transparency, but even more I hope for understanding. The Board consists
> of
> > volunteers and of humans - they cannot react in real-time to events, as
> the
> > Board was never set up to do so. Trustees - myself included - made
> > mistakes. By opening up about them, I hope that we can facilitate a
> faster
> > and more complete healing process, and also have this knowledge and
> > experience available for future Board members and the community.
> >
> > Denny
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 10:43:50 -0700
> From: Adam Wight <awight(a)wikimedia.org>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James
> Heilman's removal
> Message-ID:
> <
> CAO82UTdccLh+-JHgrDMqJedVY1Ek041Q-Tp3_OgmOhSo4rH7pw(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> What Michel said... This is a very interesting story, but I'm left to
> imagine some crucial, looming details.
>
> I have no first-hand knowledge of what really happened, but your
> description of staff contacting a small number of Board members, and asking
> for confidentiality, strongly indicates that the staff were fearful of some
> sort of retribution, and each chose Board members who they personally
> believed would protect them. This is an educated guess, based on our siege
> mentality at the Foundation last November.
>
> When the four of you were asked to hand over all information about the
> case, that would naturally include any personal email communications. If I
> were in your position, I would have respected the agreement of confidence
> with anyone who had contacted me, up to and maybe even beyond a subpoena,
> unless I had the authors' permission to release. If there is some legal
> reason the Board members are not allowed behave according to this standard,
> we need to make it very clear going forward. I doubt the staff would have
> had these conversations if this is the case, and they had been informed so.
>
> I'm also concerned that there seems to be a conflation between several
> incidents--the original "Gang of Four" investigation was clearly a huge
> mess and I would hope that apologies were made all around for what happened
> there. However, protecting some sort of possibly compromising or personal
> information is another thing entirely.
>
> Hoping for more clarity,
> Adam
>
> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Michel Vuijlsteke <wikipedia(a)zog.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Just to be sure I understand the issue: staff members reached out
> > specifically to the four of you and asked for confidentiality, and then
> the
> > Board demanded 'all documents', presumably including some confidential
> > staff information, and James only very reluctantly shared it?
> >
> > Michel
> > On 2 May 2016 19:10, "Denny Vrandečić" <vrandecic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In the following I want to present a personal account of events leading
> > to
> > > James’ removal as a Board member, as I remember them. It was written
> > while
> > > I was still on the Board, and the Board agreed on having it sent. The
> > text
> > > was heavily discussed and edited amongst members of the Board, but in
> the
> > > end it remains my personal account. I realize that it potentially
> > includes
> > > post-factum sensemaking, affecting my recollection of events.
> > >
> > > October 1 and 2 2015, Dariusz, James, Patricio and I received phone
> calls
> > > from a small number of Wikimedia Foundation staff expressing concerns
> > about
> > > the Foundation. They asked explicitly for confidentiality. I wanted to
> > > approach the whole Board immediately, but due to considerations for
> > > confidentiality, the sensitive nature of the topic, and the lack of an
> HR
> > > head at the time, the others decided against at this moment.
> Effectively,
> > > this created a conspiracy within the Board from then on for the
> following
> > > weeks.
> > >
> > > With Patricio’s approval, Dariusz and James started to personally
> collect
> > > and ask for reports from staff. Unfortunately, this investigation was
> not
> > > formally approved by the whole Board. It was also conducted in a manner
> > > that would not secure a professional and impartial process. After a few
> > > weeks, we finally reached out to the rest of Board members. They
> > > immediately recognized the necessity for a separate formal task force
> > which
> > > was set up very quickly.
> > >
> > > The formal task force was created end of October. This task force
> > involved
> > > outside legal counsel and conducted professional fact finding. The
> first
> > > request of the task force to the Board members was to ask for all
> > documents
> > > and notes pertaining to the case. Unfortunately, although there has
> been
> > > more than a week of time, this has not happened in full.
> > >
> > > The task force presented its result at the November Board meeting,
> where
> > it
> > > was discovered during the second day of the Board meeting that the
> > previous
> > > investigation has not provided all available information. Thus, the
> fact
> > > finding had to be extended into the Board meeting. At the Board meeting
> > > itself, James in particular was repeatedly asked to share his
> documents,
> > > which only happened on the very last day of the retreat and after
> > several,
> > > increasingly vigorous requests. Some members of the Board were left
> with
> > an
> > > impression that James was reluctant to cooperate, even though it was
> > > expected that since he participated in an investigation done in an
> > improper
> > > manner, that he would be more collaborative to make up for these
> > mistakes.
> > >
> > > Due to that lack of transparency and information sharing, the Board
> > retreat
> > > in November turned out to be extremely ineffective. If we had all
> > > information that was gathered available to the Board in due time, and
> if
> > > that information was gathered more openly in the first place, the Board
> > > could have acted more effectively.
> > >
> > > I was worried that the confidentiality of the Board would not be
> > > maintained, and I was particularly worried about James’ lack of
> > > understanding of confidential matters, a perception also fueled by his
> > > noncooperation and conduct. Some of his behaviour since unfortunately
> > > confirmed my worries. I raised this as an issue to the Board.
> > >
> > > While discussing the situation, James remained defensive, in my eyes
> > > answered questions partially, and, while formally expressing apologies,
> > > never conveyed that he really took ownership of his actions or
> understood
> > > what he did wrong. This lead to a malfunctioning Board, and in order to
> > fix
> > > the situation I suggested James’ removal.
> > >
> > > I voted for James’ removal from the Board because of his perceived
> > > reluctance to cooperate with the formal investigation, his withholding
> of
> > > information when asked for, his secrecy towards other Board members,
> even
> > > once the conspiracy was lifted, and him never convincingly taking
> > > responsibility for and ownership of his actions and mistakes. This is
> > why I
> > > get triggered if he positions himself as an avatar of transparency. The
> > > whole topic of the Knowledge Engine - although it played a part in the
> > > events that lead to the November meeting - did not, for me, in any way
> > > influence the vote on James’ removal. It was solely his conduct during
> > and
> > > following the November meeting.
> > >
> > > I am glad to see that, since James’ removal until I left, the Board has
> > > been functioning better.
> > >
> > > I hope that this account helps a little bit towards renewing our
> culture
> > of
> > > transparency, but even more I hope for understanding. The Board
> consists
> > of
> > > volunteers and of humans - they cannot react in real-time to events, as
> > the
> > > Board was never set up to do so. Trustees - myself included - made
> > > mistakes. By opening up about them, I hope that we can facilitate a
> > faster
> > > and more complete healing process, and also have this knowledge and
> > > experience available for future Board members and the community.
> > >
> > > Denny
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: 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
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 146, Issue 9
> *******************************************
>
Circling back to a subject that I've mentioned before, I favor having
meetings of the WMF Board be open and recorded by default, with limited
exceptions for discussions of legally privileged information and other
subjects for which there is a strong reason that deliberations should
remain private. Note that "wiki-political sensitivity" is not one of those
reasons.
I hope that recent events illustrate that it may be better to be
transparent from the beginning than try to suppress information that
eventually leaks out or emerges after a lengthy series of questions.
The WMF Board minutes tend to be brief, and the Board's deliberations are
rarely public. This is disappointing for an organization in the open source
movement. WMF should be an exemplar of transparent and open governance.
To illustrate the kind of detail that can be omitted from Board minutes and
the temptation to omit information for questionable reasons, I suggest this
clip from the British satire "Yes, Minister", in which two civil servants
discuss the Prime Minister's wish to suppress the publication of a chapter
of a book: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNKjShmHw7s
I hope that, as the WMF Board moves forward, it transforms into a model of
transparency and openness; less "Yes, Minister" and paralysis and
resistance to the community, and more transparency and vigor in public
service. Having WMF Board meetings be open and recorded by default would be
a wonderful step in aligning the Board with the value of transparency.
Pine
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>
> The one reason why we would pay it is because the industry that prevents
> people from finding citations is morally corrupt....
We need randomized anonymous double blind review for anything like this to
be suitable for paid proofreaders.
Frankly, the category selector on https://tools.wmflabs.org/citationhunt/en
seems like a terrible idea. I have confirmed some real-world abuse brought
about by a passing acquaintance to whom I showed Citation Hunt immediately
selecting a category in which they had an clear self-interest in conflict
with improving the encyclopedia. The industry is corrupt because
most everyone is self-interested unless you build complicated
review machines to try to dilute their self interest.
> Libraries are our friends and in this publishers are our enemy.
>
The libraries are our friends because (and to the extent that they) they
pay to support the peer review and related systems which form the basis of
the reliable source criteria. The publishers are our enemy because (and
to the extent that they) they parasitically detract from those systems.
If we ever do get a review system suitable for funding, you can look at
doing so as the logical analog of YouTube, Spotify, and the similar
music content libraries adjusting their royalty payment schedules to cover
smaller performing artists, which they could easily do to return to
supporting the pre-mass piracy e.g. 1970s levels of performing artists.
Volunteer editors are to unsigned folk musicians what publishing company
CEOs are to top-40 musicians and their parasitic management. I am happy to
talk about this in greater detail on the Public Policy list.
Best regards,
Jim
>
> That's great. Please do the right thing and take the initiative to
> step down from the volunteer position of chair, so that someone with a
> history of excellent judgment on trustee governance can take the
> position.
Again, *you* may think it's a good idea. I regard Dariusz to be one of the
better trustees around. Dariusz, I want to echo Sydney's thanks, to you
specifically, for your thoughtful and continuous engagement, and also for
your service (which is usually thankless, to say the least).
Ido
Fae,
> Your email fits perfectly with my description of the WMF board: "have
> not apologized or even changed a single part of their governance
> processes, despite vague unmeasurable offers to look into it." After
> many months there is no *commitment* to a date for any change to
> governance, nor is there any specific or measurable commitment to what
> the goal is for an "open conversation" or how that works. Knowing the
> history of the WMF board, there will no doubt be a pre-prepared policy
> or process and it will be implemented with barely any regard for
> community views which will be "canvassed" after the fact as a sop to
> "consensus".
Dariusz just remarked: "Currently we have an ongoing discussion on how to
reform the Board composition, and I hope we will be able to have an open
conversation about these ideas soon".
You've been on a board, right? You're aware, then, that changing board
governance procedures and composition is something that takes time, and,
yes, is sometimes an opaque process to start with, as the Board has to
display a policy, or plan, to be commented on. Dariusz and other members
have been actively listening in WMCON Berlin and here, to concerns made by
community members. Do you seriously expect the BoT to just perform a "hard
reset" and redefine itself? This takes time, and patience on behalf
everyone that's involved.
>
> No, I have not forgotten that Arnnon had to resign, thanks for
> pointing that out, and I recall how the WMF board unanimously
> supported him staying just the day before, even though it was
> absolutely obvious that he was not fit to be a trustee, and had he
> stayed the WMF board would have been a ghastly joke in terms of ethics
> for HR, at a time when the WMF's inability to do a professional job of
> HR in terms of the most basic staff morale was becoming a public fact.
>
> Am I right that you were the chair of the governance committee
> responsible for recommending Arnnon to the board and that you are
> still in that position? Why are you still involved in the governance
> process if you were responsible for this huge mistake and the
> resulting PR disaster for the WMF and Arnnon?
>
Now, I'm not defending Dariusz or anyone else in the BoT in particular -
they don't need my defence.
I do wish, however, that your tone sounded just a little less like personal
attacks against BoT members - especially the ones that take the time and
attention to actively speak constantly openly about what's happening.
Contrary to popular opinion, BoT members are human and as such they are
error prone. So c'mon... it's clear to everyone that mistakes were made.
Fixing the procedures that ensure this does not happen again is productive;
pointing fingers isn't.
Ido
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 5:09 PM, <wikimedia-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
wrote:
> Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
> wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> wikimedia-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wikimedia-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Crisis of Confidence (Dariusz Jemielniak)
> 2. Re: Crisis of Confidence (Fæ)
> 3. Re: What New Thing is WMF Doing w. Cookies, & Why is Legal
> Involved? (Pete Forsyth)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 09:21:47 -0400
> From: Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj(a)alk.edu.pl>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Crisis of Confidence
> Message-ID:
> <
> CADeSpGUDhsQwVgtOeGoekCKgtD67rTau+PAqavhj6w_YC0pf5g(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> 02.05.2016 5:22 AM "Fæ" <faewik(a)gmail.com> napisał(a):
> >
> > Perhaps we could stick to facts?
> >
> > In the very recent case of Arnnon Geshuri, the WMF board of trustees
> > proved themselves to be completely out of touch with the
> > community.[1][2] 314 Wikimedians took part in the vote of no
> > confidence, hardly just "malcontents", and 95% of those that took part
> > voted directly against the stated position of the board, who still
> > remain happy with their decision to keep Geshuri as trustee,
>
> You must have missed the announcement that he stepped down from the Board.
>
> and have
> > not apologized or even changed a single part of their governance
> > processes, despite vague unmeasurable offers to look into it.
> >
>
> I posted three items that we're changing in the future recruitment process
> quite quickly. Currently we have an ongoing discussion on how to reform the
> Board composition, and I hope we will be able to have an open conversation
> about these ideas soon (read: before Wikimania).
>
> I'm sure that some people would like the WMF to be more like a Telekom. I
> don't think that corporate standards and procedures are the answer, and I
> really would like the WMF to be what it was meant to be: a mission-driven,
> knowledge organization in NGO/open-source environment, run by passionate
> employees in a strong, community- and staff- friendly culture, that
> delivers visionary results.
>
> We're far from there yet, but following Telekom standards is not the
> answer. The WMF should improve by all means, and it also should be more
> accountable - but this is why this year it returns to the FDC process
> (which has been one of my priorities to increase communal control), and
> that should provide sensible community's feedback.
>
> Dj
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 14:48:26 +0100
> From: Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com>
> To: darekj(a)alk.edu.pl, Wikimedia Mailing List
> <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Crisis of Confidence
> Message-ID:
> <
> CAH7nnD1dG7OU6A7JkwzBN267LLvLLBuygQ_cdcKM38pGVY3cxg(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Hi Dariusz,
>
> Your email fits perfectly with my description of the WMF board: "have
> not apologized or even changed a single part of their governance
> processes, despite vague unmeasurable offers to look into it." After
> many months there is no *commitment* to a date for any change to
> governance, nor is there any specific or measurable commitment to what
> the goal is for an "open conversation" or how that works. Knowing the
> history of the WMF board, there will no doubt be a pre-prepared policy
> or process and it will be implemented with barely any regard for
> community views which will be "canvassed" after the fact as a sop to
> "consensus".
>
> No, I have not forgotten that Arnnon had to resign, thanks for
> pointing that out, and I recall how the WMF board unanimously
> supported him staying just the day before, even though it was
> absolutely obvious that he was not fit to be a trustee, and had he
> stayed the WMF board would have been a ghastly joke in terms of ethics
> for HR, at a time when the WMF's inability to do a professional job of
> HR in terms of the most basic staff morale was becoming a public fact.
>
> Am I right that you were the chair of the governance committee
> responsible for recommending Arnnon to the board and that you are
> still in that position? Why are you still involved in the governance
> process if you were responsible for this huge mistake and the
> resulting PR disaster for the WMF and Arnnon?
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
>
> On 2 May 2016 at 14:21, Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj(a)alk.edu.pl> wrote:
> > 02.05.2016 5:22 AM "Fæ" <faewik(a)gmail.com> napisał(a):
> >>
> >> Perhaps we could stick to facts?
> >>
> >> In the very recent case of Arnnon Geshuri, the WMF board of trustees
> >> proved themselves to be completely out of touch with the
> >> community.[1][2] 314 Wikimedians took part in the vote of no
> >> confidence, hardly just "malcontents", and 95% of those that took part
> >> voted directly against the stated position of the board, who still
> >> remain happy with their decision to keep Geshuri as trustee,
> >
> > You must have missed the announcement that he stepped down from the
> Board.
> >
> > and have
> >> not apologized or even changed a single part of their governance
> >> processes, despite vague unmeasurable offers to look into it.
> >>
> >
> > I posted three items that we're changing in the future recruitment
> process
> > quite quickly. Currently we have an ongoing discussion on how to reform
> the
> > Board composition, and I hope we will be able to have an open
> conversation
> > about these ideas soon (read: before Wikimania).
> >
> > I'm sure that some people would like the WMF to be more like a Telekom. I
> > don't think that corporate standards and procedures are the answer, and I
> > really would like the WMF to be what it was meant to be: a
> mission-driven,
> > knowledge organization in NGO/open-source environment, run by passionate
> > employees in a strong, community- and staff- friendly culture, that
> > delivers visionary results.
> >
> > We're far from there yet, but following Telekom standards is not the
> > answer. The WMF should improve by all means, and it also should be more
> > accountable - but this is why this year it returns to the FDC process
> > (which has been one of my priorities to increase communal control), and
> > that should provide sensible community's feedback.
> >
> > Dj
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> --
> faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 07:09:32 -0700
> From: Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] What New Thing is WMF Doing w. Cookies, &
> Why is Legal Involved?
> Message-ID:
> <
> CAGWts0G7AV4GxSFB0WrXXVBA2CmJm1JAue39QBt2igViyYRgAg(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Adam,
>
> Thank you for providing an informative and accessible answer to Trillium's
> relevant questions. It's truly heartening to see the organization improving
> in its ability to communicate its intentions, etc. I hope that when broad
> consensus among staff is reached (as you express in footnote [1]), it will
> become an increasingly high priority to clearly communicate that in public
> fora. It really helps when we can understand what others are trying to do,
> and how it aligns with our own ambitions.
>
> Good stuff. I think this discussion got off to a rough start, but you have
> gotten it back on track, and maybe to resolution.
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 12:21 AM, Adam Wight <awight(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi Trillium,
> >
> > These are great questions to ask, thank you for keeping the privacy
> > conversation on track!
> >
> > As a technical employee of the Wikimedia Foundation who would have been
> > involved if we were planning significant changes to expand or limit
> > tracking, I can confirm that nothing rotten is in the wings. In fact,
> the
> > situation is better now than ever before (in my 4 years here). There are
> > internal accountability reforms under way to help us make strong
> guarantees
> > about our users' privacy. A brief investigation into assigning readers
> > long-term unique identifiers--in lay person terms the gateway to
> dystopian
> > tracking--opened and was immediately shut again.[1] Data retention (what
> > user data we collect and for how long) policy work is being tightened up,
> > and done in public.[2] In Fundraising, we've found a way to measure
> > aggregate data about our banner delivery without collecting information
> > which lets us correlate anything else about readers.[3]
> >
> > While I feel good about what's happening now, it would be nice to have
> > longer-term assurances that we won't go collectively nuts in the
> > unforeseeable future. I'm not sure what that assurance might look like,
> > though... Democratic stewardship of our shared resources? Anyway,
> please
> > do keep a critical eye on cookies and their brethren, and if you find
> > anything out of joint I'm sure there will be plenty of allies left within
> > the Foundation to help set it right.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Adam Wight
> > [[mw:User:Adamw]
> >
> >
> > [1] Sorry, there was an all-staff internal discussion but I don't think
> > this was published. The idea at the time was to get our house in order
> and
> > decide whether to start a public conversation about unique IDs. There
> > turned out to be many strong critics of the plan and no real supporters
> as
> > far I could tell, and the initiative was abandoned, to my knowledge. The
> > motivation for the project was to get a better estimate of our unique
> > visitor counts (a count of their devices, to be precise). We've settled
> on
> > the less accurate "last visited" measurement instead, which is described
> > here: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/03/30/unique-devices-dataset/
> > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Data_retention_guidelines
> > [3]
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lightening_banner_history.pdf
> >
> > On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 9:21 PM, Oliver Keyes <ironholds(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > It seems like you can either deny James's knowledge of the
> > technical/legal
> > > overlap or ask him questions, but probably not both :p.
> > >
> > > One element I can answer: no, it does not contain flash objects, flash
> is
> > > not a technology included in the Wikimedia stack on account of it
> barely
> > > being classifiable as a technology.
> > >
> > > On Sunday, 1 May 2016, Toby Dollmann <toby.dollmann(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > It's certainly possible that this is only 'obvious' to me because
> of
> > my
> > > > > knowledge of outside organizations or law but it doesn't surprise
> me.
> > > >
> > > > Your reply is not obvious to me. I understand that your employment is
> > > > exclusively with WMF and you do not appear to be particularly
> > > > qualified (or experienced) in law.
> > > >
> > > > Treating the cookie statement as an explanation / extension of WMF's
> > > > privacy policy and noting the poster's concern that the WMF legal
> team
> > > > have amended certain descriptors for locally stored objects (not
> > > > cookies) of indeterminate (theoretically infinite) persistence, would
> > > > you clarify the following technical /legal aspects relating to
> cookies
> > > > and their usage on Wikimedia.
> > > >
> > > > 1. Whether, or not, editors of Wikimedia websites", say
> > > > "en.wikipedia.org" or "commons.wikimedia.org", can edit if cookies
> > > > (broadly construed) are disabled and not stored on client devices.
> > > >
> > > > 2. Whether, or not, the locally stored objects referenced in the
> > > > cookie policy include
> > > > (i) Javascript code, or
> > > > (ii) Flash objects
> > > >
> > > > 3. Whether, or not, the locally stored objects inserted by the WMF,
> on
> > > > client computers and stored there, have the capability of collecting
> > > > extensive personal information of editors, the degree of which not
> > > > being explicitly disclosed in advance to users.
> > > >
> > > > 4. Whether, or not, the WMF is aware that a certain "toxic and
> > > > juvenile .. problem" [reff#1] WMF sysop (now banned) with extensive
> > > > knowledge of WMF's checkuser process, the cookie policy and its
> > > > internals has achieved remarkable technical capability to closely
> > > > impersonate other editors and get them blocked by a network (aka
> "porn
> > > > crew") of surviving cooperative "community appointed" sysops
> favorably
> > > > still disposed to him/her. That this problem person (who has also
> > > > threatened legal action against WMF) extensively uses mobile
> Wikipedia
> > > > via "millions of IPs" [ref#2] in multiple languages, including
> several
> > > > some fairly obscure ones, for abusive purposes which are 'obviously'
> > > > related to WMF_legal's recent subject edit.
> > > >
> > > > Toby
> > > >
> > > > [ref#1] "I should be clear - the problem is not the abuse of me, but
> > > > the toxic and juvenile environment at Commons. I have never failed in
> > > > 30 seconds of looking to find a horrifying BLP violation at commons
> of
> > > > a photo of an identifiable woman engaged in sexual activity with
> > > > highly questionable provenance (for example a deleted flickr
> account).
> > > > Every time (including tonight) that I go there hoping to see
> > > > improvement, I am disappointed. And I think that as long as we
> > > > tolerate it and don't bounce some very bad admins, we will not solve
> > > > the problem.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)"
> > > >
> > > > [ref#2]
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AOdder&action=hi…
> > > >
> > > > On 5/2/16, James Alexander <jalexander(a)wikimedia.org <javascript:;>>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Trillium Corsage <
> > > > trillium2014(a)yandex.com <javascript:;>>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> I noticed Michelle Paulson editing the "Cookie Statement" page,
> and
> > it
> > > > >> seemed kind of strange to me because I thought it more a technical
> > and
> > > > IT
> > > > >> thing to edit. But Michelle is WMF Legal, right
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > I won't/can't comment on the rest of your questions but I'm
> confused
> > > > about
> > > > > why you would be surprised here... the cookie statement is,
> > > essentially,
> > > > a
> > > > > legal statement/privacy policy "type" document (obviously different
> > but
> > > > > similar) and just like the privacy policy (or access to non public
> > > > > information or document retention policy or terms of use or other
> > > policy
> > > > > docs along those lines) the cookie statement has been owned by
> Legal
> > > for
> > > > as
> > > > > long as it's existed (I can attest to that fact since the CA team
> was
> > > > asked
> > > > > to help put it up for them).
> > > > >
> > > > > It's certainly possible that this is only 'obvious' to me because
> of
> > my
> > > > > knowledge of outside organizations or law but it doesn't surprise
> me.
> > > > > Cookie statements are part of the law in some countries (not
> > > necessarily
> > > > > ones we have to follow given our position in the US but Europe has
> > laws
> > > > > about it for example) and so would usually be within the legal
> > > department
> > > > > for many organizations. Cookies are also closely tied with privacy
> > and
> > > > the
> > > > > privacy policy and so compliance and ensuring that the org stays
> > within
> > > > > their promises would, also, often fall within the legal department
> > > > (though
> > > > > everyone should/does have a hand in ensuring they follow the
> promises
> > > the
> > > > > org as a whole made).
> > > > >
> > > > > James Alexander
> > > > > Manager
> > > > > Trust & Safety
> > > > > Wikimedia Foundation
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: 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
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 146, Issue 5
> *******************************************
>
--
-Ido
"There are 10 types of people in the world: those who understand binary,
and those who don't."
(unknown)
Dear all,
voting for the affiliate-selected board seats is starting today, and
will end on May 8 (results will be announced shortly after that).
Ten people nominated - which is more than in any previous round - and
all nominations got an endorsement. Therefore, we have ten candidates
running:
* Christophe Henner (schiste)
* Jan Ainali (Ainali)
* Kunal Mehta (Legoktm)
* Leigh Thelmadatter (Thelmadatter)
* Lodewijk Gelauff (Effeietsanders)
* Maarten Deneckere (MADe)
* Nataliia Tymkiv (antanana)
* Osmar Valdebenito (B1mbo)
* Siska Doviana (Siska.Doviana)
* Susanna Mkrtchyan (SusikMkr)
For the nomination statements, see:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016/Nominat…
While only chapters and thematic organizations are eligible to vote,
anyone is encouraged to ask questions, either to all the candidates:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016/Questio…
or to specific candidates in the talk page of their nomination.
Chris Keating
Lorenzo Losa
Lane Rasberry
- election facilitators
Dear all,
Today, 1.5.16, Wikimedia Israel (WMIL) held a general assembly meeting,
during which the members held the elections for members of the Board of
WMIL.
The results of the elections are as follows:
Itzik Edri,(reelected)
Deror Lin, (reelected)
Ido Ivri, (reelected)
Hana Yariv (reelected)
Dana Dekel
Audit committee: Oved Cohen (reelected).
The new Board then proceeded to reelect Itzik Edri to Chairperson, and to
elect Ido Ivri as Board Secretary.
In addition, the board will re-approach the two external board members,
Prof. Sheizaf Rafaeli and Prof. Karine Nahon, and Adi Zamir to the audit
committee, to stay with the board for another year and keep providing their
excellent mentorship and advice.
We would like to take this opportunity and extend our many thanks to Yan
Nasonov, the departing Board Member, for his long and good service to WMIL
and its community.
Cheers,
Itzik
hi jimmy,
i asked on the facebook group wikipeda weekly if joe/ed could publish
an upcoming blog post on wikinews. joe sutherland mentioned ".. I
simply cannot get my head around its attitude to news coverage". which
i find frightening. an editor for 10 years, tens of thousands
contributions, thousands of pages created, degree in journalism,
dissertation about news on wikipedia, administrator.[1]
jimmy, as wikinews refers an old mail of you from 2003 as the holy
grail of NPOV, could you please clarify once and for all that your
NPOV statemant you sent to wikien-l was valid for wikipedia. and not
for wikisource, wikiquote, wikinews. best on the wikinews talk page
concerning NPOV [2][4]. i understand of course that certain publishing
standards might apply - but NPOV, and "sourced" in the sense of
published somewhere else cannot be amongst them [3].
just as a note, i hate that the blog [5] opens 20 times slower than
wikinews on my mobile phone, that it is not in different languages,
that i do not have the "usual mediawiki features". i hate that
signpost [7] cannot be read on mobiles because of formatting. i hate
the glam newsletter [6] for the same reason, despite beeig again on a
different wiki, no "read in different languages". which is the main
reason i write this mail ... and asked joe why not using wikinews. and
i hate that wikinews does not use mediawiki features to properly
classify what quality an article has, e.g. "blog", "npov", etc.
[1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Foxj&project=en.wikipedia.org
[2] https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#raphael_ho…
[3] https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Pillars_of_Wikinews_writing
[4] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-November/008096.html
[5] blog: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/04/22/ted-wikimedia-collaboration/
[6] glam newletter: https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter
[7] signpost: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost
best,
rupert