Offline thank you!
Thanks for adding your project to the Offline_Projects/Projects_Overview page! Awesome to know there are other people working on this stuff. Do you participate much in the broader community discussions about offline on the offline mailing list? Jwild 13:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Upcoming IdeaLab Events: IEG Proposal Clinics
Neutral votes counted in a proportion of the total
- I moved the numbers to the Stats content page, if that's what you were looking for? Thanks! Adamw (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I revised my analysis on Nemo_bis's suggestion, to eliminate the denominator entirely. The "Support" column is equivalent to the S/T column. S-O is equivalent to S/T-O/T. Let me know if you think it would be useful to add these columns again (and why). I'm thinking about how to add more direct "error in representation" columns still, but didn't want to cloud the first issue. Adamw (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- I am curious how the support column, defined as S / (S + O), can be the same as S / T, since the latter includes neutral votes and the former does not, as per M:NVC. e.g. Dariusz's 5167 total 'votes' give a support of 39.25%, as opposed to your reported 78.48%. Your previous analysis showed rather clearly that support was generally much lower than reported, and there would have been 2/3 change in results if total voters were accounted for. - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 22:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- The Support column I was referring to would be simply "S", and it's equivalent to S/T, but I'll add these to the G$$gle spreadsheet in case anyone finds it useful. "S-O" is the measure I believe we should use to rank candidates--we can use either simply S (the way most elections are tallied) or S-O (respects oppose votes by canceling out exactly one support vote). Please do continue to help me make my analysis as clear as possible, thank you! Adamw (talk) 23:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- Ah, perhaps I have not seen your spreadsheet, or we are not talking about the same ranking. I would prefer to see ranking according to support divided by the total, as I feel this is more representative of the actual voting support for a given candidate. (To give further weight to negative votes one might use (S - O) / T = support%, though I did not in the following table)
|María Sefidari – User:Raystorm||42.27%|
|Dariusz Jemielniak – User:Pundit||39.25%|
|Phoebe Ayers – User:Phoebe||37.84%|
|James Heilman – User:Doc James||35.94%|
|Denny Vrandečić – User:Denny||31.51%|
|Tim Davenport – User:Carrite||30.40%|
|Mike Nicolaije – User:Taketa||29.49%|
|Peter Gallert – User:Pgallert||28.39%|
- This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
- Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.
Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey
(Sorry to write in Engilsh)
mw:Code of Conduct and positivity
Striving for a positive document that people could find useful, rather than a police instrument to shove down people's throats, has been proposed many times: have you reviewed them?   Many specific and constructive proposals were also shot down without any reason, as if the intent had been to achieve the maximum possible distrust and disagreement with the document (including by discriminating atheists). --Nemo 09:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, @Nemo bis: thanks for the links, I should drag myself through that entire cactus patch to understand the context better. I'm pretty sure the intent wasn't to sow maximum distrust, but being highly emotionally charged is enough that I imagine the discussion felt just as you described. All I can say for now is, don't give up on making the changes you think are appropriate! Adamw (talk) 00:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- Well, currently I'm excluded from the discussion because wikitext users have been pushed out of the talk page. As long as the text discriminates atheists, I also have a lot of troubles engaging with it. --Nemo 07:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Candidacy in the 2021 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election
Hi there! I am reaching out about your decision to be a candidate in the 2021 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election. The Board of Trustees decided there would be outreach available for the 2021 Board of Trustees election. There is a team of facilitators supporting this election through outreach activities.
The first thing facilitators plan to do during the campaign period is host a Conversation Chat for candidates. We will talk about the campaign timeline, activities, and answer questions you have. This is currently scheduled for July 3 at 15:00 UTC. This time might change.
Facilitators are reaching out to all candidates with this message. We can offer support to make sure your message is clear. This could be reviewing your candidate page for clarity. We can also clarify community questions that candidates answer during the campaign. Please let us know if you would like this support and we can schedule a time to chat. Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- Hi there! I want to let you know the Candidate Briefing will be July 3 at 15:00 UTC via Google Meet. If this time does not work for you, it is not a problem. We can plan another time or way to get the information to you. Please just let me know what works for you. Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Open Wiki Farm
The boundaries of our projects are tightly guarded. Any new communities can only launch after a long and difficult process, and only if they are similar to existing projects and rooted in similar values. The many who are denied must turn to commercial or other hosting, with inconsistent safety policies, licensing, and even with imposed advertising. Proposal: We need a diaspora of projects, such as an ad-free, open wiki farm with stable funding and consistent community safety.
- @Rtnf: Miraheze was one of the inspirations for my suggestion. I don't think we would need to be a direct competitor however, since non-profits don't follow the standard capitalist attention economy script. One potential strategy for resilience would be to support external wiki farms such as Miraheze, provide grants, and help improve safety. This allows communities to grow around multiple centers so different people can find their niche, and avoids the fragility and boringness of central control. Adamw (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for your answer. Since i'm involved in Miraheze community, i like your idea. Regarding "boringness of central control", this is quite an open question. Should we adopt all those project outside Wikimedia Foundation if those project's vision is aligned to WMF vision, or we should let them have their own independence and we just support them from the outside (something like current's knowledge equity initiative)? Good things that we have things like wikidata, so we can "glue it together", integrate and collaborate with other external project. Rtnf (talk) 04:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Proof of Identity still needed for Board of Trustee Candidacy
Hi there! I see that you have not yet submitted your proof of identity. Candidates for this position must submit proof of identity and evidence of age of majority as a condition of candidacy. A copy of one of the following documents fulfills this:
- Driver's license
- Other official documentation indicating real name and age
This may be provided to the Wikimedia Foundation via email at secure-infowikimedia.org. Even if you may have done this previously for a different position, you are asked to complete this again. Please submit this by 29 June 2021 at 23:59 UTC.
If you are one of the selected candidates, the Wikimedia Foundation may need to request additional identifying information in order to run a background check prior to your appointment to the Board.
Candidate update: community question translation and campaign activities
I am writing to you about several things:
1. On 20 July the facilitation team will begin translating the candidate answers to questions selected by the Elections Committee. Please try to finish your answers by that date if possible.
2. There is a list of Campaign Activities planned by the facilitation team. We have heard feedback about Campaign Activities. Thank you for your patience as we are trying new things and learning. The facilitation team will discuss solutions to these frustrations on 21 July. Look for updates on the Campaign Activities list.
3. The Community Affairs Committee meeting with candidates is on 21 July. You may email questions to askcacwikimedia.org if that works better for you than writing on Meta. If you have not already received a calendar invitation, please email me at jkoerner-ctrwikimedia.org so a calendar invitation for the CAC meeting can be sent to you.
I want to ask a question
- The main ideas are in my candidate statement, but it goes something like this: Begin a discussion about publicly sharing recordings of Board meetings and exact transcripts. Meet and integrate with Board and find a way I can contribute to their work. Probably fit myself into the Product committee and the Board Governance committee, if they will have me. Feel out the potential for consensus around Bylaws changes, to push towards a fully elected Board—find a concrete next step and write a public strategy for how to shape and move towards a final goal. Find who is supportive of Wikimedia hosting an open wiki farm, and try to mobilize these contributors and other stakeholders; see whether there are historical discussions. Learn what the Board is planning to devolve funding, connect with community and advisors, help nudge our plans to align with the Movement Strategy, probably help shape Dariusz's "regional hubs" idea to avoid bureaucracy, and introduce stepped increases in how much money we are distributing. Engage with anti-abuse work and see whether my production software experience or feminist perspective allow me to contribute productively, prioritize ongoing work to hide editors' IP addresses from public view. Thanks for asking! —Adamw (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
The second anniversary of Wikispore Day, observed on July 28, 2020, marks twenty-four months from the conceptual sprouting of the Wikispore idea from the Strategy Wiknic in NYC, which was held on July 14, 2019.
You are invited to participate in a virtual unconference for this year!
Wednesday July 28:
- Main Unconference (more details at wikispore:Wikispore Day)
- Social Hour
Since Wikispore is probably the only Wikimedia project to be born at a picnic, you are encouraged to participate from a socially-distanced green space outdooors if possible.