Hi, Samir.
I don't have this information and could not find it on the pages related on
Meta.
I am forwarding this mail to one of the members of AffCom so you can have
an answer.
Regards.
Em sex, 8 de set de 2017 às 12:40, Samir Elsharbaty <
selsharbaty(a)wikimedia.org> escreveu:
> What is the deadline for voting, Lucas? I would like to include it in the
> community digest on the Wikimedia blog.
>
> Samir Elsharbaty
> Communications|Wikimedia Foundation
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 1:08 AM, Lucas Teles <teleswiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi.
>>
>> This message is only to advertise the ongoing candidacies for the new
>> affiliation committee members.
>>
>> Everyone is invited to participate with questions and to support or not
>> any
>> candidate in this page:
>>
>>
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Candidates/June_2017
>>
>> I am posting here as I haven't seen any message related and the requests
>> could have a better community engagement IMO. I hope it is not duplicated.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Teles
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Steward for Wikimedia projects. Administrator at Portuguese Wikipedia and
>> Wikimedia Commons.
>> Sent from mobile. Please, excuse my brevity.
>>
>> +55 (71) 99707 6409
>>
> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> 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>
>
>
> --
Steward for Wikimedia projects. Administrator at Portuguese Wikipedia and
Wikimedia Commons.
Sent from mobile. Please, excuse my brevity.
+55 (71) 99707 6409
I made a mistake, a very personal mistake. Not realising that I made this
mistake at that time, but ever since I kept an unpleasant feeling about it.
I signed up for attending the Diversity Conference later this year, and
with that there were a lot of personal questions asked on the field of
diversity. I think it is very good to have attention for diversity is my
opinion, as Wikipedia (etc) should cover the whole of the diversity of
mankind in knowledge. I stayed vague in the application about my personal
way of diversity, but even with doing that I disclosed too much of my
personal "diversity" feelings, and that is my mistake. Any more deeper
explaing on this I do not want, that is too personal.
But why do I write about it here? Because in the rejection of the
application I was triggerd by something what concerns me. In the message it
said:
"Many strong applications were submitted [...]"
To me this reeds as that if someone does not want to open up their feelings
regarding personal diversity, while trying to influence the movement with
more diversity, this can't ever lead to a strong application.
In this world there are many people that express themselves strongly in
their diversity, but that is only half of the people with the diversity.
The other half keeps it indoors, mostly hidden for the outside world of
anonymous people.
It can be a choice of organisers to select only those applications that
have a strong story in the field of diversity (like for example because WMF
funds only a meager conference). But then I think half of the diversity is
missing. That is my concern.
In many conferences it is natural that if someone has a strong application,
that person gets granted to come to the conference. With a Diversity
Conference I think it should work the other way round: the stronger the
story, and thus the stronger the application, the less it is needed to
attend. The weaker the application, as result of a weaker story, the more
that person can benefit from a conference on Diversity. I think we should
be aware of this, otherwise we miss the big gaps in diversity, big gaps
that are not addressed, aren't seen.
To say it otherwise:
What are the topics in Wikipedia with the loudest form of expression in the
world? football, disasters, politics, religion, ...
What are the topics with the softest form of expression in the world? ...
I think those are not in Wikipedia.
Romaine
Hello everyone!
Wikimedia Community of the Republic Of Srpska will organize editing
workshop within project Trace of Soul 2017.
Focus of this workshop will be creation of articles dealing with protected
natural and cultural heritage sites within Republic of Srpska. Besides our
volunteers which will work on content creation on sr. Wikipedia, Wikimedia
Ukraine, Wikimedia user group Morocco and user group GLAM Macedonia will
participate in the activity as well. Our colleagues from the mentioned
groups will translate articles and create them on the Wikipedia versions in
their native languages. Those willing can join our activities. More
information can be found on this page.
<https://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0…!>
Best,
Bojana
*Замислите свет у коме свака особа на планети има слободан приступ
целокупном људском знању. То је оно на чему ми радимо.*
In some cases we need to attribute content created on external sites, and
reused on Wikimedia-sites. In Norway Åndsverksloven says "The creator has
the right to be named according to good practice" ("Opphavsmannen har krav
på å bli navngitt slik som god skikk tilsier") and for our content that is
given by our license and our terms of use. That means by a link to the page
if possible, or if possible an entry in the history.
Now we use a template on the page itself, or similar, but it is not the
page on our site that the external entity has provided, they have provided
the content at their site. So we must say that in some consistent way.
I believe that the best option would be to have a log entry injected into
the history for our page that says "this revision comes in full or part
from that external source". Such an entry could be made by the editor or by
an administrator, but must be made as an extension of the revision. It
should also be possible to delete such an entry.
An alternative could be to make the summary editable, but the summary is
the description of the revision, not the source of the revision.
Does this make sense? Will it solve the problem, or is it just another
level that makes things more confusing?
John Erling Blad
Hi all,
Wikimania is well over, and now that everyone is slowly getting home, I'd
like to touch on a hallway discussion that was going on during Wikimania.
This was regarding the centralnotice banners advertizing a livestream of
Katherine's and Christophe's presentation of the draft direction for the
2030 strategy.
First a few quick facts:
The banners were on Fri 11 Aug shown for 1,5 hour in 'emergency mode' on
all English language projects (including Commons, meta) to all logged in,
anonimous and mobile visitors. The campaigns can be found here
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:CentralNotice&subactio…>,
here
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:CentralNotice&subactio…>and
here
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:CentralNotice&subactio…>,
for reference. The text in the banner was "Where will Wikipedia and
Wikimedia be in 2030? Find out LIVE from Montreal" with a link to a youtube
page with a stream <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdr2F8aB9y0> .
I was quite taken by surprise with this, and taken aback. Here we were, the
Wikimedia community telling all these visitors of Wikipedia and other
projects that we are so important, that we should have them watch a
presentation of a first draft of a direction of a strategy that still needs
to be worked out. Not only was the text in the banner a bit misleading (I
didn't see much crystal bowl gazing - but rather a statement of where we
would like to go - but soit, I can overlook that), but it feels especially
pretentious to me. Maybe this is a cultural matter, and in other cultures
this kind of bragging (which is what it feels like to me) is normal.
I could have understood an advertizement of this and other sessions to our
logged in community members - that would actually have been a nice way of
engaging them in an expensive conference that we would like more online
audience to be part of. But only this session, and then all visitors of
Wikimedia projects? No, thanks.
Totally separate of the message displayed and whether we want to show it to
this kind of large audience, I was surprised that this link was pointing to
Youtube. This goes against our policies on Centralnotice
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CentralNotice/Usage_guidelines>, stating:
"Wikimedia Owned - Banners must link to Wikimedia controlled domains (owned
either by Wikimedia Foundation, Wikimedia affiliates or Wikimedia
Volunteers identified to the Wikimedia Foundation)." I guess there is a
very remote interpretation possible that the channel is owned by the
Wikimedia Foundation, and I did not see any indication that Youtube was
running ads on that particular channel.
I was unable to locate any community discussions or consultation about
this. Could someone at the WMF share where this was discussed prior to the
decision, and could they explain their reasoning? I'm not looking to blame
anyone for this - shit happens - but I would like to see some discussion on
what we want and dont want to do in this field, so that we can actually
learn from this exercise. I was told in (very rapid and somewhat unwilling)
hallway discussions that this was signed off by multiple layers of
management at the WMF, so I assume some documented reasoning and
consultation is available.
Best,
Lodewijk
Hello all,
The Board of wikimedia France wishes to inform you that Ms Nathalie
Martin is leaving her position as executive director of Wikimédia
France.
A hiring process will be organised in the coming weeks to find a
suitable replacement.
In the meantime, secretary general Cyrille Bertin will assume
management as interim director.
The Board warmly thanks Nathalie for everything she accomplished for
our chapter, and wishes her the best in future endeavours.
Samuel Le Goff, chair