User talk:Jan-Bart

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

There's some amazing news coming out of the Netherlands regarding the [non-]enclosure of images of public domain artworks by people making photocopies or photographs of them! Thanks for leading the world forward ;) SJ · talk | translate 19:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Vertaling (nl)[edit]

Opmerkelijk nieuws uit Nederland omtrent [niet-]ontsluiten van afbeeldingen publiek domein kunstwerken en het kopiëren of fotograferen ervan! dank voor het vooruithelpen ;) –SJ · talk | translate 19:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


thanks![edit]

  • Thank you :) I will sport it with pride. Pundit (talk) 19:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm proud of this award! Thank you! --Perohanych (talk) 21:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the appreciation. --Arjunaraoc (talk) 06:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

A Barnstar![edit]

FDC special barnstar

You also deserve this award — to recognize your hard and indispensable work on the first round of the FDC!

--Perohanych (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

+What he said. Pundit (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Your commitment to the process was invaluable. Sydney Poore FloNight (talk) 15:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


Current lack of mechanism to revise bad decisions made by the chapters[edit]

Firstly, I'd like to thank you for your answer over there. Still, I would like to express my concern that apparently the Founation has no mechanism to revise bad decisions made by the chapters, which may prove to be extremely bad for the Foundation's reputation in a long term. So I'd like to ask your personal opinion whether there is any possibility to introduce such mechanism, kind of "anti-corruption commission" of Wikimedia Foundation? Thank you. --DancingPhilosopher (talk) 09:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

So I think that there are several measures which can be taken when entities affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundations make seriously bad decisions. Luckily we have not had to resort to this in the past (as I can recall) and I hope we don't have to do this in the future. The examples mentioned in the discussion you are linking to are not examples that I would use of "bad decisions" which hurt our reputation because I really do think that we as a movement should experiment and try new things, which sometimes might not work out.


Wikimedia exit interview[edit]

Hi. I've started Wikimedia exit interview. What do you think? I wanted to ask a few specific questions myself (e.g., "What's been your biggest struggle while working at the Wikimedia Foundation?" or "What are you most proud of?", etc.). --MZMcBride (talk) 14:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I like it, but I am pretty sure that Gayle already does this? Do you need it to be in a public forum? Jan-Bart (talk) 12:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to give community members (not Gayle) a way of asking questions (and receiving answers). A wiki page was one semi-structured way of trying to do that. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to see this too. Sue already did an IRC office hour about the exit, I don't think its a stretch to have the same sort of session on wiki. I would think IRC would have been harder to answer questions in, a meta page can be answered at any point that is easy for her. I really don't see what impact Gayle doing a closed exit interview would have for the rest of us, the staff and the board member already know things more than the community members. Regards. Theo10011 (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
So you are asking for opportunity to ask questions to an employee leaving the foundation in a public forum? This seems like a bad idea. The WMF does exit interviews, but these will never be in a public fashion. If the person(s) in question are open to this kind of scrutiny there are enough possibilities for that person to make her/himself available (irc/wikimedia-l etc..)Jan-Bart (talk) 10:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't think Sue is an employee, or anyone thinks of her as one. She occupied the highest spot of an executive in the organization. There might have been disagreements along the line, but Sue also happens to be familiar and well-liked by a large part of the community. At the same time, it might be understandable for people to be curious about her departure, her reflections, dare I say, her reasons. I thought her announcement was a bit out of the blue. I don't think an interview would be any worse than an IRC office hour, and she would have the option and time to pick her questions. At the same time, it would be her prerogative to decline and completely understandable. But just in case, Sue is up for it, I would be happy to moderate and collect the questions and submit them to you or Sue directly. I'll make sure the tenor and conduct is respectable and there isn't any cross-talk. Thanks. Theo10011 (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I think this is something we'd only do with willing outgoing department heads and Board members. It's certainly not something we'd do with most staff members. I've started Wikimedia exit interview/Sue Gardner. The upcoming issue of the Signpost will include a call for questions. Theo: if you could post to wikimedia-l and other relevant forums, that would be great. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not an "exit interview", which connotes a certain privacy and implicit expectation of candor. It's more a "farewell retrospective". There's nothing wrong with that, of course. But it's different. Perhaps it would be good to rename the project. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure there are (m)any examples upon which to base your claim, though I see your point. :-) It's titled "Wikimedia exit interview," as that seemed like the best title choice at the time (someone is exiting, it'll hopefully be a series of questions and answers—an interview). In some ways, it's about institutional memory, but that seems like an even worse page title. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
"Final press conference"? "Goodbye Tour"? 1/2 :-). The problem is that the compound phrase "exit interview" has a linguistic implication apart from the mere composition of sequence term and interview. Sort of like "first date". Maybe "retrospective interview", though that's a bit wordy. I understand you've already created the page. Still, the "exit interview" phrasing seems "off" to me. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 09:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
In my mind, one of the great beauties of (MediaWiki) wikis is that redirect functionality is built-in, allowing pages to easily be renamed. (Having recently used a DokuWiki installation, I have newfound appreciation for what I previously felt were standard wiki features.) Feel free to move the page to a better title and/or create redirects, as it suits you. And, of course, if you'd also like to submit a few questions, I think that would be wonderful. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. But I wouldn't touch any sort of rename/redirect of the page myself. It is most emphatically not worth the risk of setting off some sort of edit-war from someone assuming bad faith or taking the opportunity to name-call. I don't feel strongly about it, merely writer's dissonance. Regarding questions, I'm not against these kind of events, but they aren't a forum for hard-hitting examination. The respondent can just have a PR firm write the replies. If one asks, e.g. "Why do you think the pornography (err, "controversial material") mess at Commons never blew up into a truly major scandal, and how long will that hold?" (a question where I'd truly like to know the answer!) the reply will be akin to "there is no cannibalism in the British Navy. Absolutely none, and when I say none, I mean there is a certain amount, more than we are prepared to admit, but all new ratings are warned that if they wake up in the morning and find any toothmarks at all anywhere on their bodies, they're to tell me immediately so that I can immediately take every measure to hush the whole thing up. And, finally, necrophilia is right out." -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
My father is fond of saying that the answer is no if you don't ask. That is, I think discussing lessons learned from events exactly like the controversial content debate is what this exit interview process is intended for. A typical exit interview involving an employee and a human resources person would never discuss such matters. An exit interview between the Wikimedia community and the outgoing Executive Director (or outgoing Board members... Ting is on his way out) would be an excellent forum for such questions and answers, in my opinion. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Profile[edit]

Hi Jan-Bart,

I'm a Dutchman, born in Utrecht city, living and editing in Arezzo province, Tuscany, Italy. Is there a profile the new director of the Wikimedia Foundation needs to have; if the answer is 'yes' where can we find it? Thank you very much indeed for an answer and who knows TTYL,  Klaas|Z4␟V:  22:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC) P.S. I'm administrator on OmegaWiki as Patio. My old name I changed on most projects, because it was yet in use on e.g. English Wikipedia).
Hi Klaas, there is as yet no job description. For this and other inquiries please see: Transition Team

This Month in Education: May 2013[edit]





Headlines

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

If this message is not on your home wiki's talk page, update your subscription · Distributed via Global message delivery, 17:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

A cookie for you![edit]

Choco chip cookie.jpg

Hiya Jan-Bart. I haven't seen you comment in a while, hope everything is good. Please accept this cookie for no apparent reason. (Also, I'm secretly trying to break the stroopwafel addiction around here....the cookie shall rise again! So shhhh ;) ) Theo10011 (talk) 08:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

thank you , trying to cut down on sugar, so giving this to my daughter. Everything is fine.. just busy at the end of the schoolyear :) c u in hong kong right? Jan-Bart (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

This Month in Education: June 2013[edit]





Headlines

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

If this message is not on your home wiki's talk page, update your subscription · Distributed via Global message delivery, 14:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

This Month in Education: July 2013[edit]





Headlines

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

If this message is not on your home wiki's talk page, update your subscription · Distributed via Global message delivery, 22:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Personal and Moral Rights?[edit]

In a discussion with Jimmy Wales on the moral rights of the photographers and the personal rights of the subjects, he said "I think that the commons community has gone down a very sad and disappointing path with respect to ethical matters. My views on this are not new, and are well known. Our project is a grand humanitarian effort. That it has been hijacked by people who do not share our values is something that needs to be fixed."

We further requested him to bring this matter to the attention of WMF and make a resolution or something to force Commons make enough policies to protect our rights as a photographer and our commitments to our subjects. He replied: "I am just one board member on this issue. I will continue to call this to the attention of the board and staff, but I need help from the community to illustrate that this is a problem that concerns many of us."

So we would like to bring that discussion to the attention of every member on board. JKadavoor Jee 11:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

This Month in Education: August 2013[edit]





Headlines

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

If this message is not on your home wiki's talk page, update your subscription · Distributed via Global message delivery, 22:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

This Month in Education: September 2013[edit]





Headlines

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

If this message is not on your home wiki's talk page, update your subscription · Distributed via Global message delivery, 21:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Transition team update?[edit]

Hi Jan-Bart. I noticed the call to questions for the ED transition team - I seem to have missed the call completely. I still added a couple of questions - I'm sure its late, so, sorry about that. I wanted to ask if you could maybe update the transition team page when you get some free time. The timeline in particular, was a bit confusing. I didn't see a reference to any last dates for questions. And thanks for taking a lead and working on this for the board - I know it's a thankless job but - Thank you! ;) Theo10011 (talk) 16:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

This Month in Education: October 2013[edit]





Headlines

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

If this message is not on your home wiki's talk page, update your subscription · Distributed via Global message delivery, 19:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

This Month in Education: November 2013[edit]





Headlines

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

If this message is not on your home wiki's talk page, update your subscription · Distributed via Global message delivery, 22:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Categorise[edit]

Hello. Could you please categorize update pages you create in the future? Just Category:Executive Director Transition Team is enough. I know you link them, and that the title/content is enough to tell the subject, but I am currently trying to clear Special:UncategorizedPages. Thank you. PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I will try my best, thanks for pointing it out :) Jan-Bart (talk) 08:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Can you please do the new one too? :) PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I just added it to a category. PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

This Month in Education: December 2013[edit]





Headlines
To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.
If this message is not on your home wiki's talk page, update your subscription.

This Month in Education: January 2014[edit]





Headlines

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

If this message is not on your home wiki's talk page, update your subscription.

This Month in Education: February 2014[edit]

This Month in Education: March 2014[edit]





Headlines

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

If this message is not on your home wiki's talk page, update your subscription.

Non-SUL account[edit]

Hi Jan-Bart, I noticed that you do not have a SUL account. See the error on Special:CentralAuth/Jan-Bart. Have you edited any Wikimedia projects other than meta? There are 'Jan-Bart' accounts on at least two wikis, both with zero edits. e.g. is nl:User:Jan-Bart owned by you? Have you tried claiming 'en:User:Jan-Bart' by contacting User:Ral315? John Vandenberg (talk) 08:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

This Month in Education: April 2014[edit]





Headlines

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Anna Koval (WMF) (talk) 21:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

If this message is not on your home wiki's talk page, update your subscription.

Please support Commons:Commons:Bots/Requests/ArchiveBot_1[edit]

Hi Jan-Bart, as you may be aware we have established procedures on our projects and Commons is no different. From time to time we have discussions which see mass participation as a result of canvassing, and sometimes this canvassing uses WMF BoT statements of support. So that our Commons Bureaucrats won't be seen to be acting outside established Commons policy, could you possibly organise for the BoT at their meeting next week to publish a statement of support on Commons:Commons:Bots/Requests/ArchiveBot_1, because such statements hold a lot of weight. Failing a BoT statement of support, perhaps you could provide your personal input at this bot request. Thanking you in advance. Russavia (talk) 11:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

This Month in Education: May 2014[edit]





Headlines

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

If this message is not on your home wiki's talk page, update your subscription.

This Month in Education: June 2014[edit]





Headlines
Highlights  · Single page edition

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

If this message is not on your home wiki's talk page, please update your subscription.

Hello![edit]

My name is Sandister Tei, a Wikimedian (en:wp, commons) and a student at Cardiff University-JOMEC. I am writing a feature about Wikipedia and I would like to interview you for it.

I believe well-meaning editors of the wiki work tirelessly to make sure information is reliable however, the distrust by academia continues for obvious reasons.

The questions I have are:

1. Do you think validation/acceptance of Wikipedia by academia will be an important step in the life of the wiki?

2. Does the wiki even need such validation?

3. What is the ultimate remedy Wikipedia can create to end vandalism once and for all?

4. Is such a remedy even possible?

5. Some Wikipedians I have interviewed previously believe Wikipedia doesn't aspire to be perfect or an academic reference, but it aspires to be useful- merely a first point of call. Do you agree?

Thank you. See you in London hopefully.​

Sandiooses (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

AllTrials[edit]

Hi Jan

Would it be possible for the Wikimedia Foundation to endorse the All Trials Petition? (see how and the text of the petition.) IMHO this is in line with the goals of the Wikimedia Foundation (Some editors will be able to use the otherwise unpublished science to improve wikipedia).

Spiral Staircase (talk) 19:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Why Did You Support Granting Private Information of Editors to Anonymous Administrators?[edit]

Dear Mr. De Vreede,

I am dismayed that you and the rest of the board of trustees approved an "Access to No-Public Information" policy that allows totally anonymous administrators on the English and all the other Wikipedias to see the IPs and other potentially personally-identifying information (browser version, settings) of volunteer editors. Even though not usually immediately identifying in itself, this information can obviously be used as a stepladder to identifying through tools like Geolocate and TraceIP, as well as supporting indicators in websearching other clues from the editor's edit history.

Would you please inform me the factors that led to your support of the non-identification revision to the policy? Why would you have done this?

For your reference (https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Access_to_nonpublic_data_policy) "[t]his policy has been replaced by a new Access to non public information policy, which was approved by the Board of Trustees on 25 April 2014."

I don't deny that Wikipedia's administrative participants in some cases do constructive work, in policing clear vandalism for example, or reporting to the WMF the rare cases of threats of violence. But access to personally-identifying information is not needed for that. If there are cases where volunteer administrative participants do somehow need that information, it should be entrusted to identified individuals, not anonymous usernames like "Wizardman" and "Beeblebrox" and "Dord" and so forth. Authorizing checkuser and the other tools to anonymous participants is going to attract, and has attracted, exactly the wrong kind of individuals. It's emboldening, frankly, creepers and cyberbullies. And those who participate in Wikipedia as if it were an online computer roleplaying game, without regard to the fact that those they choose to sniff and snoop (and pursue) are actually people as opposed to a computer game's NPCs (non-player characters).

Have you ever been snooped and sniffed, cyberbullied, websearched, by some creep online? I have, and it's not nice. I think if you'd been treated that way, and really understood the reality of the cyberbully culture, that you'd stand up now and reverse your support of the WMF's granting of these invasive privacy-violating tools to wholly anonymous and thus unaccountable administrative participants. Is that what it's going to take for you to change your mind? Somebody has to do it to you?

Please respond as to why you supported granting access to IP-invasive and potentially personally-identifying tools like checkuser to anonymous administrative participants.

Colton Cosmic (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

This Month in Education: July 2014[edit]

14:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

If this message is not on your home wiki's talk page, update your subscription.