Mailing List Archive

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fuck the community, who cares [ In reply to ]
>
> *"@Fae: I do not think that it is within the spirit of the Nolan
> Principles to break a promise given to participants..."*
>


I'm sorry but quote someone on a on-line journal does not break the promise
of secrecy? If they speak believing they would never be quoted, put their
words on the Wikipedia Signpost isnt breaking that?

_____
*Béria Lima*

*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
construir esse sonho. <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>*


On 7 April 2014 09:53, eLib Project <elibproject@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey all!
>
> As I have been helping out with wikipedias from time to time, here my
> 5 cent:
>
> @Fae: I do not think that it is within the spirit of the Nolan
> Principles to break a promise given to participants... there is no
> trade-off possible between the principles for the principles
> (Leadership, Honesty, Integrity Selflessness Objectivity vs Openness,
> Accountability ?!). That is, after all the basic concept of
> principles - that they are even followed when you don't want to or
> like to.
>
> @discussion culture: To get to a decision, everyone must be allowed to
> express her/or himself in a discussion without fearing repercussions
> afterwards - otherwise you just get yes-people who will not
> participate or worse, tell you what you want to hear. Why it is
> important to say something stupid like "fuck the community" is because
> it came right from the inside, without prior going through a filter...
> with this reaction people will filter and you will not only loose
> dumb but also intelligent contributions.
>
> @future (sarcasm warning): if you do not wish this sort of
> comments, just say so in a general sense - YES, it's possible to
> get the message across without a witch/wizard hunt and even CHANGE
> the rules for the next time... learning without burning... how the
> world could have looked if this had been used more often...
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> gego
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fuck the community, who cares [ In reply to ]
Craig Franklin, 07/04/2014 13:16:
> I really have to wonder, do we want a community where the leaders have to
> be so anodyne, colourless, and always "on message" that the occasional
> "spirited" remark results in the Spanish Inquisition?

Dunno, but... reminds me of a certain recent event at Mozilla.
https://brionv.com/log/2014/04/05/people-should-be-allowed-to-be-wrong/

Nemo

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fuck the community, who cares [ In reply to ]
Dear all,

I beg your pardon, that I have quoted this statement in my blog.
As mentioned before, I had never intended to condemn anyone or even expose.

It served me merely to illustrate the various points of view. The fact that
this statement was highly exaggerated and was expressed in a moment of
excitement, should be clear for each by now.

Relating to the terms of the previously agreed-upon rules for this
workshop *("You
are OK to use and share the knowledge you gain, but not to make
confidential details public. So you can say afterwards "I know a chapter
had X problem and this is what they did and it did/didn't work". But it
would not be OK to post on an email list afterwards "I heard Wikimedia XX
had a treasurer called Joe Bloggs who stole all their money - what a bunch
of idiots".")* [1] I thought it was OK this way. I suppose I should have
been even more carefully.

Regards,
Steffen

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Boards_training_workshop_March_2014/Information#Expectations


2014-04-07 16:52 GMT+02:00 Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki@gmail.com>:

> Craig Franklin, 07/04/2014 13:16:
>
> I really have to wonder, do we want a community where the leaders have to
>> be so anodyne, colourless, and always "on message" that the occasional
>> "spirited" remark results in the Spanish Inquisition?
>>
>
> Dunno, but... reminds me of a certain recent event at Mozilla.
> https://brionv.com/log/2014/04/05/people-should-be-allowed-to-be-wrong/
>
> Nemo
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
Steffen Prößdorf
Treasurer, member of the board
Wikimedia Germany - Association for the promotion of free knowledge
http://wikimedia.de
Imagine a world, in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fuck the community, who cares [ In reply to ]
No. You may want to look at
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Standards_in_Public_Life>
this does not include keeping things secret just because someone said
"let's keep this secret". The exact opposite is true, if you are in a
trusted public position then you must show leadership for integrity,
honesty and openness even if this does mean explaining your actions
that you thought would stay in-camera under a "gentleman's agreement".
To do otherwise, as has been readily demonstrated by the history of UK
Government political networks, corrupts the movement by turning the
"higher ranks" into an Old Boys Club who are more likely to find ways
to cover up for each other, rather than be seen to be accountable.

It goes on to spell out that [Chapter Trustees] "are accountable for
their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves
to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office." Calling Tomasz a
troll as a way of dismissing a serious question about statements made
in meetings that Wikimedia donors paid for about the volunteer
community is not unreasonable. Had whomever said these things, came
forward and explained their point of view, in the same way as the
always delightful Christophe Henner has in this thread, then they
would have my respect and be seen to comply with the Nolan principles.

In comparison to Christophe's openness, Chris Keating's responses to
good faith questions about this workshop before it happened,[1] in
particular his blatantly dismissive replies to long term Wikimedian
well known activist Effeietsanders, seem well below how we expect
someone who has formally signed up to the Nolan principles as part of
the UK trustee code[2] to behave. As Michael Maggs is the one with a
duty as the UK Chairman to enforce this code, I am sure folks will be
welcome to ask him about these matters, and his expectation for
behaviour from his board members, both when in closed or open meetings
or on this email list, during the open meetings at the Wikimedia
Conference later this week. I hope such a discussion does not get
turned around into "how do we stop Tomasz from trolling us by asking
difficult questions".

Links:
1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boards_training_workshop_March_2014#Typo.3F
2. https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Trustee_Code_of_Conduct

Fae

On 7 April 2014 15:44, Béria Lima <berialima@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> *"@Fae: I do not think that it is within the spirit of the Nolan
>> Principles to break a promise given to participants..."*
>>
>
>
> I'm sorry but quote someone on a on-line journal does not break the promise
> of secrecy? If they speak believing they would never be quoted, put their
> words on the Wikipedia Signpost isnt breaking that?
>
> _____
> *Béria Lima*
>
> *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
> livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
> construir esse sonho. <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>*
>
>
> On 7 April 2014 09:53, eLib Project <elibproject@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hey all!
>>
>> As I have been helping out with wikipedias from time to time, here my
>> 5 cent:
>>
>> @Fae: I do not think that it is within the spirit of the Nolan
>> Principles to break a promise given to participants... there is no
>> trade-off possible between the principles for the principles
>> (Leadership, Honesty, Integrity Selflessness Objectivity vs Openness,
>> Accountability ?!). That is, after all the basic concept of
>> principles - that they are even followed when you don't want to or
>> like to.
>>
>> @discussion culture: To get to a decision, everyone must be allowed to
>> express her/or himself in a discussion without fearing repercussions
>> afterwards - otherwise you just get yes-people who will not
>> participate or worse, tell you what you want to hear. Why it is
>> important to say something stupid like "fuck the community" is because
>> it came right from the inside, without prior going through a filter...
>> with this reaction people will filter and you will not only loose
>> dumb but also intelligent contributions.
>>
>> @future (sarcasm warning): if you do not wish this sort of
>> comments, just say so in a general sense - YES, it's possible to
>> get the message across without a witch/wizard hunt and even CHANGE
>> the rules for the next time... learning without burning... how the
>> world could have looked if this had been used more often...
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> gego
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>



--
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fuck the community, who cares [ In reply to ]
On the other hand, http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_House_Rule

A long successful history associated with the Chatham House Rule.

It sounds like some variation on this was intended for the meeting.


-george william herbert
george.herbert@gmail.com

Sent from Kangphone

On Apr 7, 2014, at 8:49 AM, Fæ <faewik@gmail.com> wrote:

> No. You may want to look at
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Standards_in_Public_Life>
> this does not include keeping things secret just because someone said
> "let's keep this secret". The exact opposite is true, if you are in a
> trusted public position then you must show leadership for integrity,
> honesty and openness even if this does mean explaining your actions
> that you thought would stay in-camera under a "gentleman's agreement".
> To do otherwise, as has been readily demonstrated by the history of UK
> Government political networks, corrupts the movement by turning the
> "higher ranks" into an Old Boys Club who are more likely to find ways
> to cover up for each other, rather than be seen to be accountable.
>
> It goes on to spell out that [Chapter Trustees] "are accountable for
> their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves
> to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office." Calling Tomasz a
> troll as a way of dismissing a serious question about statements made
> in meetings that Wikimedia donors paid for about the volunteer
> community is not unreasonable. Had whomever said these things, came
> forward and explained their point of view, in the same way as the
> always delightful Christophe Henner has in this thread, then they
> would have my respect and be seen to comply with the Nolan principles.
>
> In comparison to Christophe's openness, Chris Keating's responses to
> good faith questions about this workshop before it happened,[1] in
> particular his blatantly dismissive replies to long term Wikimedian
> well known activist Effeietsanders, seem well below how we expect
> someone who has formally signed up to the Nolan principles as part of
> the UK trustee code[2] to behave. As Michael Maggs is the one with a
> duty as the UK Chairman to enforce this code, I am sure folks will be
> welcome to ask him about these matters, and his expectation for
> behaviour from his board members, both when in closed or open meetings
> or on this email list, during the open meetings at the Wikimedia
> Conference later this week. I hope such a discussion does not get
> turned around into "how do we stop Tomasz from trolling us by asking
> difficult questions".
>
> Links:
> 1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boards_training_workshop_March_2014#Typo.3F
> 2. https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Trustee_Code_of_Conduct
>
> Fae
>
> On 7 April 2014 15:44, Béria Lima <berialima@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> *"@Fae: I do not think that it is within the spirit of the Nolan
>>> Principles to break a promise given to participants..."*
>>
>>
>> I'm sorry but quote someone on a on-line journal does not break the promise
>> of secrecy? If they speak believing they would never be quoted, put their
>> words on the Wikipedia Signpost isnt breaking that?
>>
>> _____
>> *Béria Lima*
>>
>> *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
>> livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
>> construir esse sonho. <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>*
>>
>>
>> On 7 April 2014 09:53, eLib Project <elibproject@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hey all!
>>>
>>> As I have been helping out with wikipedias from time to time, here my
>>> 5 cent:
>>>
>>> @Fae: I do not think that it is within the spirit of the Nolan
>>> Principles to break a promise given to participants... there is no
>>> trade-off possible between the principles for the principles
>>> (Leadership, Honesty, Integrity Selflessness Objectivity vs Openness,
>>> Accountability ?!). That is, after all the basic concept of
>>> principles - that they are even followed when you don't want to or
>>> like to.
>>>
>>> @discussion culture: To get to a decision, everyone must be allowed to
>>> express her/or himself in a discussion without fearing repercussions
>>> afterwards - otherwise you just get yes-people who will not
>>> participate or worse, tell you what you want to hear. Why it is
>>> important to say something stupid like "fuck the community" is because
>>> it came right from the inside, without prior going through a filter...
>>> with this reaction people will filter and you will not only loose
>>> dumb but also intelligent contributions.
>>>
>>> @future (sarcasm warning): if you do not wish this sort of
>>> comments, just say so in a general sense - YES, it's possible to
>>> get the message across without a witch/wizard hunt and even CHANGE
>>> the rules for the next time... learning without burning... how the
>>> world could have looked if this had been used more often...
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> gego
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
> --
> faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fuck the community, who cares [ In reply to ]
On the other other hand, having any sort of "Chatham House Rule" in an
organisation which prides itself as having openness and transparency as one
of its core tenets......think about it people..........

Hell, we once had Oliver Keyes spouting on IRC how lowly he thinks of Jimmy
Wales (in addition to attacking other editors) and he was rewarded with a
promotion and a shout-out from Sue at Wikimania, so seriously, the
organisation has no need for any "Chatham House Rule".

What is the issue here, isn't so much the comment that was made, but the
context in which it was made. We keep hearing about context. Well give us
context guys. Surely the context isn't a secret?

Or will you all prove true Fae's comments: "corrupts the movement by
turning the "higher ranks" into an Old Boys Club who are more likely to
find ways to cover up for each other, rather than be seen to be
accountable."

Russavia
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fuck the community, who cares [ In reply to ]
Way to completely miss the point.

Sometimes, the rule of nonattribution is necessary to foster open exchange of views. Nothing anyone has said disputes that.

If you disagree, disagree before the meeting, not after.


-george william herbert
george.herbert@gmail.com

Sent from Kangphone

On Apr 7, 2014, at 9:31 AM, Russavia <russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com> wrote:

> On the other other hand, having any sort of "Chatham House Rule" in an
> organisation which prides itself as having openness and transparency as one
> of its core tenets......think about it people..........
>
> Hell, we once had Oliver Keyes spouting on IRC how lowly he thinks of Jimmy
> Wales (in addition to attacking other editors) and he was rewarded with a
> promotion and a shout-out from Sue at Wikimania, so seriously, the
> organisation has no need for any "Chatham House Rule".
>
> What is the issue here, isn't so much the comment that was made, but the
> context in which it was made. We keep hearing about context. Well give us
> context guys. Surely the context isn't a secret?
>
> Or will you all prove true Fae's comments: "corrupts the movement by
> turning the "higher ranks" into an Old Boys Club who are more likely to
> find ways to cover up for each other, rather than be seen to be
> accountable."
>
> Russavia
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fuck the community, who cares [ In reply to ]
I think this topic has been overblown. It's not as if anyone on this
mailing list has any right or opportunity to pressure a chapter to remove a
member of their Board - unless those individuals are members of the
specific chapter. And really, if you're an active member of that chapter,
you should already be aware of the people who are on the Board, and their
general attitudes toward the community - and their definition of what they
consider to be the "community" they're representing or interacting with.

It's important to remember that there's a huge range in the extent and
nature of relationships between chapters and the editorial communities to
which they are most closely attached. In some cases, the chapters are made
up almost entirely of active community members from a specific project; in
other cases, membership and voting rights in a chapter are linked to
donations or are wide open to anyone who wants to be a member, whether or
not they are active participants in any WMF project. Even when chapters
actively support editing community initiatives, those initiatives have to
fit within the broader umbrella of the project as a whole. There are half
a dozen chapters whose members are most closely affiliated with English
Wikipedia, for example, so their ability to affect the broader community is
small.

There are examples on Meta of chapter trustees who do focus on the
separation between the chapters and the editing communities, and describe
where they see the two interfacing; those are public statements made by
individuals, and it's reasonable to respond to those. I'm not seeing a lot
of benefit in getting out the pitchforks and torches to go after a single
individual for an uncontextualized comment attributed to them.

Risker/Anne
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fuck the community, who cares [ In reply to ]
Just to clarify that I don't believe Tomasz, the original poster, was
trolling.

You, Ashley, have been doing so spectacularly :)
On 7 Apr 2014 16:50, "Fæ" <faewik@gmail.com> wrote:

> No. You may want to look at
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Standards_in_Public_Life>
> this does not include keeping things secret just because someone said
> "let's keep this secret". The exact opposite is true, if you are in a
> trusted public position then you must show leadership for integrity,
> honesty and openness even if this does mean explaining your actions
> that you thought would stay in-camera under a "gentleman's agreement".
> To do otherwise, as has been readily demonstrated by the history of UK
> Government political networks, corrupts the movement by turning the
> "higher ranks" into an Old Boys Club who are more likely to find ways
> to cover up for each other, rather than be seen to be accountable.
>
> It goes on to spell out that [Chapter Trustees] "are accountable for
> their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves
> to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office." Calling Tomasz a
> troll as a way of dismissing a serious question about statements made
> in meetings that Wikimedia donors paid for about the volunteer
> community is not unreasonable. Had whomever said these things, came
> forward and explained their point of view, in the same way as the
> always delightful Christophe Henner has in this thread, then they
> would have my respect and be seen to comply with the Nolan principles.
>
> In comparison to Christophe's openness, Chris Keating's responses to
> good faith questions about this workshop before it happened,[1] in
> particular his blatantly dismissive replies to long term Wikimedian
> well known activist Effeietsanders, seem well below how we expect
> someone who has formally signed up to the Nolan principles as part of
> the UK trustee code[2] to behave. As Michael Maggs is the one with a
> duty as the UK Chairman to enforce this code, I am sure folks will be
> welcome to ask him about these matters, and his expectation for
> behaviour from his board members, both when in closed or open meetings
> or on this email list, during the open meetings at the Wikimedia
> Conference later this week. I hope such a discussion does not get
> turned around into "how do we stop Tomasz from trolling us by asking
> difficult questions".
>
> Links:
> 1.
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boards_training_workshop_March_2014#Typo.3F
> 2. https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Trustee_Code_of_Conduct
>
> Fae
>
> On 7 April 2014 15:44, Béria Lima <berialima@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> *"@Fae: I do not think that it is within the spirit of the Nolan
> >> Principles to break a promise given to participants..."*
> >>
> >
> >
> > I'm sorry but quote someone on a on-line journal does not break the
> promise
> > of secrecy? If they speak believing they would never be quoted, put their
> > words on the Wikipedia Signpost isnt breaking that?
> >
> > _____
> > *Béria Lima*
> >
> > *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
> > livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
> > construir esse sonho. <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>*
> >
> >
> > On 7 April 2014 09:53, eLib Project <elibproject@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hey all!
> >>
> >> As I have been helping out with wikipedias from time to time, here my
> >> 5 cent:
> >>
> >> @Fae: I do not think that it is within the spirit of the Nolan
> >> Principles to break a promise given to participants... there is no
> >> trade-off possible between the principles for the principles
> >> (Leadership, Honesty, Integrity Selflessness Objectivity vs Openness,
> >> Accountability ?!). That is, after all the basic concept
> of
> >> principles - that they are even followed when you don't want to or
> >> like to.
> >>
> >> @discussion culture: To get to a decision, everyone must be allowed to
> >> express her/or himself in a discussion without fearing repercussions
> >> afterwards - otherwise you just get yes-people who will not
> >> participate or worse, tell you what you want to hear. Why it is
> >> important to say something stupid like "fuck the community" is because
> >> it came right from the inside, without prior going through a filter...
> >> with this reaction people will filter and you will not only loose
> >> dumb but also intelligent contributions.
> >>
> >> @future (sarcasm warning): if you do not wish this sort of
> >> comments, just say so in a general sense - YES, it's possible to
> >> get the message across without a witch/wizard hunt and even CHANGE
> >> the rules for the next time... learning without burning... how the
> >> world could have looked if this had been used more often...
> >>
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> gego
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
> --
> faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fuck the community, who cares [ In reply to ]
I don't find it "deeply disturbing". What, now everybody must love
absolutely all wiki[mp]edians?

Let her air her thoughts. Or has that also become forbidden?

M.

El 07/04/2014 12:16 p.m., Tomasz W. Kozlowski escribió:
> Ziko van Dijk wrote
>
>> I think that a single quote by a unnamed "female Wikimedian", said in
>> public or in private, is a very small basis for any substantiate
>> criticism...
>
> Thanks to Chris e-mail's, we now know that the comment was made during
> a public session (though I can't find the relevant section in the
> minutes on Meta).
>
> That the identity of the person is currently unknown is due to the
> fact that it has not been revealed by other participants in that
> workshop; I'm sure Chris, and Steffen, and other people know very well
> who that person is.
>
> I'm used to the secrecy, but I find it deeply disturbing that such a
> comment could have been made during a public workshop "in passing";
> however, it would fit perfectly in the alleged divisions between some
> chapters and their respective communities.
>
> Where the idea that a single entity (here: a chapter) knows better
> what's best for a community than the community does itself come from,
> I'm not sure.
>
> Tomasz
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

--
"*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua
junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."
Carlos Manuel Colina
Vicepresidente
A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela
RIF J-40129321-2
+972-52-4869915
www.wikimedia.org.ve
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fuck the community, who cares [ In reply to ]
Carlos M. Colina wrote:
> I don't find it "deeply disturbing". What, now everybody must love
> absolutely all wiki[mp]edians?

Yes, what's wrong with fucking the community? Let's go do it, we don't
need that useless bunch of moaning robots!

Tomasz

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fuck the community, who cares [ In reply to ]
Look, there is too much drama in telenovelas to add another one. You
guys are overreacting over it.


M.

El 07/04/2014 11:36 p.m., Tomasz W. Kozlowski escribió:
> Carlos M. Colina wrote:
>> I don't find it "deeply disturbing". What, now everybody must love
>> absolutely all wiki[mp]edians?
>
> Yes, what's wrong with fucking the community? Let's go do it, we don't
> need that useless bunch of moaning robots!
>
> Tomasz
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

--
"*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua
junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."
Carlos Manuel Colina
Vicepresidente
A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela
RIF J-40129321-2
+972-52-4869915
www.wikimedia.org.ve
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fuck the community, who cares [ In reply to ]
I'm not sure I want to be subscribed to this mailing list any more. :-( What happened to the intelligent conversation that used to take place here?

Thanks,
Mike

On 7 Apr 2014, at 22:38, Carlos M. Colina <maorx@wikimedia.org.ve> wrote:

> Look, there is too much drama in telenovelas to add another one. You guys are overreacting over it.
>
>
> M.
>
> El 07/04/2014 11:36 p.m., Tomasz W. Kozlowski escribió:
>> Carlos M. Colina wrote:
>>> I don't find it "deeply disturbing". What, now everybody must love absolutely all wiki[mp]edians?
>>
>> Yes, what's wrong with fucking the community? Let's go do it, we don't need that useless bunch of moaning robots!
>>
>> Tomasz
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> --
> "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."
> Carlos Manuel Colina
> Vicepresidente
> A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela
> RIF J-40129321-2
> +972-52-4869915
> www.wikimedia.org.ve
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fuck the community, who cares [ In reply to ]
On 7 April 2014 22:40, Michael Peel <email@mikepeel.net> wrote:

> I'm not sure I want to be subscribed to this mailing list any more. :-( What happened to the intelligent conversation that used to take place here?


This year, Fae and Russavia.


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fuck the community, who cares [ In reply to ]
On Tuesday, 8 April 2014, Michael Peel <email@mikepeel.net> wrote:

What happened to the intelligent conversation that used to take place here?
>
> There used to be intelligent conversation on wikimedia-l? As I remember
it foundation-l was always famous for a seemingly endless supply
of controversy (mostly hyperbole), conspiracy, pedantry and
he-said-she-said petty attacks. I don't think there ever was a 'good old
days', only the protagonists change. Unless that was the point you were
actually making? :-)


--
wittylama.com
Peace, love & metadata
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fuck the community, who cares [ In reply to ]
With all due respect, Gerard, not the bearer ofthe message, Tomas, is
the problem, the problem arises where there are people who can make
decisions with far-reaching consequences - and be selected for it - but
then assume one for me unacceptable position against that group whose
services are the basis for their own position.

Fuck the Community, who cares, was not the only thing, much worse for me
is the meaning, that free knowledge is easier to buy than to get by
edits and edits.

Of whose money? By those who make one edit after the other? Taking
photos, one after another and upload them?

I know Steffen good enough and I know, that he is able to tell apart
explanations which happens within an special group dynamic process. If
this has occured, he would not have written this in his blog.

h
Am 07.04.2014 12:52, schrieb Gerard Meijssen:
> Hoi,
> What is it that you intend to do. Hang them and, hang them high??
>
> You already know that it was in a very emotional moment ...
>
> What is your objective? What do you expect as a result and how will that be
> in everyone's benefit??
> Thanks,
> Gerard
>
>
> On 7 April 2014 12:16, Tomasz W. Kozlowski <tomasz@twkozlowski.net> wrote:
>
>> Ziko van Dijk wrote
>>
>>
>> I think that a single quote by a unnamed "female Wikimedian", said in
>>> public or in private, is a very small basis for any substantiate
>>> criticism...
>>>
>> Thanks to Chris e-mail's, we now know that the comment was made during a
>> public session (though I can't find the relevant section in the minutes on
>> Meta).
>>
>> That the identity of the person is currently unknown is due to the fact
>> that it has not been revealed by other participants in that workshop; I'm
>> sure Chris, and Steffen, and other people know very well who that person is.
>>
>> I'm used to the secrecy, but I find it deeply disturbing that such a
>> comment could have been made during a public workshop "in passing";
>> however, it would fit perfectly in the alleged divisions between some
>> chapters and their respective communities.
>>
>> Where the idea that a single entity (here: a chapter) knows better what's
>> best for a community than the community does itself come from, I'm not sure.
>>
>>
>> Tomasz
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fuck the community, who cares [ In reply to ]
Hoi,
Take one step back. What our aim is, is to share in the sum of all
knowledge. Arguably, this is the main and overriding objective of what we
do. There are many strategies to get to the point where we share
information. From where I stand, with Wikidata we have the opportunity to
do better than with an only Wikipedia strategy: with Wikipedia we share the
sum of knowledge that is available in one Wikipedia and with Wikidata we
share in the sum of all the knowledge that is available to us.

Wikidata provides access to more information than any Wikipedia by a large
margin.

There are those in our communities who aim to restrict the practices that
realise Wikidata as the resource of information that is available to us. To
say it in a political correct way, they can be and should be ignored. There
are organisations that want to share information with us under a CC-0
license and there are those who want to share information under a CC-by
license. The later can and should be ignored as well.

However, when I am to argue these points in a private setting, I will say
that they can screw themselves. It is to make the point forcefully, it is
to hammer on the fact that our objective is not the community but the
sharing of knowledge. Yes, the community is important but that is the
extend of it. When we can gain authoritative information provided by a
GLAM, we should not consider the fact that we can enter all that
information by hand. Those who want to add statements by hand can do so but
they should not force their behaviour and attitudes on others.
Thanks,
GerardM



On 8 April 2014 00:45, Hubert Laska <hubert.laska@gmx.at> wrote:

> With all due respect, Gerard, not the bearer ofthe message, Tomas, is the
> problem, the problem arises where there are people who can make decisions
> with far-reaching consequences - and be selected for it - but then assume
> one for me unacceptable position against that group whose services are the
> basis for their own position.
>
> Fuck the Community, who cares, was not the only thing, much worse for me
> is the meaning, that free knowledge is easier to buy than to get by edits
> and edits.
>
> Of whose money? By those who make one edit after the other? Taking photos,
> one after another and upload them?
>
> I know Steffen good enough and I know, that he is able to tell apart
> explanations which happens within an special group dynamic process. If this
> has occured, he would not have written this in his blog.
>
> h
> Am 07.04.2014 12:52, schrieb Gerard Meijssen:
>
> Hoi,
>> What is it that you intend to do. Hang them and, hang them high??
>>
>> You already know that it was in a very emotional moment ...
>>
>> What is your objective? What do you expect as a result and how will that
>> be
>> in everyone's benefit??
>> Thanks,
>> Gerard
>>
>>
>> On 7 April 2014 12:16, Tomasz W. Kozlowski <tomasz@twkozlowski.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Ziko van Dijk wrote
>>>
>>>
>>> I think that a single quote by a unnamed "female Wikimedian", said in
>>>
>>>> public or in private, is a very small basis for any substantiate
>>>> criticism...
>>>>
>>>> Thanks to Chris e-mail's, we now know that the comment was made during
>>> a
>>> public session (though I can't find the relevant section in the minutes
>>> on
>>> Meta).
>>>
>>> That the identity of the person is currently unknown is due to the fact
>>> that it has not been revealed by other participants in that workshop; I'm
>>> sure Chris, and Steffen, and other people know very well who that person
>>> is.
>>>
>>> I'm used to the secrecy, but I find it deeply disturbing that such a
>>> comment could have been made during a public workshop "in passing";
>>> however, it would fit perfectly in the alleged divisions between some
>>> chapters and their respective communities.
>>>
>>> Where the idea that a single entity (here: a chapter) knows better what's
>>> best for a community than the community does itself come from, I'm not
>>> sure.
>>>
>>>
>>> Tomasz
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fuck the community, who cares [ In reply to ]
Gerard,
I think you mean "There are organisations that want to share CC-0
information with us under a CC-0 license and there are those who want
to share CC-0 information under a CC-by
license." We are fine with organizations sharing CC-by information
under a CC-by license, no?

O and I agree completely on the Wikidata thing.

Jane
PS: I also agree that the person who said these words is, in fact a
member of the community like the rest of us and therefore has every
right to use those words in a meeting during which community issues
are being discussed. I have heard worse in discussions by members of
one part of the community (Commons people) talking about other members
of the community (Dutch Wikipedians) and the other way around. Maybe
it's a cultural thing and we swear a lot in our internal meetups in
the Netherlands, dunno about that, but I never felt offended when I
heard these statements and in context have agreed with both parties.

2014-04-08 8:22 GMT+02:00, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>:
> Hoi,
> Take one step back. What our aim is, is to share in the sum of all
> knowledge. Arguably, this is the main and overriding objective of what we
> do. There are many strategies to get to the point where we share
> information. From where I stand, with Wikidata we have the opportunity to
> do better than with an only Wikipedia strategy: with Wikipedia we share the
> sum of knowledge that is available in one Wikipedia and with Wikidata we
> share in the sum of all the knowledge that is available to us.
>
> Wikidata provides access to more information than any Wikipedia by a large
> margin.
>
> There are those in our communities who aim to restrict the practices that
> realise Wikidata as the resource of information that is available to us. To
> say it in a political correct way, they can be and should be ignored. There
> are organisations that want to share information with us under a CC-0
> license and there are those who want to share information under a CC-by
> license. The later can and should be ignored as well.
>
> However, when I am to argue these points in a private setting, I will say
> that they can screw themselves. It is to make the point forcefully, it is
> to hammer on the fact that our objective is not the community but the
> sharing of knowledge. Yes, the community is important but that is the
> extend of it. When we can gain authoritative information provided by a
> GLAM, we should not consider the fact that we can enter all that
> information by hand. Those who want to add statements by hand can do so but
> they should not force their behaviour and attitudes on others.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
>
>
> On 8 April 2014 00:45, Hubert Laska <hubert.laska@gmx.at> wrote:
>
>> With all due respect, Gerard, not the bearer ofthe message, Tomas, is the
>> problem, the problem arises where there are people who can make decisions
>> with far-reaching consequences - and be selected for it - but then assume
>> one for me unacceptable position against that group whose services are the
>> basis for their own position.
>>
>> Fuck the Community, who cares, was not the only thing, much worse for me
>> is the meaning, that free knowledge is easier to buy than to get by edits
>> and edits.
>>
>> Of whose money? By those who make one edit after the other? Taking photos,
>> one after another and upload them?
>>
>> I know Steffen good enough and I know, that he is able to tell apart
>> explanations which happens within an special group dynamic process. If
>> this
>> has occured, he would not have written this in his blog.
>>
>> h
>> Am 07.04.2014 12:52, schrieb Gerard Meijssen:
>>
>> Hoi,
>>> What is it that you intend to do. Hang them and, hang them high??
>>>
>>> You already know that it was in a very emotional moment ...
>>>
>>> What is your objective? What do you expect as a result and how will that
>>> be
>>> in everyone's benefit??
>>> Thanks,
>>> Gerard
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7 April 2014 12:16, Tomasz W. Kozlowski <tomasz@twkozlowski.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Ziko van Dijk wrote
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think that a single quote by a unnamed "female Wikimedian", said in
>>>>
>>>>> public or in private, is a very small basis for any substantiate
>>>>> criticism...
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks to Chris e-mail's, we now know that the comment was made during
>>>> a
>>>> public session (though I can't find the relevant section in the minutes
>>>> on
>>>> Meta).
>>>>
>>>> That the identity of the person is currently unknown is due to the fact
>>>> that it has not been revealed by other participants in that workshop;
>>>> I'm
>>>> sure Chris, and Steffen, and other people know very well who that person
>>>> is.
>>>>
>>>> I'm used to the secrecy, but I find it deeply disturbing that such a
>>>> comment could have been made during a public workshop "in passing";
>>>> however, it would fit perfectly in the alleged divisions between some
>>>> chapters and their respective communities.
>>>>
>>>> Where the idea that a single entity (here: a chapter) knows better
>>>> what's
>>>> best for a community than the community does itself come from, I'm not
>>>> sure.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tomasz
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fuck the community, who cares [ In reply to ]
Ziko van Dijk wrote:
> I think that a single quote by a unnamed "female Wikimedian", said in
> public or in private, is a very small basis for any substantiate
> criticism...

I've said "fuck the community" a fair few times. And "fuck the
foundation" and "fuck chapter [name]". Generally, all of them under
my breath and without being reported on in the Signpost.

In fact, this whole thread is making me say things like “why the hell
am I still subscribed to this increasingly pointless mailing list?”

Storms in teacups, mountains out of molehills, wikidramas out of
off-the-cuff remarks. Is there not an encyclopedia that needs editing?

--
Tom Morris
<http://tommorris.org/>
--
Tom Morris
<http://tommorris.org/>


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fuck the community, who cares [ In reply to ]
Hoi,
From where I stand ie Wikidata, the license we use is CC-0. When a GLAM
wants to share data it has to be CC-0. When it is CC-by or CC-by-sa, we
cannot use it. We do not retrieve it from their database we will find the
same data from elsewhere where there is no such burden.

When people use CC-by-sa data in for instance Wikipedia, we do harvest that
information because once it is embedded in Wikipedia, it is no longer part
of the original database that prohibits us from using it based on the
database rights. At that point it is part of a completely different set of
information. It is retrieved one factoid at a time and the origin of the
data is no longer an issue.
Thanks,
GerardM


On 8 April 2014 10:40, Jane Darnell <jane023@gmail.com> wrote:

> Gerard,
> I think you mean "There are organisations that want to share CC-0
> information with us under a CC-0 license and there are those who want
> to share CC-0 information under a CC-by
> license." We are fine with organizations sharing CC-by information
> under a CC-by license, no?
>
> O and I agree completely on the Wikidata thing.
>
> Jane
> PS: I also agree that the person who said these words is, in fact a
> member of the community like the rest of us and therefore has every
> right to use those words in a meeting during which community issues
> are being discussed. I have heard worse in discussions by members of
> one part of the community (Commons people) talking about other members
> of the community (Dutch Wikipedians) and the other way around. Maybe
> it's a cultural thing and we swear a lot in our internal meetups in
> the Netherlands, dunno about that, but I never felt offended when I
> heard these statements and in context have agreed with both parties.
>
> 2014-04-08 8:22 GMT+02:00, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>:
> > Hoi,
> > Take one step back. What our aim is, is to share in the sum of all
> > knowledge. Arguably, this is the main and overriding objective of what we
> > do. There are many strategies to get to the point where we share
> > information. From where I stand, with Wikidata we have the opportunity to
> > do better than with an only Wikipedia strategy: with Wikipedia we share
> the
> > sum of knowledge that is available in one Wikipedia and with Wikidata we
> > share in the sum of all the knowledge that is available to us.
> >
> > Wikidata provides access to more information than any Wikipedia by a
> large
> > margin.
> >
> > There are those in our communities who aim to restrict the practices that
> > realise Wikidata as the resource of information that is available to us.
> To
> > say it in a political correct way, they can be and should be ignored.
> There
> > are organisations that want to share information with us under a CC-0
> > license and there are those who want to share information under a CC-by
> > license. The later can and should be ignored as well.
> >
> > However, when I am to argue these points in a private setting, I will say
> > that they can screw themselves. It is to make the point forcefully, it is
> > to hammer on the fact that our objective is not the community but the
> > sharing of knowledge. Yes, the community is important but that is the
> > extend of it. When we can gain authoritative information provided by a
> > GLAM, we should not consider the fact that we can enter all that
> > information by hand. Those who want to add statements by hand can do so
> but
> > they should not force their behaviour and attitudes on others.
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> >
> >
> > On 8 April 2014 00:45, Hubert Laska <hubert.laska@gmx.at> wrote:
> >
> >> With all due respect, Gerard, not the bearer ofthe message, Tomas, is
> the
> >> problem, the problem arises where there are people who can make
> decisions
> >> with far-reaching consequences - and be selected for it - but then
> assume
> >> one for me unacceptable position against that group whose services are
> the
> >> basis for their own position.
> >>
> >> Fuck the Community, who cares, was not the only thing, much worse for me
> >> is the meaning, that free knowledge is easier to buy than to get by
> edits
> >> and edits.
> >>
> >> Of whose money? By those who make one edit after the other? Taking
> photos,
> >> one after another and upload them?
> >>
> >> I know Steffen good enough and I know, that he is able to tell apart
> >> explanations which happens within an special group dynamic process. If
> >> this
> >> has occured, he would not have written this in his blog.
> >>
> >> h
> >> Am 07.04.2014 12:52, schrieb Gerard Meijssen:
> >>
> >> Hoi,
> >>> What is it that you intend to do. Hang them and, hang them high??
> >>>
> >>> You already know that it was in a very emotional moment ...
> >>>
> >>> What is your objective? What do you expect as a result and how will
> that
> >>> be
> >>> in everyone's benefit??
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Gerard
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 7 April 2014 12:16, Tomasz W. Kozlowski <tomasz@twkozlowski.net>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Ziko van Dijk wrote
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I think that a single quote by a unnamed "female Wikimedian", said
> in
> >>>>
> >>>>> public or in private, is a very small basis for any substantiate
> >>>>> criticism...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks to Chris e-mail's, we now know that the comment was made
> during
> >>>> a
> >>>> public session (though I can't find the relevant section in the
> minutes
> >>>> on
> >>>> Meta).
> >>>>
> >>>> That the identity of the person is currently unknown is due to the
> fact
> >>>> that it has not been revealed by other participants in that workshop;
> >>>> I'm
> >>>> sure Chris, and Steffen, and other people know very well who that
> person
> >>>> is.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm used to the secrecy, but I find it deeply disturbing that such a
> >>>> comment could have been made during a public workshop "in passing";
> >>>> however, it would fit perfectly in the alleged divisions between some
> >>>> chapters and their respective communities.
> >>>>
> >>>> Where the idea that a single entity (here: a chapter) knows better
> >>>> what's
> >>>> best for a community than the community does itself come from, I'm not
> >>>> sure.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Tomasz
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> >>>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> >>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> >>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fuck the community, who cares [ In reply to ]
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>wrote:

> Hoi,
> From where I stand ie Wikidata, the license we use is CC-0. When a GLAM
> wants to share data it has to be CC-0. When it is CC-by or CC-by-sa, we
> cannot use it. We do not retrieve it from their database we will find the
> same data from elsewhere where there is no such burden.
>
> When people use CC-by-sa data in for instance Wikipedia, we do harvest that
> information because once it is embedded in Wikipedia, it is no longer part
> of the original database that prohibits us from using it based on the
> database rights. At that point it is part of a completely different set of
> information. It is retrieved one factoid at a time and the origin of the
> data is no longer an issue.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>

Why are we talking about the license of Wikidata in this thread?

Come to think of it, why are we still talking at all in this thread?



>
>
> On 8 April 2014 10:40, Jane Darnell <jane023@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Gerard,
> > I think you mean "There are organisations that want to share CC-0
> > information with us under a CC-0 license and there are those who want
> > to share CC-0 information under a CC-by
> > license." We are fine with organizations sharing CC-by information
> > under a CC-by license, no?
> >
> > O and I agree completely on the Wikidata thing.
> >
> > Jane
> > PS: I also agree that the person who said these words is, in fact a
> > member of the community like the rest of us and therefore has every
> > right to use those words in a meeting during which community issues
> > are being discussed. I have heard worse in discussions by members of
> > one part of the community (Commons people) talking about other members
> > of the community (Dutch Wikipedians) and the other way around. Maybe
> > it's a cultural thing and we swear a lot in our internal meetups in
> > the Netherlands, dunno about that, but I never felt offended when I
> > heard these statements and in context have agreed with both parties.
> >
> > 2014-04-08 8:22 GMT+02:00, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>:
> > > Hoi,
> > > Take one step back. What our aim is, is to share in the sum of all
> > > knowledge. Arguably, this is the main and overriding objective of what
> we
> > > do. There are many strategies to get to the point where we share
> > > information. From where I stand, with Wikidata we have the opportunity
> to
> > > do better than with an only Wikipedia strategy: with Wikipedia we share
> > the
> > > sum of knowledge that is available in one Wikipedia and with Wikidata
> we
> > > share in the sum of all the knowledge that is available to us.
> > >
> > > Wikidata provides access to more information than any Wikipedia by a
> > large
> > > margin.
> > >
> > > There are those in our communities who aim to restrict the practices
> that
> > > realise Wikidata as the resource of information that is available to
> us.
> > To
> > > say it in a political correct way, they can be and should be ignored.
> > There
> > > are organisations that want to share information with us under a CC-0
> > > license and there are those who want to share information under a CC-by
> > > license. The later can and should be ignored as well.
> > >
> > > However, when I am to argue these points in a private setting, I will
> say
> > > that they can screw themselves. It is to make the point forcefully, it
> is
> > > to hammer on the fact that our objective is not the community but the
> > > sharing of knowledge. Yes, the community is important but that is the
> > > extend of it. When we can gain authoritative information provided by a
> > > GLAM, we should not consider the fact that we can enter all that
> > > information by hand. Those who want to add statements by hand can do so
> > but
> > > they should not force their behaviour and attitudes on others.
> > > Thanks,
> > > GerardM
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 8 April 2014 00:45, Hubert Laska <hubert.laska@gmx.at> wrote:
> > >
> > >> With all due respect, Gerard, not the bearer ofthe message, Tomas, is
> > the
> > >> problem, the problem arises where there are people who can make
> > decisions
> > >> with far-reaching consequences - and be selected for it - but then
> > assume
> > >> one for me unacceptable position against that group whose services are
> > the
> > >> basis for their own position.
> > >>
> > >> Fuck the Community, who cares, was not the only thing, much worse for
> me
> > >> is the meaning, that free knowledge is easier to buy than to get by
> > edits
> > >> and edits.
> > >>
> > >> Of whose money? By those who make one edit after the other? Taking
> > photos,
> > >> one after another and upload them?
> > >>
> > >> I know Steffen good enough and I know, that he is able to tell apart
> > >> explanations which happens within an special group dynamic process. If
> > >> this
> > >> has occured, he would not have written this in his blog.
> > >>
> > >> h
> > >> Am 07.04.2014 12:52, schrieb Gerard Meijssen:
> > >>
> > >> Hoi,
> > >>> What is it that you intend to do. Hang them and, hang them high??
> > >>>
> > >>> You already know that it was in a very emotional moment ...
> > >>>
> > >>> What is your objective? What do you expect as a result and how will
> > that
> > >>> be
> > >>> in everyone's benefit??
> > >>> Thanks,
> > >>> Gerard
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On 7 April 2014 12:16, Tomasz W. Kozlowski <tomasz@twkozlowski.net>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Ziko van Dijk wrote
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I think that a single quote by a unnamed "female Wikimedian", said
> > in
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> public or in private, is a very small basis for any substantiate
> > >>>>> criticism...
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Thanks to Chris e-mail's, we now know that the comment was made
> > during
> > >>>> a
> > >>>> public session (though I can't find the relevant section in the
> > minutes
> > >>>> on
> > >>>> Meta).
> > >>>>
> > >>>> That the identity of the person is currently unknown is due to the
> > fact
> > >>>> that it has not been revealed by other participants in that
> workshop;
> > >>>> I'm
> > >>>> sure Chris, and Steffen, and other people know very well who that
> > person
> > >>>> is.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I'm used to the secrecy, but I find it deeply disturbing that such a
> > >>>> comment could have been made during a public workshop "in passing";
> > >>>> however, it would fit perfectly in the alleged divisions between
> some
> > >>>> chapters and their respective communities.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Where the idea that a single entity (here: a chapter) knows better
> > >>>> what's
> > >>>> best for a community than the community does itself come from, I'm
> not
> > >>>> sure.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Tomasz
> > >>>>
> > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > >>>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >>>> Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > ,
> > >>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > >>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >>> Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > >>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fuck the community, who cares [ In reply to ]
Hoi,
One reason is that the license of Wikidata is questioned by members of the
Wikidata community.
Thanks,
GerardM


On 8 April 2014 11:27, Martijn Hoekstra <martijnhoekstra@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Gerard Meijssen
> <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > From where I stand ie Wikidata, the license we use is CC-0. When a GLAM
> > wants to share data it has to be CC-0. When it is CC-by or CC-by-sa, we
> > cannot use it. We do not retrieve it from their database we will find the
> > same data from elsewhere where there is no such burden.
> >
> > When people use CC-by-sa data in for instance Wikipedia, we do harvest
> that
> > information because once it is embedded in Wikipedia, it is no longer
> part
> > of the original database that prohibits us from using it based on the
> > database rights. At that point it is part of a completely different set
> of
> > information. It is retrieved one factoid at a time and the origin of the
> > data is no longer an issue.
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
>
> Why are we talking about the license of Wikidata in this thread?
>
> Come to think of it, why are we still talking at all in this thread?
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > On 8 April 2014 10:40, Jane Darnell <jane023@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Gerard,
> > > I think you mean "There are organisations that want to share CC-0
> > > information with us under a CC-0 license and there are those who want
> > > to share CC-0 information under a CC-by
> > > license." We are fine with organizations sharing CC-by information
> > > under a CC-by license, no?
> > >
> > > O and I agree completely on the Wikidata thing.
> > >
> > > Jane
> > > PS: I also agree that the person who said these words is, in fact a
> > > member of the community like the rest of us and therefore has every
> > > right to use those words in a meeting during which community issues
> > > are being discussed. I have heard worse in discussions by members of
> > > one part of the community (Commons people) talking about other members
> > > of the community (Dutch Wikipedians) and the other way around. Maybe
> > > it's a cultural thing and we swear a lot in our internal meetups in
> > > the Netherlands, dunno about that, but I never felt offended when I
> > > heard these statements and in context have agreed with both parties.
> > >
> > > 2014-04-08 8:22 GMT+02:00, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
> >:
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > Take one step back. What our aim is, is to share in the sum of all
> > > > knowledge. Arguably, this is the main and overriding objective of
> what
> > we
> > > > do. There are many strategies to get to the point where we share
> > > > information. From where I stand, with Wikidata we have the
> opportunity
> > to
> > > > do better than with an only Wikipedia strategy: with Wikipedia we
> share
> > > the
> > > > sum of knowledge that is available in one Wikipedia and with Wikidata
> > we
> > > > share in the sum of all the knowledge that is available to us.
> > > >
> > > > Wikidata provides access to more information than any Wikipedia by a
> > > large
> > > > margin.
> > > >
> > > > There are those in our communities who aim to restrict the practices
> > that
> > > > realise Wikidata as the resource of information that is available to
> > us.
> > > To
> > > > say it in a political correct way, they can be and should be ignored.
> > > There
> > > > are organisations that want to share information with us under a CC-0
> > > > license and there are those who want to share information under a
> CC-by
> > > > license. The later can and should be ignored as well.
> > > >
> > > > However, when I am to argue these points in a private setting, I will
> > say
> > > > that they can screw themselves. It is to make the point forcefully,
> it
> > is
> > > > to hammer on the fact that our objective is not the community but the
> > > > sharing of knowledge. Yes, the community is important but that is the
> > > > extend of it. When we can gain authoritative information provided by
> a
> > > > GLAM, we should not consider the fact that we can enter all that
> > > > information by hand. Those who want to add statements by hand can do
> so
> > > but
> > > > they should not force their behaviour and attitudes on others.
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > GerardM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 8 April 2014 00:45, Hubert Laska <hubert.laska@gmx.at> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> With all due respect, Gerard, not the bearer ofthe message, Tomas,
> is
> > > the
> > > >> problem, the problem arises where there are people who can make
> > > decisions
> > > >> with far-reaching consequences - and be selected for it - but then
> > > assume
> > > >> one for me unacceptable position against that group whose services
> are
> > > the
> > > >> basis for their own position.
> > > >>
> > > >> Fuck the Community, who cares, was not the only thing, much worse
> for
> > me
> > > >> is the meaning, that free knowledge is easier to buy than to get by
> > > edits
> > > >> and edits.
> > > >>
> > > >> Of whose money? By those who make one edit after the other? Taking
> > > photos,
> > > >> one after another and upload them?
> > > >>
> > > >> I know Steffen good enough and I know, that he is able to tell apart
> > > >> explanations which happens within an special group dynamic process.
> If
> > > >> this
> > > >> has occured, he would not have written this in his blog.
> > > >>
> > > >> h
> > > >> Am 07.04.2014 12:52, schrieb Gerard Meijssen:
> > > >>
> > > >> Hoi,
> > > >>> What is it that you intend to do. Hang them and, hang them high??
> > > >>>
> > > >>> You already know that it was in a very emotional moment ...
> > > >>>
> > > >>> What is your objective? What do you expect as a result and how will
> > > that
> > > >>> be
> > > >>> in everyone's benefit??
> > > >>> Thanks,
> > > >>> Gerard
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On 7 April 2014 12:16, Tomasz W. Kozlowski <tomasz@twkozlowski.net
> >
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Ziko van Dijk wrote
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I think that a single quote by a unnamed "female Wikimedian",
> said
> > > in
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> public or in private, is a very small basis for any substantiate
> > > >>>>> criticism...
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Thanks to Chris e-mail's, we now know that the comment was made
> > > during
> > > >>>> a
> > > >>>> public session (though I can't find the relevant section in the
> > > minutes
> > > >>>> on
> > > >>>> Meta).
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> That the identity of the person is currently unknown is due to the
> > > fact
> > > >>>> that it has not been revealed by other participants in that
> > workshop;
> > > >>>> I'm
> > > >>>> sure Chris, and Steffen, and other people know very well who that
> > > person
> > > >>>> is.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I'm used to the secrecy, but I find it deeply disturbing that
> such a
> > > >>>> comment could have been made during a public workshop "in
> passing";
> > > >>>> however, it would fit perfectly in the alleged divisions between
> > some
> > > >>>> chapters and their respective communities.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Where the idea that a single entity (here: a chapter) knows better
> > > >>>> what's
> > > >>>> best for a community than the community does itself come from, I'm
> > not
> > > >>>> sure.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Tomasz
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > > >>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > > >>>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > >>>> Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > > ,
> > > >>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > > >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > > >>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > >>> Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > >>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > > >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > >> Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > ,
> > > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >>
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fuck the community, who cares [ In reply to ]
Imo the lines were said by a member of a board of a chapter in her official
capacity as she was attending a board training paid fully by the "global
community" (unless she paid everything on her own and never got reimbursed
for anything)

If you keep up with this approach (which will for sure culminate in actions
clearly ignoring/"fucking" the community) in one day you will reach the
point when the community will say "so, then fuck you too".

Obviously not today, neither tomorrow, but when it comes, that day will be
the last day, when you were able to "buy free stuff" or travel around the
world for "free" or in short: have money. Until that day comes it is true
that this is not an issue, you can get away with it, 'nuff said.

The main issue here are her solution(s) to problem solving/fulfilling the
"mission". Even worse that a handful of people supports it in this thread,
namely a) spending money or b) spending more money. This is very poor/lazy
thinking.

Those having these two only in mind (or as primary solutions), should leave
their chapter positions for more creative people.

Cheers,

Vince

PS: this thread strenghtens my impression [1] that some chapters are rather
breakaway groups than (integral) parts of their local community.

[1]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFuture_of_the_Wikimedia_Conference&diff=5611433&oldid=5611349


2014.04.08. 12:21, "Gerard Meijssen" <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> ezt írta:

> Hoi,
> One reason is that the license of Wikidata is questioned by members of the
> Wikidata community.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
>
> On 8 April 2014 11:27, Martijn Hoekstra <martijnhoekstra@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Gerard Meijssen
> > <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > From where I stand ie Wikidata, the license we use is CC-0. When a GLAM
> > > wants to share data it has to be CC-0. When it is CC-by or CC-by-sa, we
> > > cannot use it. We do not retrieve it from their database we will find
> the
> > > same data from elsewhere where there is no such burden.
> > >
> > > When people use CC-by-sa data in for instance Wikipedia, we do harvest
> > that
> > > information because once it is embedded in Wikipedia, it is no longer
> > part
> > > of the original database that prohibits us from using it based on the
> > > database rights. At that point it is part of a completely different set
> > of
> > > information. It is retrieved one factoid at a time and the origin of
> the
> > > data is no longer an issue.
> > > Thanks,
> > > GerardM
> > >
> >
> > Why are we talking about the license of Wikidata in this thread?
> >
> > Come to think of it, why are we still talking at all in this thread?
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 8 April 2014 10:40, Jane Darnell <jane023@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Gerard,
> > > > I think you mean "There are organisations that want to share CC-0
> > > > information with us under a CC-0 license and there are those who want
> > > > to share CC-0 information under a CC-by
> > > > license." We are fine with organizations sharing CC-by information
> > > > under a CC-by license, no?
> > > >
> > > > O and I agree completely on the Wikidata thing.
> > > >
> > > > Jane
> > > > PS: I also agree that the person who said these words is, in fact a
> > > > member of the community like the rest of us and therefore has every
> > > > right to use those words in a meeting during which community issues
> > > > are being discussed. I have heard worse in discussions by members of
> > > > one part of the community (Commons people) talking about other
> members
> > > > of the community (Dutch Wikipedians) and the other way around. Maybe
> > > > it's a cultural thing and we swear a lot in our internal meetups in
> > > > the Netherlands, dunno about that, but I never felt offended when I
> > > > heard these statements and in context have agreed with both parties.
> > > >
> > > > 2014-04-08 8:22 GMT+02:00, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
> > >:
> > > > > Hoi,
> > > > > Take one step back. What our aim is, is to share in the sum of all
> > > > > knowledge. Arguably, this is the main and overriding objective of
> > what
> > > we
> > > > > do. There are many strategies to get to the point where we share
> > > > > information. From where I stand, with Wikidata we have the
> > opportunity
> > > to
> > > > > do better than with an only Wikipedia strategy: with Wikipedia we
> > share
> > > > the
> > > > > sum of knowledge that is available in one Wikipedia and with
> Wikidata
> > > we
> > > > > share in the sum of all the knowledge that is available to us.
> > > > >
> > > > > Wikidata provides access to more information than any Wikipedia by
> a
> > > > large
> > > > > margin.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are those in our communities who aim to restrict the
> practices
> > > that
> > > > > realise Wikidata as the resource of information that is available
> to
> > > us.
> > > > To
> > > > > say it in a political correct way, they can be and should be
> ignored.
> > > > There
> > > > > are organisations that want to share information with us under a
> CC-0
> > > > > license and there are those who want to share information under a
> > CC-by
> > > > > license. The later can and should be ignored as well.
> > > > >
> > > > > However, when I am to argue these points in a private setting, I
> will
> > > say
> > > > > that they can screw themselves. It is to make the point forcefully,
> > it
> > > is
> > > > > to hammer on the fact that our objective is not the community but
> the
> > > > > sharing of knowledge. Yes, the community is important but that is
> the
> > > > > extend of it. When we can gain authoritative information provided
> by
> > a
> > > > > GLAM, we should not consider the fact that we can enter all that
> > > > > information by hand. Those who want to add statements by hand can
> do
> > so
> > > > but
> > > > > they should not force their behaviour and attitudes on others.
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > GerardM
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 8 April 2014 00:45, Hubert Laska <hubert.laska@gmx.at> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> With all due respect, Gerard, not the bearer ofthe message, Tomas,
> > is
> > > > the
> > > > >> problem, the problem arises where there are people who can make
> > > > decisions
> > > > >> with far-reaching consequences - and be selected for it - but then
> > > > assume
> > > > >> one for me unacceptable position against that group whose services
> > are
> > > > the
> > > > >> basis for their own position.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Fuck the Community, who cares, was not the only thing, much worse
> > for
> > > me
> > > > >> is the meaning, that free knowledge is easier to buy than to get
> by
> > > > edits
> > > > >> and edits.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Of whose money? By those who make one edit after the other? Taking
> > > > photos,
> > > > >> one after another and upload them?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I know Steffen good enough and I know, that he is able to tell
> apart
> > > > >> explanations which happens within an special group dynamic
> process.
> > If
> > > > >> this
> > > > >> has occured, he would not have written this in his blog.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> h
> > > > >> Am 07.04.2014 12:52, schrieb Gerard Meijssen:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Hoi,
> > > > >>> What is it that you intend to do. Hang them and, hang them high??
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> You already know that it was in a very emotional moment ...
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> What is your objective? What do you expect as a result and how
> will
> > > > that
> > > > >>> be
> > > > >>> in everyone's benefit??
> > > > >>> Thanks,
> > > > >>> Gerard
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On 7 April 2014 12:16, Tomasz W. Kozlowski <
> tomasz@twkozlowski.net
> > >
> > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Ziko van Dijk wrote
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> I think that a single quote by a unnamed "female Wikimedian",
> > said
> > > > in
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> public or in private, is a very small basis for any
> substantiate
> > > > >>>>> criticism...
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Thanks to Chris e-mail's, we now know that the comment was
> made
> > > > during
> > > > >>>> a
> > > > >>>> public session (though I can't find the relevant section in the
> > > > minutes
> > > > >>>> on
> > > > >>>> Meta).
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> That the identity of the person is currently unknown is due to
> the
> > > > fact
> > > > >>>> that it has not been revealed by other participants in that
> > > workshop;
> > > > >>>> I'm
> > > > >>>> sure Chris, and Steffen, and other people know very well who
> that
> > > > person
> > > > >>>> is.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> I'm used to the secrecy, but I find it deeply disturbing that
> > such a
> > > > >>>> comment could have been made during a public workshop "in
> > passing";
> > > > >>>> however, it would fit perfectly in the alleged divisions between
> > > some
> > > > >>>> chapters and their respective communities.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Where the idea that a single entity (here: a chapter) knows
> better
> > > > >>>> what's
> > > > >>>> best for a community than the community does itself come from,
> I'm
> > > not
> > > > >>>> sure.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Tomasz
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > >>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > > > >>>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > >>>> Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > > > ,
> > > > >>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > > > >>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > >>> Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > >>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > > > >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > >> Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > > ,
> > > > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > >>
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

1 2  View All