Wikimedia-l February 2023

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

79 participants
59 discussions

Happy #May17 #IDAHOT #IDAHOTBITQ
by Željko Blaće 17 May '24

17 May '24

What is May 17th? The International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia was created in 2004 to draw the attention to the violence and discrimination experienced by lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex people and all other people with diverse sexual orientations, gender identities or expressions, and sex characteristics. The date of May 17th was specifically chosen to commemorate the World Health Organization’s decision in 1990 to declassify homosexuality as a mental disorder. https://may17.org One year ago in 2020 we started QueeringW in hope #1 Queering Wikipedia conference would be happening with a year of delay...now we hope it is in 2022! Meanwhile we are "Together, we Resist, Support, and Heal" <https://twitter.com/may17org> Happy #May17 #IDAHOT #IDAHOTBITQ for those who celebrate and would support https://www.instagram.com/QueeringW @may17org <https://twitter.com/may17org> #IDAHOT <https://twitter.com/hashtag/IDAHOT?src=hashtag_click> #IDAHOT2021 <https://twitter.com/hashtag/IDAHOT2021?src=hashtag_click> https://twitter.com/QueeringW

2 2

Beginning work on a Wikimedia Foundation Affiliates Strategy + AffCom elections update
by Nataliia Tymkiv 23 Oct '23

23 Oct '23

Hello all, The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees believes that Wikimedia affiliates are a key and integral part of the Wikimedia movement, and affiliates’ success is vital to the Wikimedia movement’s success. To that end, it is crucial to develop a clear vision regarding the affiliates, making it possible to assess whether the Foundation’s investment in, collaboration with, and policy towards affiliates is promoting the right goals. The Board will be embarking on building a Wikimedia Foundation Affiliates Strategy in collaboration with the Affiliations Committee (AffCom), the affiliates, and the broader communities. This strategy will help guide the Foundation’s immediate work in supporting affiliates for the next few years. In order to ensure that there is continuity and institutional memory during this process, there will be a delay of the elections for AffCom until after the strategy is complete, and the terms of the current AffCom members will be prolonged (in a separate resolution) to December 31, 2023. While the strategy is under development, AffCom will continue its current responsibilities, in addition to collaborating on the Wikimedia Foundation Affiliates Strategy. Once the Wikimedia Foundation Affiliates Strategy is ready, there would be clarity on what is expected from the Wikimedia Foundation for supporting affiliates, and what is expected from affiliates. As the weeks progress in the new calendar year, a plan of the process will be released, including opportunities for communities and affiliates to engage. You can find some FAQs below to assist further understanding of the Wikimedia Foundation Affiliates Strategy. Best regards, Nat & Shani Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Liaisons to the Affiliations Committee == FAQs == 1. What are Wikimedia movement affiliates? What is AffCom? Wikimedia movement affiliates are "independent and formally recognised" groups of people intended to organise and engage in activities to support and contribute to the Wikimedia movement [1]. Currently there are three active models for affiliates: chapters, thematic organisations, and user groups. The Affiliations Committee (AffCom) advises and makes recommendations regarding the recognition and existence of Wikimedia movement affiliates. 2. How is the work with affiliates at the Wikimedia Foundation organised now? As of now, processes are fragmented across different teams at the Wikimedia Foundation, and some decision making regarding affiliates is happening at different levels. A unified and consistent process is beneficial to all parties, hence the start of the work on the Wikimedia Foundation Affiliates Strategy. 3. What is the Wikimedia Foundation Affiliates Strategy? Is this an update of some existing document or something brand new? Until now there has not been any unified vision regarding how the work around affiliates should happen, as there was no affiliate-specific strategy developed before. The Wikimedia Foundation Affiliates Strategy is to be a blueprint that will guide the Foundation’s immediate work with affiliates. This strategy will be in place to inform and guide the Wikimedia Foundation budget and support to affiliates, until some kind of Movement-wide Affiliates Strategy is developed. 4. Why do we need a Wikimedia Foundation Affiliates Strategy? The Affiliates are a key part of the Wikimedia movement as mentioned in the Wikimedia Foundation mission, and their success is integral to the success of the whole Wikimedia Movement. As the affiliate ecosystem has grown in size and complexity, it is increasingly important to review existing approaches and ensure that the focus is on the right areas. The Wikimedia Foundation Affiliates Strategy will help to strengthen and advance the work of the affiliates.The Wikimedia Foundation Affiliates Strategy will take into account Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy recommendations <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Recommendations>. The Strategy will direct Foundation attention to the needs of affiliates and focus resources on those needs towards impact by affiliates. 5. Does the decision of developing the Wikimedia Foundation Affiliates Strategy change the role of AffCom? There are no immediate changes in the role of AffCom, which is continuing doing its job. However, the Wikimedia Foundation Affiliates Strategy will direct the future work of the Wikimedia Foundation in support of the affiliates, which could result in revising the role and scope of AffCom. 6. Why are the AffCom Elections delayed? Traditionally, AffCom had elections at least once every year to select (not elect) and appoint members who will serve in AffCom for a period of two years. This year AffCom elections will not be held. Instead, the elections will be delayed as AffCom is a key input for the Board in developing the Wikimedia Foundation Affiliates Strategy, and adding the burden of selecting and on-boarding new members will encumber the committee and make it difficult for it to discharge its regular duties as well as collaborate on the strategy. If the number of voting members falls below five (per the AffCom Charter <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee_Charter>), elections will nonetheless be held. 7. Will the Movement Charter also have an "Affiliates Strategy" and/or define affiliate roles? While it is reasonable to expect that the Movement Charter will have prescriptions on affiliates and their recognition, and some of these responsibilities might shift to the Global Council once it is formed, it is currently unknown how this will unfold, and it will bear consequences only in years to come. Accordingly, this work is worth doing now so that the available resources are having the impact needed and are best serving the current Wikimedia movement and the affiliate ecosystem in the interim. 8. Is AffCom being asked to propose a Wikimedia Foundation Affiliates Strategy? No, AffCom is not expected to propose a Wikimedia Foundation Affiliates Strategy. AffCom has been invited by the Board to collaborate and give an expert opinion. While the Affiliations Committee is an advising committee to the Board, the Board is responsible for this strategy and will lead the community and affiliate conversations around it. 9. What is the timeline for this project? The target is to have a draft of the Wikimedia Foundation Affiliates Strategy for the Board’s approval at Wikimania 2023 (August 2023). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#Affiliates

2 3

Re: Mozilla's social media pledge
by SCP 2000 09 Aug '23

09 Aug '23

FYI, I asked WMF Communication Team about any plans of using Mastodon in future. Here is their response [1] "The Digital Communications team has been researching Mastodon and considering our potential involvement with the platform in the future. At this time, we have no plans to create an account for the Foundation or Wikipedia. This is mainly because our observations show us that Mastodon is not yet reaching a large audience, which is one of the key objectives of our communications activity on social media. We will continue to monitor the situation and adjust our recommendations and practices to keep within our objectives." [1]: https://meta.wikimedia.org/?diff=24262780 Regards, SCP-2000 https://w.wiki/_zgcU

16 30

The Endowment, again
by Andreas Kolbe 06 Aug '23

06 Aug '23

Dear all, The WMF appears to have made contradictory statements about the Wikimedia Endowment. Earlier this week, Rai 3, a channel of the Italian national broadcaster, aired a program about Wikimedia and Wikipedia.[1] On their website, they also link to responses the WMF gave to various questions the programme makers asked.[2] One of these questions concerned the Endowment. I quote: *Q: The Endowment has reached $33 million and passed them reaching $100 million today. Why the Wikimedia Foundation didn’t move it to a separate 501e3 entity? Being entrusted into the Tides Foundation is not available to the public any financial report about Wikipedia Endowment. Don't you think there is a lack of information and transparency about a fund that is created through worldwide donations? * *A: Your information is incorrect. The Wikimedia Endowment was established as a separate entity and received its 501(c)(3) nonprofit status in 2022 following a 2021 board resolution. * This answer was given to Rai in November 2022. Now I do recall an October 2022 blog post from the WMF reporting that the WMF's application for a 501(c)(3) non-profit had received approval and that the WMF was "in the process of setting up the Endowment's strategic and operational policies and systems".[3] Has the money actually been moved from the Tides Foundation to this new 501(c)(3)? At the time of writing, the Endowment website continues to tell its readers that the funds are held and administered by the Tides Foundation.[4] Is the information on the Endowment website obsolete?[5] If it isn't, and the money is still with Tides, wasn't the answer given to Rai last November substantially misleading? Andreas [1] https://www.rai.it/programmi/report/inchieste/La-community-8bb003fb-d8cd-42… [2] http://www.rai.it/dl/doc/2023/01/16/1673895524547_RISPOSTE%20WIKI%20MAIL%20… and http://www.rai.it/dl/doc/2023/01/16/1673895525034_TRADUZIONE%20RISPOSTE%20W… [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-10-31/News_… [4] https://archive.ph/S8iI0#selection-2949.0-2949.1007 [5] https://diff.wikimedia.org/2023/01/11/adding-expertise-to-the-wikimedia-end… refers to the "fact that we met – and even surpassed – our expected timeline for the Endowment’s maturation into a 501(c)(3)."

12 21

A collaboration between three Wikimedia affiliates to advance the technical capacities of the movement around Wikidata
by Maria Heuschkel 17 Jul '23

17 Jul '23

Dear everyone, As presented at last year's WikidataCon <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_VxTlBNkyk>, Wikimedia Deutschland has set out to find new ways for collaboration around Wikidata software development to enhance the diversity of our movement, increase Wikibase’s scalability and robustness and breathe life into our movement principles of knowledge equity. With a grant from Arcadia <https://www.arcadiafund.org.uk/>, a charitable fund administered by Lisbet Rausing and Peter Baldwin, we will be able to implement such a collaboration in the next two years. Today, we are happy to share an exciting update on the progress of this project with all of you. After spending the last few months with conversations with the movement groups who were interested in joining such a partnership, we have now reached a point where we can spread the news about the future partners and projects that will shape this Wikidata software collaboration. Wikimedia Indonesia, the Igbo Wikimedians User Group and Wikimedia Deutschland will be joining forces to advance the technical capacities of the movement around Wikidata development and with this, make the software and tools more usable by cultures underrepresented in technology, people of the Global South and speakers of minority languages. Wikimedia Indonesia, a non-profit organization based in Jakarta, Indonesia and established in 2008, is dedicated to encouraging the growth, development & dissemination of knowledge in Indonesian and other languages spoken in Indonesia. Since then, Wikimedia Indonesia has supported the development of 14 Wikipedias in the languages spoken in Indonesia, 12 regional Wikimedian communities spread across the country, and two Wikimedia project-based communities. For this project, in collaboration with Wikimedia Deutschland, Wikimedia Indonesia wants to build up a software team of their own in the course of the next 2 years. The tools will hopefully help under-resourced language communities contributing to the flourishing of their languages online through lexicographical data, and also involving the local language communities in contributing to lexemes in Wikidata. Igbo Wikimedians is a group of Wikimedians that are committed to working on various wiki projects related to Igbo language <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igbo_language> and culture. The user group is organizing projects around community building in the Igbo community, content improvement for Wikipedia and its sister project and has established its own Wikidata hub in 2021. The Igbo Wikimedia User Group and their program of the Wiki Mentor Africa <https://m.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiki_Mentor_Africa> is aiming at building up technical capacity in African Wikimedia communities by mentoring African developers for Wikidata Tool Development. Wikimedia Deutschland will support the user group in the implementation of their project and mentoring program. Wikimedia Deutschland has been founded in 2004 as a member’s association and is located in Berlin, Germany. Wikimedia Deutschland support communities like the Wikipedia community, develop software for Wikimedia projects and the ecosystem of Free Knowledge, and wants to improve the political and legal framework for Wikipedia and for Free Knowledge in general. Specifically, Wikimedia Deutschland has been working on the development of Wikidata since 2012. Since then, an active and vibrant community of volunteer editors and programmers, re-users, data donors, affiliates and more has formed around Wikidata. Wikimedia Deutschland will be responsible for the administrative setup of those collaborations and the communication with Arcadia. We are also happy to share our experiences and knowledge about establishing software teams, software development in the Wikidata/Wikibase environment, the Wikidata community and providing support for emerging tech communities. If you want to find out more about the partnership, you can read up on this on our project page on Meta <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Software_Collaboration_for_Wikidata>, where we will keep updating the community on the progress of this collaboration. If you have any comments, suggestions or questions please use the talk page there to get in contact with us. We are all excited to see those collaborations coming to life! With kind regards, Igbo Wikimedians User Group Wikimedia Indonesia Wikimedia Deutschland -- Maria Heuschkel Projektmanagerin Softwareentwicklung Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 https://wikimedia.de Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der Menschheit teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei! https://spenden.wikimedia.de Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.

3 2

Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter
by Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga 03 May '23

03 May '23

Some months have gone since I started this topic in this list, and still, we can't know how much engagement we have at Wikipedia, because data is not available. Twitter is now owned by Elon Musk, things are changing, there are more accounts in Mastodon daily, but still Twitter matters. I have been looking at the Twitter activity in the last days for @Wikipedia and I'm still very worried about the (lack of) strategy followed here. A full team, with staff members, which only produces one tweet per day, a lonely message in the vastness of the ocean, and gets really poor engagement numbers. A couple of weeks ago Pelé, one of the greatest football players of all time, died. (English) Wikipedia Twitter account needed 7 days to tweet about it, even if the article was changed in a few minutes after the death (https://twitter.com/Wikipedia/status/1611363972174778368). The tweet had 13.729 impressions (now we can know the number of impressions), 14 RTs and 129 likes. Wikipedia account has nearly 644.000 followers. If we divide these two numbers, we get a rate of 2,13% of impressions per follower. The same day Pelé died, Basque Wikipedia made a tweet. Not a week after, just when it was news (https://twitter.com/euwikipedia/status/1608541274491211776). The tweet had 964 impressions, 3 RTs and 2 likes. Basque Wikipedia account has 7,956 followers. This is a rate of 12,11% of impressions per follower. x5.68 times larger, relatively than (English) Wikipedia Twitter account. (English) Wikipedia Twitter account has nearly 81 times more followers than the Basque one. English Wikipedia is more visible, because it has a (now golden) verified account symbol, so tweets are more often promoted. English has 1.500 million speakers around the world. Basque has fewer than one million. English Wikipedia should have around 1.000 more followers than Basque Wikipedia. English Wikipedia article about Pelé had 2,5 million pageviews in the two days after his death. Basque had 250 pageviews. This is 10.000 times more pageviews. @Wikipedia has 644.000 followers, and @euwikipedia has nearly 8.000. Audience of English Wikipedia is 10.000 times larger for the same event. Why Wikipedia is not 10.000 times larger? Why doesn't Wikipedia account have 80 million followers? YouTube's Twitter account has 78 million followers. "By 2030, Wikimedia is to become the central infrastructure for Free Knowledge on the Internet.". How could we if Youtube's account has 100x more followers than we have? How can think that we are in a good shape if our tweets are only seen by less than 2% of our followers? I hope that 2023 comes with a change. A change to open these accounts, have a fresh way of thinking on social media ,and building engagement, both with momentum, not losing opportunities, and promoting good content. Sincerely Galder ________________________________ From: Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <galder158(a)hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2022 3:21 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter Dear all, Some weeks ago, we had a discussion here about the different approaches we have for the @wikipedia account at Twitter. We don't know yet how many interactions does the account has, but as I said in the discussion, we try to find ways to measure our work at @euwikipedia. Today I want to share with you that this account was ranked last week as the most influential social-movements account in Basque language (https://umap.eus/ranking/gizartea) and the 10th most influential account in all categories (https://umap.eus/ranking/orokorra). This is a good metric we use to know if we are doing fine or not. Sincerely, Galder ________________________________ From: Andy Mabbett <andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk> Sent: Friday, August 5, 2022 8:50 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 at 18:48, Lauren Dickinson <ldickinson(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: > Also, Andy, we will follow up this week regarding your questions > about the @WiktionaryUsers and @Wiktionary accounts. Three working weeks have passed since the above was written; I've seen no such follow-up. Have I missed something? -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing https://pigsonthewing.org.uk _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org

10 17

Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) and UCoC Enforcement Guidelines
by Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight 01 May '23

01 May '23

Hello, The Community Affairs Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees would like to thank everyone who participated in the recently concluded community vote on the Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduc…> . The volunteer scrutinizing group has completed the review of the accuracy of the vote and has reported the total number of votes received as 2,283. Out of the 2,283 votes received, 1,338 (58.6%) community members voted for the enforcement guidelines, and a total of 945 (41.4%) community members voted against it. In addition, 658 participants left comments, with 77% of the comments written in English. We recognize and appreciate the passion and commitment that community members have demonstrated in creating a safe and welcoming culture. Wikimedia community culture stops hostile and toxic behavior, supports people targeted by such behavior, and encourages good faith people to be productive on the Wikimedia projects. Even at this incomplete stage, this is evident in the comments received. The Enforcement Guidelines did reach a threshold of support necessary for the Board to review. However, we encouraged voters, regardless of how they were voting, to provide feedback on the elements of the enforcement guidelines. We asked the voters to inform us what changes were needed and in case it was prudent to launch a further round of edits that would address community concerns. Foundation staff who have been reviewing comments have advised us of the emerging themes. As a result, as Community Affairs Committee, we have decided to ask the Foundation to reconvene the Drafting Committee. The Drafting Committee will undertake another community engagement to refine the enforcement guidelines based on the community feedback received from the recently concluded vote. For clarity, this feedback has been clustered into four sections as follows: 1. To identify the type, purpose, and applicability of the UCoC training; 2. To simplify the language for more accessible translation and comprehension by non-experts; 3. To explore the concept of affirmation, including its pros and cons; 4. To review the conflicting roles of privacy/victim protection and the right to be heard. Other issues may emerge during conversations, particularly as the draft Enforcement Guidelines evolve, but we see these as the primary areas of concern for voters. Therefore, we are asking staff to facilitate a review of these issues. Then, after the further engagement, the Foundation should re-run the community vote to evaluate the redrafted Enforcement Outline to see if the new document is ready for its official ratification. Further, we are aware of the concerns with note 3.1 in the Universal Code of Conduct Policy. Therefore, we are directing the Foundation to review this part of the Code to ensure that the Policy meets its intended purposes of supporting a safe and inclusive community without waiting for the planned review of the entire Policy at the end of the year. Again, we thank all who participated in the vote and discussion, thinking about these complex challenges and contributing to better approaches to working together well across the movement. Best, Rosie *Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight *(she/her) Acting Chair, Community Affairs Committee Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/> Board of Trustees <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>

13 19

Open proxies and IP blocking
by Florence Devouard 24 Mar '23

24 Mar '23

Hello friends Short version : We need to find solutions to avoid so many africans being globally IP blocked due to our No Open Proxies policy. *https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking* Long version : I'd like to raise attention on an issue, which has been getting worse in the past couple of weeks/months. Increasing number of editors getting blocked due to the No Open Proxies policy [1] In particular africans. In February 2004, the decision was made to block open proxies on Meta and all other Wikimedia projects. According to theno open proxiespolicy : Publicly available proxies (including paid proxies) may be blocked for any period at any time. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked [...] Non-static IP addresses or hosts that are otherwise not permanent proxies should typically be blocked for a shorter period of time, as it is likely the IP address will eventually be transferred or dynamically reassigned, or the open proxy closed. Once closed, the IP address should be unblocked. According to the policy page, « the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag. This is granted on local projects by administrators and globally by stewards. » I repeat -----> ... legitimate users... may freely use proxies until those are blocked. the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag <------ it is not illegal to edit using an open proxy Most editors though... have no idea whatsoever what an open proxy is. They do not understand well what to do when they are blocked. In the past few weeks, the number of African editors reporting being blocked due to open proxy has been VERY significantly increasing. New editors just as old timers. Unexperienced editors but also staff members, president of usergroups, organizers of edit-a-thons and various wikimedia initiatives. At home, but also during events organized with usergroup members or trainees, during edit-a-thons, photo uploads sessions etc. It is NOT the occasional highly unlikely situation. This has become a regular occurence. There are cases and complains every week. Not one complaint per week. Several complaints per week. *This is irritating. This is offending. This is stressful. This is disrupting activities organized in _good faith_ by _good people_, activities set-up with _our donors funds. _**And the disruption**is primarlly taking place in a geographical region supposingly to be nurtured (per our strategy for diversity, equity, inclusion blahblahblah). * The open proxy policy page suggests that, should a person be unfairly blocked, it is recommended * * to privately email stewards(_AT_)wikimedia.org. * * or alternatively, to post arequest (if able to edit, if the editor doesn't mind sharing their IP for global blocks or their reasons to desire privacy (for Tor usage)). * * the current message displayed to the blocked editor also suggest contacting User:Tks4Fish. This editor is involved in vandalism fighting and is probably the user blocking open proxies IPs the most. See log So... Option 1: contacting stewards : it seems that they are not answering. Or not quickly. Or requesting lengthy justifications before adding people to IP block exemption list. Option 2: posting a request for unblock on meta. For those who want to look at the process, I suggest looking at it [3] and think hard about how a new editor would feel. This is simply incredibly complicated Option 3 : user:TksFish answers... sometimes... As a consequence, most editors concerned with those global blocks... stay blocked several days. We do not know know why the situation has rapidly got worse recently. But it got worse. And the reports are spilling all over. We started collecting negative experiences on this page [4]. Please note that people who added their names here are not random newbies. They are known and respected members of our community, often leaders of activities and/or representant of their usergroups, who are confronted to this situation on a REGULAR basis. I do not know how this can be fixed. Should we slow down open proxy blocking ? Should we add a mecanism and process for an easier and quicker IP block exemption process post-blocking ? Should we improve a process for our editors to pre-emptively be added to this IP block exemption list ? Or what ? I do not know what's the strategy to fix that. But there is a problem. Who should that problem be addressed to ? Who has solutions ? Flo [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Tks4Fish [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global_permissions#Request… *[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking*

33 61

Opportunities open for the Ombuds commission and the Case Review Committee
by Karen Brown 21 Mar '23

21 Mar '23

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Foundation_Leg…> More languages <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Foundation_Leg…> • Please help translate to your language <https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Translate&group=page-W…> Hi everyone! The Ombuds commission (OC) and the Case Review Committee (CRC) are looking for members. People are encouraged to nominate themselves or encourage others they feel would contribute to these groups to do so. There is more information below about the opportunity and the skills that are needed. About the Ombuds commission The Ombuds commission (OC) works on all Wikimedia projects to investigate complaints about violations of the privacy policy, especially in use of CheckUser <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CheckUser_policy> and Oversight <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Oversight_policy> (also known as Suppression) tools. The Commission mediates between the parties of the investigation and, when violations of the policies are identified, advises the Wikimedia Foundation on best handling. They may also assist the General Counsel, the Chief Executive Officer, or the Board of Trustees of the Foundation in these investigations when legally necessary. For more on the OC's duties and roles, see Ombuds commission on Meta-Wiki <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ombuds_commission>. Volunteers serving in this role should be experienced Wikimedians, active on any project, who have previously used the CheckUser/Oversight tools OR who have the technical ability to understand these tools and the willingness to learn them. They must be able to communicate in English, the common language of the commission. They are expected to be able to engage neutrally in investigating these concerns and to know when to recuse when other roles and relationships may cause conflict. Commissioners will serve two-year terms (note that this is different from past years, when the terms have been for one year). About the Case Review Committee The Case Review Committee (CRC) reviews appeals of eligible Trust & Safety office actions. The CRC is a critical layer of oversight to ensure that Wikimedia Foundation office actions are fair and unbiased. They also make sure the Wikimedia Foundation doesn’t overstep established practices or boundaries. For more about the role, see Case Review Committee on Meta-Wiki <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Case_Review_Committee>. We are looking for current or former functionaries and experienced volunteers with an interest in joining this group. Applicants must be fluent in English (additional languages are a strong plus) and willing to abide by the terms of the Committee charte <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Trust_and_Safety/Case_Review_Committee/Char…>r. If the work resonates and you qualify, please apply. Committee members will serve two-year terms (note that this is different from past years, when the terms have been for one year). Applying to join either of these groups Members are required to sign the Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Confidentiality_agreement_for_nonpublic_inf…> and must be willing to comply with the appropriate Wikimedia Foundation board policies (such as the access to non-public information policy <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Access_to_nonpublic_information_policy> and the Foundation privacy policy <https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Privacy_policy>). These positions require a high degree of discretion and trust. Members must also be over 18 years of age. If you are interested in serving in either capacity listed above, please write in English to the Trust and Safety team at ca[image: @]wikimedia[image: .]org (to apply to the OC) or to the Legal Team at legal[image: @]wikimedia[image: .]org (to apply to the CRC) with information about: - Your primary projects - Languages you speak/write - Any experience you have serving on committees, whether movement or non-movement - Your thoughts on what you could bring to the OC or CRC if appointed - Any experience you have with the Checkuser or Oversight tools (OC only) - Any other information you think is relevant There will be two conversation hours to answer any questions that potential applicants may have: - 17 October 2022, 03:00 UTC (other timezones <https://iw.toolforge.org/zonestamp/1665975648>) (Zoom meeting link) (add to calendar) - 16 November 2022, 18:00 UTC (other timezones <https://iw.toolforge.org/zonestamp/1668621642>) (Zoom meeting link) (add to calendar) The deadline for applications is 31 December 2022 in any timezone. Please feel free to pass this invitation along to any users who you think may be qualified and interested. Thank you! On behalf of the Committee Support team, Karen -- Karen Brown Trust & Safety Specialist Wikimedia Foundation kbrown(a)wikimedia.org

8 10

Bing-ChatGPT
by Anders Wennersten 06 Mar '23

06 Mar '23

BIng with ChatGPT is now released by Micrsoft. And from what I understand they use Wikipedia content considerably. If you ask Who is A B and A B is not widely known, the result is more or less identical to the content from the Wikipedia article (but worse, as it "makes up" facts that is incorrect). In a way I am glad to see Wikipedia is fully relevant even in this emerging AI-driven search world. But Google search has ben careful to always have a link to Wikipedia besides their made up summary of facts, which here it is missing (yet?). And for licences, they are all ignored. So if this is the future the number of accesses from users to Wikipedia will collapse, and also their willingness to donate... (but our content still a cornerstone for knowledge) Anders (I got a lot of fact from an article in Swedish main newspaper by their tech editor. He started asking fact of himself, and when he received facts from his Wp article plus being credited to a book he had noting to do with, he started to try to tell/learn ChatGPT of this error. The chatPGT only got angry accusing the techeditor for lying and in the end cut off the conversation, as ChatGPT continued to teat the techeditor as lyer and vandal..).

9 10

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Wikimedia-l February 2023