User talk:Kudpung

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki


Saw your comment here; funding isn't an issue. We've been working on bits and bobs since September (as I know you know); it's just that we had a stall while legal mucked about. I've heard a lot of people claiming we're not devoting money to this - do you have any idea where the impression is coming from? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm not going to dig around for diffs because it may have been mentioned to me either in an email or in a Skpe conversation, but it was clearly stated by a member of the WMF and 'shoestring' was the expression used. As far as I know, other people may have received similar messages to their enquiries. I am not confident that legal issues caused a great delay, especially as the WMF appears to have unlimited access to the data, and that there is no reason to assume that mature members of the community who have signed a NPA should not be trusted with the same access. Other questions have been raised why the Wikipdia members of the NPP reform project have not been communicated with the statistical analysis made on their behalf by the WMF so that they can write their unbiased report. It was hoped that such reforms would help towards the essential streamlining of the control of new pages in time for the influx of new pages resulting from increased activity of the GEP, but as the WMF have expressed that taking into account the required support from the community is not their direct concern, It also seems possible that the volunteers who pioneered this reform since October 2010 and who had the most experience with NPP, and those who helped with the massive clean up of the IEP issues have now largely withdrawn their support and interest for both the NPP reform project and the GEP. In the meantime, activity at NPP has returned to its pre-IEP levels of activity and inaccuracy and backlogs, and a huge backlog has built up at AfC. Kudpung 02:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
I'm sure that the complexity of issues was not the sole reason, if it was a reason, for the delay, but the legal team is small and has been very busy with such matters as developing the new Terms of Use, preparing for community action related to SOPA, and addressing several serious legal challenges to project work in various countries. Because of this, they are not always able to respond quickly to all inquiries, and we do have to trust them to prioritize in accordance to what may seem the most urgent from a legal standpoint. We've still got to wait for them to give clearance before we take certain actions.
On the budgetary front; we now have a team of developers on it, I'll be releasing an engagement strategy soon (which it would be great if you could provide comment on) and we'll be moving forward damn fast. Okeyes (WMF) 13:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Although I have withdrawn for a while from active article editing and admin tasks on en.Wiki, I am as firmly committed to the the development and implementation of these solutions as I ever was. Please keep me up to date with anything you would like my input on. Kudpung 16:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Will do; I'll be posting the report and proposed engagement strategy soon enough, and will drop everyone involved in NPP a note, including you. Okeyes (WMF) 19:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
What report is that? I am also interested to know when the task force will receive the data and statistical analysis in order to write their report on the NPP Survey. Kudpung 01:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
The report on the survey results - and we have already provided you with the data. Some borkage with the survey means that people will (yeuch) have to sign an NDA before we can give out anything but the aggregates. Okeyes (WMF) 16:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
If you have prepared a summary, that's great, please let us (the task force) have it so that we can compare notes and write our report - we will of course hope that the WMF will be able to review our final draft and provide their input. before we publish it to the community.Why 'yeuch'? I am sure that the admins on this task force are as trustworthy than the salaried employees and would sign an NDA - I identified myself (copy of passport) and signed an NDA months ago. That said, we are not interested in any identifying data anyway and these columns are easily stripped from the spreadsheet. What is the delay on providing the aggregates? I am not a statistician, but if this is posing a temporal or financial strain on WMF resources I'm sure one of us here could do this. Kudpung 00:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Neither temporal or financial; the "yeuch" is the idea that we have to have people sign an NDA before they can get their hands on the raw data - kinda undermines the whole open access thing. The issue is legal; the disclaimer legal provided for the survey is not sufficient to just release the data (although I wish it was). I'll provide the report to the entire community, and drop you a note, as soon as Howie finishes reviewing it (hopefully by Monday, but then he said that last Monday, too). Okeyes (WMF) 01:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure if you remember the original request for WMF assistance on this project. I believe you wrote the page yourself: Research:New_Page_Patrol_survey. Kudpung 02:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
I did; I'm not quite sure how it's directly relevant. What am I missing? Okeyes (WMF) 03:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
The community task force asked for technical and legal support only. It appears that this was perhaps not made sufficiently clear by us although it was understood by Howie and you correctly wrote it into the research project page. You were aware from the beginning that that this survey is a community initiative and project - and this is one of the reasons for the delay: the task force has not been provided with the technical analysis (which we could have done ourselves if we had know that there would be delays of funding or resources). Kudpung 06:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
When you say "technical analysis", do you mean the raw data, or the tables, graphs and the like following on from that? Because we've provided the former, and if I recall correctly you used it to generate the latter. I may be misunderstanding; if so, I apologise :). Okeyes (WMF) 06:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
And actually it's not the reason for the delay; I'm talking about the delay in producing the WMF research report. The release of the data doesn't preclude that (although it is infuriating that the release of both is taking so long). I'm going to drop Dario a note now to see precisely what SOP is for who at our end has to sign NDAs, and how, and...etc etc, so we can at least get the raw data out. Unlike the report, that doesn't require a read-through by Howie. Okeyes (WMF) 06:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Howie offered to use WMF resources for providing the tables and graphs and additional statistical analysis, so we provided him with a list of math to draw from the raw results upon which he also offered to provide us with some additional stats that would have been helpful. We readily agreed to this as we were unable at the time to find a statistician within the volunteer community. There was no question that we would want the data with anything that would identify the respondents. Any issues concerning confidentiality was so that the WMF could contact users for other purposes - but not ones we wanted or needed for our project. We were never in favour of requesting additional off-Wiki feed back from respondents. There were no suggestions that the WMF should write the survey report - this is a community project for en.Wiki. It's unlikely that it would be helpful for other Wikis as they have other challenges and other procedures for controlling their new pages. Kudpung 08:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Huh; he never mentioned the list of math; I'll give him a poke. And I've repeatedly made clear (and I'm sure Howie has, as well) that you're welcome to write your own survey report. We've given you the data; I'm not entirely sure what's stopping you. "There was no question that we would want the data with anything that would identify the respondents." - I'm not quite understanding that; do you mean you do or do not need it with usernames etc attached? Okeyes (WMF) 08:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
I have mentioned several times above: "There was no question that we would want the data with anything that would identify the respondents." That means:
  • We didn't want the user names.
  • We never wanted the user names.
  • We still don't want the user names.
  • We have no use or purpose for the user names.
  • The user names were required by the WMF for some purpose of their own. They were not a requirement for our project.
  • I was surprised to be required to provide an NDA for data that has no user identification.
  • I was surprised that I was kept waiting so long for the data without user names.
We don't need to be offered the welcome to write our own report - that's what was planned from the very beginning. As you were introduced to this project at a later stage, it appears that there have been some misunderstandings about what was required. Kudpung 11:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Kudpung, I'm not trying to invite you to produce your own report - that would be patronising, and inappropriate to boot, since it is ultimately a community project - I'm pointing out that you can write one. You have the data, you have the tables, and there is nothing stopping you from writing it. As for the NDA - general counsel informed us that European law would prevent us releasing the data with, say, gender labels attached (stupid, I know. I don't write the things, nor do I interpret them). That is why an NDA is required; it means we're transferring within-org. And "there was no question that we would want the data with anything that would identify the respondents" can be interpreted as "it has always been obvious that..." - hence my confusion.
I've dropped both Howie and Dario their respective emails; in the meantime I would suggest that, if you are unhappy over the delay in publishing anything at our end, you utilise your right to publish your own material. Okeyes (WMF) 16:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
I can understand someone thinking that European law being concerned about gender in its broadest sense. The 1997 directive on Data Protection does list sexual orientation as one of the "sensitive" categories of data about which extra safeguards are needed and explicit consent as opposed to consent is needed in order to process it in relation to identifiable people. However there are several ways in which you can legally comply, one of which, as Kudpung suggested, is to anonymise the data. WereSpielChequers 18:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Do feel free to pass that on to our general counsel, who has instructed me that both gender removal and anonymisation are necessary. I do as they instruct. Okeyes (WMF) 18:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
That's a bit sad. I would have hoped you'd be more of a two way channel rather than one way. WereSpielChequers 19:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
I'm happy to communicate the message myself; I was more indicating that this isn't a debate you should be having with me :). Okeyes (WMF) 19:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Just so that I'm not the one that has misunderstood anything in this thread Oliver, are you telling us now:

  • that it taken the WMF three months to tell us that we can't have the information that we never wanted anyway,
  • that my NDA was worthless and and wasn't needed to be able to received the data that should have been stripped of genders and names,
  • that the WMF has withdrawn its offer to provide the math?

Kudpung 22:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

  • Kudpung, we provided you with the data. As to the offer of math, as said, I have emailed Howie: I was not previously aware of your request. Okeyes (WMF) 22:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
    And no, as I have explained above, the NDA is necessary to receive the data at all, due to some errors in how the terms of the survey were formatted. Okeyes (WMF) 22:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Okay, I've spoken to Howie and persuaded him to let me work on the additional analysis, since he's evidently lost your email (sorry :S). If you mail me what you need, I'll do my best to put it together, should my statistical skills permit. I'm also in talks with legal about how to give the rest of your team NDAs so they can get the data too, and you guys can work on the community report. Okeyes (WMF) 19:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
I'll have to dig through the correspondence with Howie, but I can't do that right now. As far as I was given to understand, a statistician has already been working on the math extrapolations, is that Dario? Kudpung 12:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
At the moment I'm the one doing the data analysis (well, past tense - finished it now); Dario and Howie have both been providing analysis and cross-checking my numbers. Okeyes (WMF) 13:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
How can this be the 'authoritive' report? The community has not been provided with the details. It will be re-audited as soon as we find a competent statistician. There was no request from the community for the WMF to write this report. You were informed many many that this,is a community initiative.Kudpung 10:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
It's not? I listed it as "The authoritative version of the Foundation report" (italics mine) to distinguish it from the one copied to enwiki. Okeyes (WMF) 10:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
It can't be a' authoritative' report - this was a community project/initiative, and the WMF was not asked to publish their own arbitrary findings. It was stressed all along that the community task force who initiated this survey would be processing data provided by the WMF statistician into a report to be published by the task force. The WMF was asked specifically, and clearly, to provide legal and technicaI assistance only. I suggest that the WMF is acting out of process with this publication. You have been well aware of all this, so why has it been done this way, and why have the contents of the thread above been ignored? Kudpung 10:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
We're not ignoring the above thread; I have repeatedly offered to provide you with any additional data if you just drop me an email asking for it. And as I have made clear, when I say "authoritative version of the Foundation report" I mean "of the various copies of the Foundation report distributed, this is the one that should be taken to be the 'official' one, and is where any post-publication tweaks will probably originate". We do not intend to cut into your right to publish your own report, which will be given equal weight at Research:New Page Patrol survey; as my reply on the WMF report talkpage indicates, we actively encourage anyone interested in the data to clearly lay out what additional data and analysis they need to do their own report, so we can help provide it. We want more research, not less. Okeyes (WMF) 10:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
This was a community initiative - there was no question that the WMF should do anything other with the data than provide it to the task force. I'm afraid tat the community has not been involved in the development of the survey project they started, and the WMF has been sure to publish a report of their own before any discussion was permitted to take place. This is not an example of pro-active collaboration. This is very reminiscent of the wat ACTRIAL went. Kudpung (talk) 04:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Kudpung, last time I checked this was the Wikimedia movement - one based on open data and open content, free for reuse and use to create derivative works. Last time I checked, we didn't need anyone's permission to write an accompanying report, just as we have repeatedly made clear that you do not need ours. As for "before any discussion was permitted to take place": I have given you the survey data. I have given you the raw data itself, I have given you some accompanying analysis, and you have, from these things, generated complete tabulation. I know this, because I have the emails sitting in my "sent" folder. I have pointed this out almost as often as I have offered to do any additional analysis that you require. Despite this, I have heard nothing. You're asking for data, I'm offering to provide it at the expense of my own time if you email me, you are not emailing me and then criticising me for not providing the data. There is absolutely nothing at my end prohibiting you from starting your own discussion: bottleneck here is you, not me. I will offer one final time: if you send me an email asking for additional analysis, and setting out precisely what you need, I will provide that analysis. If not, you can do it yourself; I have other projects to work on, and other elements of New Page Triage to prepare, and I am not delaying them any more just so I can be repeatedly insulted by you for the heinous crime of not providing data I have already provided or offered. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Howie was provided with a precise list of the required math extrapolations at the beginning of the survey project. Howie offered to provide additional math extrapolations. We were left waiting, assuming that this was being done. We assume, from some communications that someone (Dario?) was the statistician working on this for us. Three moths down the line we have still not received the data. We have been told that delays are due to legal issues, and that the WMF is operating t on a shoestring. We're still waiting, and in the meantime, the WMF has taken this project over from the community, and using data that has not been made available to the task force, has gone ahead and published a comprehensive report of its own. Those are the facts. Kudpung (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
I have made clear that Howie cannot find your email. I have, 3-5 times, offered to do the analysis if you will tell me what you want done. I have given you the basic data, which is, with tabulation (which you have done) easily enough to produce a basic report. The data? The data I used was the data you were sent, tabulated, and with the tables used to create pretty graphs. That is the sole extent of the information used for this. The only additional input was me, working 12 hour days, to tabulate, map, interpret, sanitise and check the data. Shall I take your continued silence on the "if you send me a list I am happy to put time aside to calculate anything you want" front to mean you don't want the additional data? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
I'm not interested in how much time you have spent on this -- it is not appropriate. I and other unpaid volunteers have spent 100 of hours researching NPP before you were even brought into the project. The very reasons that the WMF was asked to provide the stats was because we don't know how to do this, and we were unable to find anyone among the community to do it. The WMF agreed to do this for us and we have not been provided with it. How many more times do I have to say this? Instead, you have used any information that you were privy to and preempted the community by publishing your own report with out any collaboration with the volunteer research team. You made it clear in the last 48 hours that Howie has lost the details that were reauired for the community to be able to make its report. There is one of the the 'bottlenecks' - the others are the continual claims that funding and legal issues have been holding everything up, but they didn't prevent you from publishing your report, which as far as we know may even be based on private communications you have had with the survey respondents. I'm afraid that at the moment, apart from answering talk page messages and emails, I do not have time to do any time consuming research. I hope you will understand that I am a volunteer here and I have done the best I could to resolve NPP issues - including having the idea of, and initiating this survey. It's 6 am here, I have a 600 mile drive ahead of me, and I will be in the Cambodian jungle training teachers (another voluntary project) for at least the next 4 days. If you wish to discuss these issues further, I suggest you contact Blade , Scottywong, or WSC. Kudpung (talk) 00:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
I wasn't asking you to do any research, I was asking you to email me the details so I could do it. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry but although I generally spend 8 - 10 hours a day on Wikipedia stuff I can't delay my departure for Cambodia any longer - we volunteers have other things to do in real life as well. as Wikipedia. Please understand that this is not a lack of collaboration on my part. You have had months to resovle these issues and many requests for the extrapolations, and I understand you have discussed them recently at a meet up with WereSpielChequers. I do not have time now to research my mailboxes or Wikimedia for the mail or messages that Howie cannot find. Kudpung (talk) 01:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

What future IdeaLab campaigns would you like to see?[edit]

Hi there,

I’m Jethro, and I’m seeking your help in deciding topics for new IdeaLab campaigns that could be run starting next year. These campaigns aim to bring in proposals and solutions from communities that address a need or problem in Wikimedia projects. I'm interested in hearing your preferences and ideas for campaign topics!

Here’s how to participate:

Take care,

I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, Wikimedia Foundation. 03:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Future IdeaLab Campaigns results[edit]

Last December, I invited you to help determine future ideaLab campaigns by submitting and voting on different possible topics. I'm happy to announce the results of your participation, and encourage you to review them and our next steps for implementing those campaigns this year. Thank you to everyone who volunteered time to participate and submit ideas.

With great thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, Wikimedia Foundation. 23:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Open Call for Individual Engagement Grants[edit]

Greetings! The Individual Engagement Grants (IEG) program is accepting proposals until April 12th to fund new tools, research, outreach efforts, and other experiments that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers. Whether you need a small or large amount of funds (up to $30,000 USD), IEGs can support you and your team’s project development time in addition to project expenses such as materials, travel, and rental space.

With thanks, I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources 15:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Survey on content curation & review Inspire Campaign[edit]

Thanks for your participation in IdeaLab during the Inspire Campaign focused on improving content curation & review processes from February to March 2016. I'm interested in hearing your feedback about your participation during campaign, so if you're able, I invite you to complete this brief survey to describe how you contributed to the campaign and how you felt about participating.

Immediate results of the campaign can be found here. Please feel free to review them and let me know if you have any questions about the campaign or the survey. Thanks! I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 02:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

(Opt-out instructions)

Community Wishlist Survey[edit]

Hi Kudpung,

I saw your notes on the 2016 Community Wishlist page. I want you to know that that is not actually the Community Wishlist Survey page -- it was set up by a volunteer on her own. The real 2016 Community Wishlist Survey will start on November 7th. We're not accepting proposals before the start of the survey, because we want people who propose ideas to stick around and improve their proposal, through discussion with other community members. So you should submit these, once the survey starts in November. You can see more info on the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey page. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 01:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi DannyH. Yes, I'm aware of that and while it is nice to know that someone is at least watching that page, our entries were made on consensus of the volunteer community team that is working on a highly critical aspect of Wikipedia - a Foundation project - that the Foundation has refused to maintain and complete since 2013 and which most of the new staff are probably not even aware of.
Ideally, we need to bypass your project in order to address these issues in a timely manner (we've been waiting for nearly 5 years) and escalate these needs to a level where it can be understood that our requirements are serious major issues that are not to be confused with the request for gadgets and gimmicks that are generally submitted by individual users to your project. We have tried engaging Nick Wilson and Ryan Kaldari but we are still without any positive action or even response. We are concerned that within the fold of the WMF a lot of buck-passing is going on.
So basically, we are just exploiting every avenue to ensure awareness among the many employees of the WMF which has grown from 7 employees to over 200 in 5 years, whose work overlaps on one one hand, but who are unaware of what each one is doing on the other, in the hope that someone will finally understand the urgency of these issues. They concern the very fabric on which the Wikimedia mission is built. For more information and If you are in any way concerned about the reputation of the encyclopedias owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, please see: en:Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 01:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply



during the discussion of the 2016 wishlist you expressed interest in the proposal to add a second email address. Now the voting phase is nearing its end and you have not yet voted on that proposal. Your vote may make a difference. Maybe you are interested in this proposals:

--𝔊 (Gradzeichen DiſkTalk) 18:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Adjusted text[edit]

There has been a request to inform all who voted in the RfC about interlinking accounts involved with paid editing about the following adjustment in the "statement of issue" on Sept 18th, 2017.

It was clarified that this effort will help deal not only with impersonation of specific Wikipedians but also claims of being in good standing made by those who are not.[1] Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Presenting Community Engagement Insights survey report: Tuesday, October 10, 1600 UTC[edit]

Hi Kudpung,
I am reaching out to you because you signed up to receive updates about the Global Wikimedia survey.[1]

We will be hosting a public event online to present the data, a few examples on how teams will be using it for annual planning, and what are next steps for this project. The event will take place on Tuesday, October 10, at 9:00 am PST (1600 UTC), and the presentation will be in English. You can watch the livestream here, and ask question via IRC on #wikimedia-office.

If you are unable attend, you can also find the report on meta, and watch the recording of the event at a later time.

We hope to have you join us online! -- María Cruz 23:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

  1. Update your subscription to these messages by clicking here.

Global preferences ready for testing[edit]


I am contacting you because of your support for Global settings in the 2016 Community Tech Wishlist. Global preferences are now available for beta testing, and need your help before being released to the wikis.

  1. Read over the help page, it is brief and has screenshots
  2. Login or register an account on Beta English Wikipedia
  3. Visit Global Preferences and try enabling and disabling some settings
  4. Visit some other language and project test wikis such as English Wikivoyage, German Wiktionary, the Spanish Wikipedia, the Hebrew Wikipedia and test the settings
  5. Report your findings, experience, bugs, and other observations

Once the team has feedback on design issues, bugs, and other things that might need worked out, the problems will be addressed and global preferences will be sent to the wikis.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

The Community Wishlist Survey[edit]


You get this message because you’ve previously participated in the Community Wishlist Survey. I just wanted to let you know that this year’s survey is now open for proposals. You can suggest technical changes until 11 November: Community Wishlist Survey 2019.

You can vote from November 16 to November 30. To keep the number of messages at a reasonable level, I won’t send out a separate reminder to you about that. /Johan (WMF) 11:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

"Who Wrote That" project update[edit]

Hello. I'm reaching out to you as you participated in the 2017 Community Wishlist proposal for "Who Wrote That" project (previously known as "Blame Tool"). The Community Tech team is kicking things off on the project and we have an early-stage mockup available for you to look at. I invite you to follow that project page, where I will be posting periodic status updates for the project. You are also welcome to provide your thoughts on the talk page. Thank you. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Video tutorial regarding Wikipedia referencing with VisualEditor[edit]

Hi, thank you very much for endorsing my grant funded project to create a video tutorial regarding creating references with VisualEditor. I would like to invite you to sign up for the project newsletter so that you will receive notifications when drafts and finished products are ready for public review. Regards, --Pine 05:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

SGrabarczuk (WMF)

18:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

SGrabarczuk (WMF)

16:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)