User talk:Sue Gardner: Difference between revisions

Help

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 09:13, 13 December 2011

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Welcome!

Looks like you've never been welcomed! :-(

Welcome!

Hello, Sue Gardner, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Cbrown1023 talk 15:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An idea to help one of WP's editor gaps

I was thinking about some of the gaps the foundation is working to fill and I wondered if anyone has considered extending Campus Ambassador type programs to "adult education," "community education," "continuing education" or other classes that people tend to take later in life? This would have the dual benefits of diversifying our editor pool and also tapping a group of people that tend to have some spare time.

Part of the reason for some contributors fading out may simply be the business of careers or raising family as they leave young adult hood. I've often been struck by the Mormon model of missionary work and how it recognizes this. There is a pool of young 19 to 24 years old missionaries, but there is also a large number of senior missionaries who volunteer as retirees. I'm not suggesting that the Foundation is a church (!) but I think we could do well to consider that young adulthood is only one of the two times in life when people tend to have more free time and fewer career obligations. Cloveapple (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cloveapple. Sorry to be replying so late to this: I don't know how I've missed it. I think you're right that older people will be good candidates to edit Wikipedia, but I think that'll take time to happen. Frank Schulenberg, who's been doing outreach to new editors for Wikipedia for about six years, has made some attempts in the past to recruit older editors, and I believe the results were pretty mixed. Essentially: today's senior citizens tend to not be very comfortable with technology. Some are, but most are not. And it looks like that level of discomfort is a dealbreaker for most older people, today. Anecdotally, I have always wished my father would get involved with Wikipedia: he's very knowledgeable about the Canadian fur trade, and I know he would have a lot to contribute to the Wikipedia articles about it. But I think the idea of interacting with strangers online is too alien for him, and it would be very difficult for him to learn wiki syntax. I think that's generally true of most older people, today.

By contrast, I think that by the time people my age are starting to retire, we will be well-suited to contribute to Wikipedia, because we'll have spent their entire adult lives interacting online. So, I think history will be on our side, and we'll see our pool of older editors growing very naturally over time, for exactly the reason that you give.

By the way I think the comparison with Mormons is a good one for us. A couple of people have told me that they think there are lessons we can learn from them. Despite us not being a church, we have aspects of uh, missionary zeal :-) Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 10:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination: Dreamyshade

I nominate User:Dreamyshade for the ED's Barnstar. She's been consistently editing, dicussing, guiding, gnoming and adding substantive content, contributing images, and generally being constructive on Wikipedia for about ten years. Sumanah (talk) 13:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 3 October 2011

News and notes: Italian Wikipedia shuts down over new privacy law; Wikimedia Sverige produce short Wikipedia films, Sue Gardner calls for empathy

In the news: QRpedia launches to acclaim, Jimbo talks social media, Wikipedia attracts fungi, terriers and Greeks bearing gifts

WikiProject report: Kia ora WikiProject New Zealand

Featured content: Reviewers praise new featured topic: National treasures of Japan

Arbitration report: Last call for comments on CheckUser and Oversight teams

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 06:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

Opinion essay: The conservatism of Wikimedians

News and notes: Largest ever donation to WMF, final findings of editor survey released, 'Terms of use' heavily revised

In the news: Uproar over Italian shutdown, the varying reception of BLP mischief, and Wikipedia's doctor-evangelist

WikiProject report: The World's Oldest People

Featured content: The weird and the disgusting

Arbitration report: Senkaku Islands closes; administrators authorized to place articles on discretionary sanctions

Technology report: 1.18 deployment and HTTPS switchover completed, but developer help now needed with new projects

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Open Letter to the Executive Director

Dear Sue,

perhaps it might be wise to consider that questioning judgment, intelligence and empathy, publicly and repeatedly, of the unpaid volunteers that generate the money you take home every month could quite possibly not be the most effective strategy known to man.

If you’re not so sure about that, perhaps you should commission a report that deals with the question if people donate money to the Wikimedia Foundation because

a) they trust the editorial judgment of the communities that create Wikipedia and all these other (more often than not) really useful sites or
b) they think the Foundation’s Executive Director (whose position wouldn’t even exist without the countless hours of volunteer work that predated its creation) is doing such a terrific job at telling those same people, publicly and repeatedly, that they lack in empathy.

I have a feeling that the results might tend a little bit towards a), even among female, not so computer-savvy or non-white donors.

Your sincerely, The Man Who Yelled At Ting -- 15:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Carbidfisher: Less coffee, please. Thnx.

@Sue: Nevertheless I think this blogpost wasn't very helpful in a way to calm things down. Maybe you'll find a way to say you are sorry. Regards, --Kellerkind (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pretty much +1. You can't expect those (the critics) to find compromises with you, while there is till the insult as non-empathic in the world and i saw nowhere any taking back of those words by you or a real apology. That is the first step. And the guarantee that the filter won't be forced in any way. On this I neither trust you nor the Board ... as sad as it is that I can't trust the heads of the project i immolated so much of my free time and money upon, on which i wrote over 400 articles and seven of them as featured and five as good articles. I did 30.000 edits, not to provocate, but to offer best information to the reader. I see no respect for me and other critics. How can this be a basis for dialogue. If possible I will be at the event with you on november here in Germany. The first sentence you should say should imply a "sorry". --Julius1990 (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Carbidfischer, Kellerkind, Julius1990. I've been meaning to reply here for a while, and there are some comments on my German WP talkpage that I want to respond to, as well.

Really, what my blog post and the reactions to it have shown me is how little mutual understanding there is between me and the German editorial community. That's a shame, but it's better for me to know it than not know it, so that I can aim to fix it.

I know about a dozen German Wikipedians personally, which is not very many. Typically the Germans I know best are the ones who interact on the meta-level lists, in English, and/or who turn up at international events, or are involved with the chapter. The language barrier is a real challenge for me. In English, I can easily read people's contributions and participation in discussions, and they can read mine --- so even if I haven't interacted individually with somebody, we can get a pretty good sense of each other by reading the wikis. Upshot being: it is difficult for me to interact easily and fluidly with the German community, because I do not speak German, and that's a shame.

So. Upon reflection, I think I probably made four mistakes in my blog post. First, I assumed that the people reading it would understand my starting point: that I've got tons of respect for all editors, and that I admire and support their work. For anyone who doesn't know me, that apparently is not obvious, and so I guess it's understandable that they felt provoked or attacked by what I wrote. That's a shame. Second, I probably made a mistake by kicking off the post by writing about the appearance of the vulva article on the main page of the German Wikipedia. I did it innocently, because I think it's a really great example of the problem we face. In using a specific example, though, I needlessly alienated good editors such as Achim Rashka, who I gather misunderstood me and felt I was criticizing the article itself. I regret that: I wasn't criticizing the article, and I would never deliberately antagonize editors who do good work. My third mistake was thinking that I could talk solely about editorial issues, while people were still anxious that the Wikimedia Foundation was going to impose a category-based image filter on the projects regardless of whether they wanted it. For the purposes of that blog post, I was attempting to set aside the issue of the filter, but in retrospect it's obvious that lots of people were not going to be able to have an editorial conversation, while the image filter was acting as a kind of elephant in the room. And fourth, I knew ---even as I wrote it I knew, but I ignored my own misgivings--- that calling out provocateurs and agitators, was going to be, itself, provocative. Wikimedians, I have learned in my time with you all, are super-sensitive to negative labels, and tend to feel like they personally are being criticized, even when they're not. I truly was speaking, not to all editors and not to people opposed to the filter --- I was speaking to people who I believe were at the time deliberately enjoying and escalating the conflict, rather than attempting to try to work towards a solution. I was asking those people to stop doing that. But I realize that lots of people wrongly thought I was talking to them, and felt accused and maligned, so I regret that I didn't just omit that point altogether.

So the post was in four ways clumsy, and I regret being clumsy. I don't like offending people, and I didn't mean to offend people. But I did learn some things from the experience. One important thing I learned was that I don't know enough about the editorial leaders in the German Wikimedia community. I know some of the chapter leadership, I know a few of the chapter staff, and I know the Germans who show up to international events, and who participate in the meta-level discussions in English. That's not sufficient, and I'm going to dedicate some energy now to better understanding the folks who write articles on the German Wikipedia. It's important that I do that, because the German community is important in and of itself, and also because I believe that as the most mature language-version, it's a bellwether or a canary in the coal mine, for us all. That's why I'm coming to Germany in a few weeks, and I'm also asking some of the Foundation staff to help me identify important German editors, so that the Foundation can develop deeper and smarter relationships with them. I will look forward to meeting you Julius1990, and whoever else turns up :-) Thanks. Sue Gardner (talk) 01:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer. I'm not sure if I'll have the time to come to Hannover but I wish you a pleasant journey and a lot of good, interesting discussions in europe :-) Kind regards, --Kellerkind (talk) 13:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer. So you are saying, essentially, that, after almost four years on the job, you still don’t know what you are doing but you hope to, some day, get to a point where you might know? I’m not very happy with that, given the responsibility you have and the donor’s money you get. In a position as the one you have, you can’t reflect after doing something, you have to reflect before you do it. Sorry, but clumsy ain’t enough. -- Carbidfischer (talk) 10:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all thank you, Sue. I think to admit that there were things going wrong and the way you handled it is the first step to the better. But your post leads to further problems. You see the Vulva article from your point of view, you instrumentalized it for your opion. Now, you are not the usual reader of the german Wikipedia and so the german Wikipedians are not the usual reader. There was a discussion about the picture before it was shown and while it was shown, but what does it say? That we Wikipedians often like to argue? True. That we have different opions what to present sometimes? True too, but not to solve with any filter, but starting point for the editorial process (which can't be lead from San Francisco). When you are well informed than you know *irony on* that the Vulva picture was such a scandal that there was dozenz of news articles and blog posts criticising it, the amin news on tv asked "Wikipedians going to insanity? - Many readers need a doctor after being shocked by a Vulva" *irony off*. There was no such raection? Why? Because it isn't in the german speaking cultural room as controversial as you think? Could that be? And using your term, would it be empathic imposing a filter in any way there where no such filter is favored? I think you also heard about the law that passed, but which filter never was implented, because the Germans are such filter fans? I think you have to understand that in Germany there is no problem with the front page girl in very little clothing and a naughty context of the BILD tabloid. In Germany there never would be any controversial about sexual education. The Vulva picture i saw the first time at grammar school. I saw it two more times in secondary school projected on the wall and whenever i wanted to see it in the sexuality section of my biology book. Such communities who hink for their readers they need a hiding feature, they did this edotorial choice already like on hebrew and the Origin of teh World. And taht can eb jsut an editorial decision and even if you maybe don't like it or even think different: The editors are we, not you in San Francisco. And we have no intention to shock people or make them angry or whatever, but to provide the best encyclopedic prodouct on teh german speaking internet. And if soemone shoudl eb offended by something in a different language version? Hmm, if i want to see the Origin of teh World in Hebrew pe default, why doesn't that count as much? Little story about that, in my school three muslims who had to do a presentation about Mohammed used a picture of him (oh my god), and even more shocking they reflected about when it was allowed to show him, when it got forbidden and why and then they explained why the choosed to show a picture. Really shocking news for someone from Aceh, but also opion from muslims.

To me it is shocking to read how much you live in an own world in San Francisco. I think there are various projects you could work on that would help much more than filter. You know mostly Wikimedians, but that is just a part of the heterogenous community. I won't be able to attend at Hannover, what also is pretty much a Wikimeda event. The Wikimenias are also mostly visited by Wikimedians. In your position i would try to get more connected to bigger parts of the community. I would propose community meetings in the different (bigger) wikipedia versions, where everyone could then tell in five minutes or so his/her opions/wishes etc. to the Foundation. And this way the Foundation would also get things to work about where the editors see any reasonable use and worth. To me it is shocking to see that the Foundation knows so little about Wikipedians communication and work. It is a shame that you think the little minority on Meta and the mailinglists would be enough, but i see no try to reach out. From all your workers noone can take care of good communication into the projects by having a list of pages, where important notes can be placed to get tarnslated and the on-project discussion started? Or who could say Wikimedia-Worker xy you are from Germany, there is a big discussion now going on, i can't follow it, please have an eye on it and think of ways to get an agreement? Why are basic things so underdeveloped? To do the point: You want to reach new editors i new parts of the world, but are not able to communiate with those you already have? That is - sorry - a shame and ridicoulous. Think about it. You can't lead the Foundation against the editors who use their free time and money to generate the content taht allows you fundraising and having your job at all and so on. The Foundation should think about that she is on the way to act against the basis, and the Foundation should do a reality check is she leading or are the one leading and have the right for it who build the encyclopedia? I think that needs to be discussed, and it needs to be discussed much much much more than an image filter.

And according to what i now got to know about teh process of building the fake poll etc. Get professional! First of all and taht is very basic: First do all the research before making a decision. Second it is a community project. The Communities needs to eb informed as early as possible, a "sorry, too late" like made by Ting in Nürnberg is poison for any compromise. And third be transparent. That it needed so much time to get now open and honestly explained by Erik Möller is sad. And that it needed to teh serious threat of a Fork or better to say consideration of it as last solution, taht this form of dialogue like now done by Erik can happen can't be possible. Why couldn't the diaogue way to teh community be taken directly? I think you have to review and rethink your way of working in San Francisco. In my opion as an editor and not Wikimedian there are big, big (structural and personal) problems. And you shoudl think the very majority of the editors are NOT Wikimedians. Try to think about it Sue and again thank you that you at least admit taht you made misteaks. Julius1990 (talk) 08:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC) PS: Ask maybe Erik Möller for more details. I want 100% transparent report how the decisions were taken, how it came that before adequate research about the problem already a decision was made. I want to know who fucked it up and why. I want to know how the Foundation will handle such things in the future. I want to read how you see your position in the editorial process and i propose that you see that the Foundation has nothing to say in this process but just to take care that the fundamental rules never get changed or mistreated. And i thinke even without editorial influence you have already enough to do and fail on so basic things like the communication with the existing communities and editors. Ironic that while you can't even handle the xisting, you want to reach out and get even more editors from even more regions. By the way, how do you want to make any adequate editorial decision while you know nearly nothing about the Wikipedias, the Wikipedians and the intern structures, processes and so on? And with you i mean all of you over there. I can't get rid of the feelings that you live in your own world and even those who originally came from the communities losse the contact more and more ... Julius1990 (talk) 09:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sue Gardner,

please stay away from statements you cannot or just do not prove: "people who I believe were at the time deliberately enjoying and escalating the conflict, rather than attempting to try to work towards a solution." Thanks.

by the way: did you notice, that user:Ottava Rima with whom you chat so pleasantly in your office hours and quickly respond on your meta talk has been banned indefinitely by an arbcom-decision on en:wp? While there are waiting people from de:wp, who made the effort to address you in your mother language and had never ever been banned, since the 5th of october on your german talk for an answer?

AND: "to help me identify important German editors, so that the Foundation can develop deeper and smarter relationships with them." to keep this project running you will need all of us not just the "important". Catfisheye (talk) 16:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC) p.s. Get the names right: Achim Raschka not Rashka.[reply]

Dear Sue,

thank you very much for your clear change of position. I also appreciated your highlighting of the “overwhelming opposition to the feature” as well as the fact you had even earlier begun to learn from the grave mistakes of your superiors (i.e. of the WMF board) and, partially, yourself.

Concerning the issues at stakes, I am, however, not completely sure your superiors and, partially, you, have already a sufficient grasp - or at least just not yet expressed so. Let me try to elucidate a few crucial points you might wish to comment, or at least reflect upon, addressed, especially after your new repositioning, mainly at your superiors and only, as in this thread’s context seemingly still pertinent, to yourself ‘by proxy’. Naturally and furthermore, I stand to eventually be corrected.

1. First, the whole task and initiating of the Harris-so-called-“report“ was ridiculous at best. Instead of applying reliable research methods, personal opinions of two mostly unknown und inexperienced – especially in terms of how Wikipedia-Communities worldwide operate - contributors were chosen to deliver the basis for WMF decisions. While there was initial mention to study differences among local communities, this crucial demand was neglected.

2. Following the “report“, there was no or almost no attempt to discuss the massively opinionated and uninformed findings of this “report” with local communities outside meta and english Wikipedia. This step was even more mistaken.

3. A so-called “referendum“ was hold, already presupposing a pending installation of some kind of image filter, leaving, seemingly following board directives, out the question as to if a filtering mechanism would be wanted at all. Most unprofessional was the way the votes were collected by biased questions, (co)formulated by two board members. Hence, the results were and are of no use for further procedure regarding the decision for or against global image filtering at all.

4. Next, WMF Board members – the most outstanding example being Ting – declared that filtering mechanisms would be implemented worldwide with no adaption. How exactly that was decided is still quite obscure. Even more, the way of communicating this ridiculous idea – which is in opposition to the role of WMF at large (see 6) and to the binding decisions of local communities (7) – was faulty and offending in a way hardly even describable. Instead of holding to obviously uninformed, unsensible and disruptive resolutions as well as patronizing ways of communication, the WMF board should have begun to openly discuss the mistakes of its judgments and forms of communication much earlier. Examples of totally unacceptable ways of communication have been highlighted as early as May 2010. I thus find it hardly helpful nor appropriate when you generalize that “Everybody at the Wikimedia Foundation has been doing their best to engage honestly and openly and constructively”. In fact, if that’s people’s best, WMF should talk about their board’s staff before anything else.

5. To date, WMF has not even established there were any problem at all that would have had to be fixed. There were a few individuals who voiced their opinions - Jimbo Wales, for a start, reacting to uninformed outcries from certain US media and misusing some of his privileges, which he partially lost as a result, damaging quite a lot of good faith in the process -, but such voices can impossibly be taken as informed judgments to justify global adjustments. The same holds for certain preferences of local communities as in the arabic- and hebrew-speaking communities. If WMF wants to provide those communities with technical means for filtering anything, that’s WMF’s decision and seemingly fine by most, but it has not the least thing to do with any other communities.

6. WMF does not have the function to define such policies. Declarations of the opposite, as made in part by you, especially your reference to a fictive task of “advising” communities (in controversial content matters, as is the case with deciding whether to provide image filtering mechanisms at all), are illinformed and of massive provocative effect. WMF’s task is “to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally”. WMF is “but one entity within the broad Wikimedia movement”. WMF especially has no right to enforce controversial content matters. In controversial content matters where local consensus is – as in this case – evidently in opposition to WMF views, WMF just has to “step[ ] out of the way of volunteers who play a myriad of other roles”. The persisting (as there has been no rectifying resolution nor official apology of WMF’s board yet) behavior of WMF, especially its ignorance of clear and consensual protest against measures WMF is (or, hopefully, in this case was) trying to impose which already contradict the function of WMF itself, has already caused massive frustration and dissolution among many of the most active editors, especially in the second-largest community of wikipedians worldwide. WMF’s goal should be to help to increase participation, not to obstruct it. I take it that you now acknowledge this general idea. At least, you write that “the Wikimedia Foundation is not going to impose something on the German Wikipedia, against the will of the German community. Doing that would be foolish. You and people like yourself create the projects. The Wikimedia Foundation respects and values your work. If you signal to us that you vehemently oppose something that we're doing, then we need to stop and rethink. That's what we're doing… The Wikimedia Foundation will work in partnership with the Wikimedia community, engaging in discussion, until we figure out a solution that makes sense to everyone. That is what the Board has asked me to do – to work in partnership with you.” Thank your for this change of attitude. Be assured that we will hold you to your word.

7. Global communities have the function to define policies regarding, among other things, content matters. In fact, they did. There was a consensus („Meinungsbild“, shortly: MB) in the german (i.e. short for german-speaking) wikipedia, agreeing to 86% that we do not want any image filtering. (You are, I hope, informed of similar positions within, e.g., the french community?) This MB is binding for all users of the german wikipedia, including Administrators, Arbitration Committee Members, and so on. It will be the basis for resolving any conflicts that might arise. I take it that any further board discussion will keep this in mind.

8. In reaction to the as yet only partially resolved issues with WMF (board) misinterpreting the role of WMF (see 6), the function of wikipedia at large (see 6-7), ignoring local consensus (see 5,7) and being unable to find acceptable ways of communication (see 2-6), several of the most active editors of the german wikipedia community are discussing to fork and are discussing and already realizing several ways of bringing the issue to considerable public attention. The results of such uproar, especially should it increase, which propably it will, shouldn't things be fixed by the start of the annual fundraiser, could be most severe – both for the future of german wikipedia as it was, as for the public opinion about WMF and wikipedia in general, as for the financing of WMF projects and also for the individuals responsible, esp. among board members. The words by you have been quite helpful, but a clear statement of change of plans and of apology of your superiors is still exigently expected. I severely doubt there might be any considerable calming down of the current uproar before that.

9. You acknowledge that “we have been clumsy in a variety of ways, and we have made mistakes”. Thank you for that. You also, as was unanimously appreciated, pointed out several of your own mistakes in communication. In a blog post not long ago, you formulated “Those community members who are acting like provocateurs and agitators need to stop.“ I ask you to also make clear to your superiors that they have to stop acting like provocateurs, destroying quite a lot of good faith and massively obstructing motivated participation “within the broad Wikimedia movement”. It has became clear now that your attitude has become much more in line with what this movement expects of you, but your superiors have not even publicly acknowledged their grave mistakes. The WMF board should declare that not only will it never, ever “impose something” on any functioning local community, “against the will” of this community (while calling such imposition “advise” was totally of the track); that the whole decision making process was mistaken at several steps; that the promulgations, in so far as global adjustments were concerned, are now off the floor completely. The next step of WMF board should be to further analyze the damage it has caused, trying to find ways to make amendments and regain a minimum of good faith in the offended communities. Your reference to a "discussion phase" leaves me most dubious if your superiors are actually understanding the main points of their mistaken way of "discussing" things yet.

10. Optionally, your superiors might consider ways of helping individual communities who consensually want technical means to filter certain images. But - instead of stumbling from one mistaken "discussion phase" determinately into quite another - they should weigh the costs against many other things the developers should do, which are in fact needed by much larger numbers of users. - You probably are aware that many global online communities use relatively reliable means (in fact, uncomparably more reliable than that Harris-so-called-"report") to finding out what their members really want? If not, we can assuredly help you with that.

Sincerely,

Ca$e (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: As was to be expected, german media begin to cover WMF's (still not officially off the floor!) attempts. One of the topmost german newspapers, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, published a highly critical article regarding filtering mechanisms in Wikipedia. You may find it here. To give you an idea, the article ends like this: "Filtering mechanisms ... are fundamentally based on the idea of being capable to control this world’s evil. But what is morally bad depends on the frame of reference applied, of which there are quite many. Yet, we are able to examine, describe and discuss them all on the internet. Wikipedia is a first global example for this. It would be a great pity, should there be established one certain ‚moral’ framework." Regards, Ca$e (talk) 11:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Sue, It was a pleasure meeting you, Matthew, and the other wikipedians who made my visit to the Foundation on Friday such a lovely experience. I am proud to associate with people who do such important work -- contributing in our various ways to this encyclopedia. Cheers, --Rosiestep (talk) 20:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

News and notes: Arabic Wikipedia gets video intros, Smithsonian gifts images, and WikiProject Conservatism scrutinized

In the news: Why Wikipedia survives while others haven't; Wikipedia as an emerging social model; Jimbo speaks out

WikiProject report: History in your neighborhood: WikiProject NRHP

Featured content: Brazil's boom-time dreams of naval power: The ed17 explains the background to a new featured topic

Arbitration report: Case requests on ethnic strife and a WikiProject declined, Abortion case stalls but topic bans look to be lightened on amendment

Technology report: WMDE renew investment in Toolserver, first offsite backup programme of Wikimedia begun

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re: your message

Hi Sue, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 02:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ED Barnstar

Hallo Sue, first of all, thanks for the ED Barnstar! And do not worry: I am also the person in charge of translating Wikimedia Italia News in English, so I am supposed at least to be able to read English... ciao, .mau. ✉ 20:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by .mau. (talk • contribs)

Hi Sue.

I'd like to thank you, as well, for the acknowledgment you wanted to give me, and to thank Frieda for making the nomination. To be honest this was actually a surprise to me, as I feel that I have had a role not different from all the others involved in this situation: as you have stated, the decision has been taken during a good community process thus I'll consider the barnstar not given to me personally, but to all the it.wikip community which, openly and collaboratively, went through such tough a process. I'd expecially like to acknowledge those who did not agreed with the decision but discussed it in a constructive way, pointing out the improvements that could be introduced in managing such situations, if ever such a situation will need to be managed again in the future (which I really hope will not be the case). --Pap3rinik (talk) 08:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 October 2011

From the editors: A call for contributors

Opinion essay: There is a deadline

Interview: Contracting for the Foundation

In the news: Are Wikipedians reluctant journalists?; Wikipedia:The Musical

WikiProject report: Great WikiProject Logos

Featured content: The best of the week

Arbitration report: Abortion; request for amendment on Climate Change case

Technology report: WMF launches coding challenge, WMDE starts hiring for major new project

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

Opinion essay: The monster under the rug

Recent research: WikiSym; predicting editor survival; drug information found lacking; RfAs and trust; Wikipedia's search engine ranking justified

News and notes: German Wikipedia continues image filter protest

In the news: Citizendium on the rocks, Shankbone celebrated, and the week in vandalism

Discussion report: Proposal to return this section from hiatus is successful

WikiProject report: 'In touch' with WikiProject Rugby union

Featured content: The best of the week

Arbitration report: Abortion case stalls, request for clarification on Δ, discretionary sanctions streamlined

Technology report: Wikipedia Zero announced; New Orleans successfully hacked

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 7 November2011

Special report: A post-mortem on the Indian Education Program pilot

News and notes: Wikimedia Norway awarded, Halloween on the Main Page, Wikimedia UK recognised

In the news: The Economist assays the encyclopaedia's challenges, Jimbo speaks on net future, and an inclusionist alternative emerges.

Discussion report: Special report on the ArbCom Elections steering RfC

WikiProject report: Booting up with WikiProject Computer Science

Featured content: Slow week for Featured content

Arbitration report: Δ saga returns to arbitration, while the Abortion case stalls for another week

Technology report: Full steam ahead on Visual Editor, the avoidance of lock-breaking and 1.18b1 release

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Stack

I felt that the language you used to reflect the first source describing the general nature of the "progressive stack" was a tad euphemistic and ignored the more explicit description given in the source. I recently added some language to the end of the sentence to address this perceived problem. I wanted to give you notice and was curious as to whether you object to the change. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Centrify. No, I don't mind that change. It's not clear to me exactly how the progressive stack works -- when I was at OWS in NY, they said they were using progressive stack, but white men were speaking throughout the stack, and in general the order of speakers seemed to me pretty random. And, some articles describe the progressive stack in a more hedged way than what you wrote -- e.g., this article in the McGill Daily says women and people of colour "will be bumped to the top of the stack if the previous speakers have been predominantly white men, in order to ensure a plurality of voices is being heard." (Emphasis added by me.) So that's why I wrote it euphemistically, because I wasn't sure. But your edit is fine with me, because yes, the source supports it :-) Thanks, Sue Gardner (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And actually, thank you for editing the article. I started it, so I am happy to see someone else working on it :-) Thanks, Sue Gardner (talk) 23:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I misspoke, bah. I started progressive stack, not Occupy Wall Street. Sue Gardner (talk) 01:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sue, great to see you expanding the 'Aims and Method' section which I started on the Occupy Movement article. Your improvements are very well judged and nicely reflect the reality of the situation on the ground on both sides of the pond. (I know several of the informal leaders at St Pauls and have camped there, I love the way youve captured their concern with making sure everyone has there say, including the marginalized. I would have put more about that myself, only you know what some are like about OR and I havent yet found many sources who do a good job painting a true picture of the occupy crowd. )

By chance Im trying to do something about that, hopeing to bring together some of the occupy players with some journalists I know and also some politicians from red tories / blue labour (which has some overlap with occupy movement, BL is big on participatory democracy though in different ways and has some similar aims.) Im told you were in London this weekend, and just in case you're still here and at a loose end, I have a space at the meeting which is kicking off at 7pm this evening in Kings House, a rather agreeable venue near Kings Cross. (We met at a meetup last year, btw). Email or message if youre interested. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely, FeydHuxtable! -- that sounds really interesting. If it's just a meeting I wouldn't be able to make it: I've got a dinner tonight in north London. But if people will be there late I might be able to turn up, if my dinner doesn't go too long. E-mail me at sue at wikimedia dot org, and let me know. I might also be at the general assembly tomorrow evening at St. Paul's :-) Thanks. Sue Gardner (talk) 10:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Hi Sue! Maybe you like to give out the "The Executive Director's Barnstar" to User:Redtigerxyz. He is an editor on enwiki since Dec 2006. Some of his key contribution are:

Contributed to 3 FAs
Nominated/Contributed to 80+ DYKs
37,028 edits to date ([1])
Contributed to 40+ GAs
Nominated/Contributed to 4 In the news articles

Hope that you will like the suggestion. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 16:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk at Imperial College 13/11/11

Dear Ms Gardner,

On behalf of the Imperial College Wikipedia Society - thanks very much for yesterday's lecture "Women in Wikipedia", it was very well received by the attendees.

Personally I found the discussion just afterwards very interesting - many thanks for the barnstar. We have a research group on wikipedia currently doing medical education but perhaps we should be working more globally, if you have any further interest in that please do let me know.

Thanks again,

Tom (Mthe (talk) 13:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks Tom -- I really enjoyed giving the talk, and I hope it was useful for people. If you want to point me towards something on your research group I'd be happy to take a look :-) Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 18:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

News and notes: ArbCom nominations open, participation grants finalized, survey results on perceptions on Wikipedia released

In the news: Fundraising vs ads redux, WikiConference India nigh, a world lit up with articles

WikiProject report: Having a Conference with WikiProject India

Featured content: Writing featured content: Advice from Sturmvogel 66; Sports, sports, sports!

Arbitration report: Abortion and Betacommand 3 in evidence phase, three case requests outstanding

Technology report: Coding Challenge results; Wikimedians to wait and see if Athena really does represent "wisdom, courage and inspiration"

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finished 'pedia?

(apropos of the boardmeeting which I am watching)

Heh, I've always said there is loads still to write, and loads of unwritten articles which can be expanded - otherwise Wikipedia:Four Award would be impossible..Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The only criteria I think that render an article impossible to be FA ultimately is meagreness of knowledge. I do think there is a way of navigating tricky and broad topics, but it is maddeningly time-consuming....

PPS: I agree quality and participation needn't be mutually exclusive.

Didn't figure what you meant by senior folks doing "scutwork" (not sure how to spell that...)

Anyway, I am lacking the time to listen to the whole boardmeeting stuff and it is late here....Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Casliber. I'm glad to hear you were there: I kind of assumed nobody was watching ;-)

The scutwork comment was unbaked, and maybe not true. But I worked in newsrooms for a long time, and in newsrooms senior editors, after many years on the job, stop getting out of bed at 4AM to cover fires and car crashes, and instead get desk jobs where they vet other people's work. The young reporters take over the scutwork, because they've got lots of energy, and the more experienced folks mostly guide and mentor and help the newer people when they get stuck, because they've got the accrued wisdom to do that. The closest we have to that on Wikipedia is probably ArbCom, which is small and contains only a tiny fraction of experienced people. So my unbaked woolly observation was that on Wikipedia, if we had more new editors, the experienced people would get to relax a bit, while the young ones would do the bulk of the work. That was my observation. Like I say, it was unbaked. But the reason I said it is because part of the reason I think we want to work on being more welcoming to new editors, is because it would relieve the workload of the more experienced people.

I don't think the folks watching the live stream could see my slides. But one slide said this: "Editor decline means there aren't enough people to do all the work that needs to be done.

Existing editors risk stress, overwork and burn-out
Experienced editors can't take on leadership roles because they are bogged down in basic tasks
Bureaucrat, administrator and Arb Com-type positions get harder to fill
Vicious circle comes into play, with newbies increasingly being criticized, warned, and driven off
Systemic bias gets worse, and we don't benefit from the quality improvements (breadth & depth) that new people would bring
Older editors may naturally 'age out,' with no-one to ever replace them."

The slides will be posted within a day or two, probably here on the Wikimedia Foundation wiki. Hopefully the WMUK folks can link to it from somewhere on their site too. Thanks for your comments here :-) Sue Gardner (talk) 23:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no I got all that. My own opinion is that doing scutwork is one of the great egalitarian things about wikipedia - I can go to WP:RFPP and knock over a few page protections here and there, review this or that or welcome a few new users. Need to think about the most problematic bit - the bit about editors-getting-established in their first period editing and then getting fed up with all the templates sounded very plausible and something that a targeted response might have some impact upon. I did wonder whether some naturalistic study of new editors who wound up editing in a sub-area, such as a wikiproject, with an extended circle of friendly editors did better at sticking around, and whether there was enough data to make something quantitative on it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber, our summer researchers did a bit of work on the impact of Wikiprojects on the editing community (here and here), but it's hard to tease out whether people who join Wikiprojects go on to become better 'pedians because they receive help and mentorship there, or if the kinds of people who naturally gravitate to projects are natural-born 'pedians already. That whole correlation/causation problem... :)

But FWIW, I totally agree with you that Wikipedians are the kinds of folks who tend to be attracted to and receive pleasure from tasks that most people would find really dull and repetitive – copyediting, categorizing, and disambig drives spring to mind – and this inclination cuts across editor class and seniority in the projects. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 10:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Maryana - yeah I sorta agree with you, there are quite a few folks who like that sorta stuff around.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I see FA as the pinnacle of what we do here - it is a portfolio of the work people can achieve when working together - showcasing collaborative editing at its best...and it has taken eight (8) years to get to where it has. Sort of a random thought/addendum to the above....Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another situation I find fascinating is DYK - where there has been recent discussions over the quality of DYK, where we had a range of views from leaving it alone to getting rid of it and everything in between. We did (do) need to to a better job of vetting, but this can be tricky to enforce a sizeable behavioural change across a demographic of volunteers. Still, I do think there has been progress in the right direction, and a middle ground has been trodden.....but yeah, the balance between content and encouraging new editors yet trying to enforce or maintain standards is an interesting juggling act. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

News and notes: Last-minute candidates for ArbCom, the Sue Gardner European Tour hits London

In the news: Indian wikiconference heralds expansion, fundraiser in Silicon Valley major donor coup, import of Wikipedia reconsidered

Discussion report: Much ado about censorship

WikiProject report: Working on a term paper with WikiProject Academic Journals

Featured content: The best of the week

Arbitration report: End in sight for Abortion case, nominations in 2011 elections

Technology report: Mumbai and Brighton hacked; horizontal lists have got class

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no lack of newbie interest in WP

Seeing "editor decline" being discussed in an above thread, I think we should note that there seems to be no lack of of newbie interest in WP. From what I see at [2], my guess is that there is an average of 3000 to 5000 new registrants every day. We are just unable to draw-them-in, enough to become eds, even when they obviously want to. They are here looking to do things and have a lot of energy, and we are unable to direct it in the right direction. I think making welcoming automatic, providing a readymade personal sandbox with a mid sized article already in it (to experiment on) + providing a layman's short summary of the important policies and some general tips to avoid getting into problems + a clear statement of the goals of the project + providing a link to something which they could do easily e.g. cleanup on tagged articles (with some tips as to how to go about doing it without getting into problems and an advice to move to some other article if they still have problems), should be able to draw-them-in sufficiently. Basically, I think, letting them in further down into WP as soon as they register + showing them some things to do+ a mission statement, should work. Regards.-MW ^ℳ 13:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MangoWong. You're correct -- all the research we have suggests that new people do indeed continue to try to edit Wikipedia in large numbers. They continue to try, but what's happening is that they are rebuffed, and leave, more quickly than they used to. If you're interested, here is a presentation I gave to the UK Board last week, that collects together a lot of what we know about the barriers to entry for new editors, and the Wikimedia Foundation's initiatives designed to help fix the problem. Welcoming is indeed important: our research shows that today, good-faith new editors are much more likely to be warned and criticized, often by bot templates, relative to new editors pre-2006. So, the Wikimedia Foundation is working on initiatives such as redesigning warning templates and the new page triage process so that they are less deterring to new people. You --and anyone reading this-- can help in a number of ways, if you want to -- by helping with those projects, by joining the new editor response team helping individual new editors who are struggling or confused, by working to help simplify editorial policies and procedures, and by using Wikilove to help praise and thank new people. I don't have a link for our project about revamping warning templates, but I'm hoping that either Steven Walling or Maryana Pinchuk (who are working on that project) will see this comment and post the link. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The template testing is at WP:UWTEST. :) Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 19:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Steven :-) Sue Gardner (talk) 20:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question and comments about the Wikipedia gender gap, as played out on the Reference Desks

An editor asked, "This seems like a dumb question to ask, but what is the male:female (male-to-female) ratio on Wikipedia? I know it is unimportant, but I have a funny feeling there are more males than females here." I mentioned you in my response. An anon editor, not the OP, responded in turn with something I thought you might wish to read, namely (here):

Wow, that article reminded me how I found the Reference Desks, why I haven't signed in for years, and why I no longer contribute substantial text or reworkings to articles, like I used to. We did used to have attempts at social networking and friending, as well as spaces to chat generally about our experiences editing. All deleted in the move towards We Are Respectable. But it would take a lot to get past the great tiredness I feel at the thought of the conflict and fighting involved whenever I consider making a substantial edit, and I don't think I'm alone in that. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

BrainyBabe (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BrainyBabe -- I found that whole discussion really interesting. I'm glad people are talking about the gender gap. I noticed that Quinn1 said on the page that the Reference Desk probably isn't the best place to discuss the gap, which is likely true -- and I wonder therefore if there is, or should be, a central place for those discussions. The gender gap mailing list is one place, and there is also an IRC channel (#wikimedia-gendergap), but I wonder if we want/need a central place on-wiki in addition to those. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 18:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for saying that. I thought, "She is such a busy woman, I hardly want to disturb her; but on the other hand, I know the gender gap is an imbalance she is concerned about". So what to do? I have never used any WP/WM mailing lists, and only once or twice dabbled my toes in IRC. I consider myself a reasonably proficient editor, in assisting on the refdesks and making edits to mainspace, but I wouldn't say I know the best places to go to for the internal stuff (e.g. policy, advice, and shifting culture -- "the way things are done around here"). I am sure you could find other ideas from the editors who hang out on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Feminism. Would you like me to draw this thread to their attention? I get the impression that their collective bias, such as it is, is to redress the inherent biases of Wikipedia as it exists now. BrainyBabe (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias works on filling the content gaps created by the "inherent biases of Wikipedia as it exists now". So while that project doesn't directly focus on the editor gaps, people who read messages there might be interested. Cloveapple (talk) 16:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article on your Community talk in Hannover

Hi Sue,

I took the liberty to write a little comment on your visit to Hannover in the German version of the Signpost. For your benefit, I translated it into English at de:Wikipedia:Kurier/GE#Sue visits her German speaking dependency. It's not a 1:1 translation, as it leaves out some quips about German Wikipedians most English reader would not understand, but I reckon it beats Google translate.

Even though it is not intended to flatter you, I hope you (or anyone else reading it) would enjoy the read. Hope you had a nice flight back over the pond!

Best, Fossa_?! 12:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then...

How about this:

See Wikipedia:The Core Contest - why not have the WMF stump up a few hundred dollars in prizes for best improved core article over a set period? Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For first two weeks in January. Prize is for best improvement to most core article. WP:VITAL is a good place to start for articles but a case can be made for any other very broad article. Current FAs are excluded (maybe exclude GAs as well?)

Four panel of judges - some ideas - Malleus Fatuorum (prose), SandyG ( vast experience at ascertaining articles at FAC, hence a v. good judge of article comprehensiveness), actually any of the FAC or FARC promoters, Ucucha and Sasata (who have an amazing eye for both comprehensiveness and layout). Judges look at diffs and rule on best/most useful progress on a core article in a 2 week period.

Some $100 vouchers for something or other (Amazon? Apple?) as prizes - say top 3.

There we go. This might engender some community wikilove....Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering I made a thousand edits to a nutty subject like Sheep because of a Core Contest, it's not a bad idea. I think the best method, however, would be for someone such as yourself Casliber to ask for a grant, either through a chapter (see here) or through the new participation grants program. If you want some help working this out, let me know. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, I'll take a look. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Asaf who runs it, and it turns out I misunderstood, as "participation grants" are for travel reimbursements only. The first option is open though, as are microgrants from Wikimedia U.K. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 00:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahaaa, the microgrants looks about the right size to me - nice pointer....Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cas, I saw this while I was here. I don't do "reward culture" or "paid editing", I don't think FAC folks in general respond to that (I could be wrong), I don't want to be part of a perceived solution to a problem I don't perceive, and there are reviewers who are much better than me anyway. Why not Colin (talk · contribs), Mike Christie (talk · contribs), Brianboulton (talk · contribs), Geometry guy (talk · contribs) in addition to Malleus-- just some examples of people who are not FAC delegates hence won't be perceived as having a conflict. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea - yes those are good folks too. I was thinking of it more like a two week "flash mob" and take FAC/GAN out of the equation, and get judges to look over the article and quantify the improvement. I don't think having it months long is a good idea otherwise folks might get too serious. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(settles in nice comfy lounge chair on Sue's talk page for the moment)...okay then, first things, which gives us the most sensible coverage of core articles? Is it Wikipedia:The_Core_Contest/Articles ...or...Wikipedia:Vital articles, and of them do we restrict to level 3 and below or level 4....or do we just let people nominate and we judge each entry on its own merits? Okay, opinions please......Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Posting this above first as will then set up discussion based on which article group we end up covering. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about neither? In what sense is volleyball a core article for instance, or house vital? And why is leprosy, a disfiguring disease that's reverberated throughout history and could be eliminated were there the will to do so, not considered vital when the common cold is? Malleus Fatuorum 05:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support the contest, Cas. (I hope that does not hurt you in getting it across...serious.) Some of the good aspects are going after a lot of things (since this would be individual or I guess groups could split winnings). Including a lot of people. Feasible for the non-FA stud types (not a super prose polish exercise, only). High energy (tight timeline). I think also the omission of GA/FA takes a way a long time step and polishing emphasis...and would allow taking some of the stub/start/C articles to B. Which is really a huge addition. Like that IT article...grrr. Probably some decent fraction would go on to GA (even FA) by contestants who become in for a dime, in for a doller. (so some benefit after the contest.)TCO (talk) 05:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.s. I would not get wrapped up in debating VAs. I've looked at the list a lot and as a whole, it is very, very solid. Kvetching about an individual inclusion or ommission is not wholistic, strategic thinking. We need to be less Wiki-ish and more like in the work world. 80-20. (and that list is more like 95-5). I added a slide to my deck in the VA section that kind of addresses this issue (comparison of 5 random VAs). -TCO

I've also looked at the list, and much of it is generic crap better suited for a dictionary. Malleus Fatuorum 06:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so Malleus (and TCO), you reckon each entry is judged on a combination of its heftiness and improvement on a case-by-case basis? We just give the brief as any hefty broad article and let ~~punters~~ editors come up with the ideas? Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could run it off of pageviews. Set a floor (50,000 per month?) Would throw that out as a compromise. If we totally lose the aspect of prioritizing important topics, we lose anything that interests me though.TCO (talk) 06:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there ought to be a project where a rich flora of ideas like this are discussed. --Ettrig (talk) 08:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, everybody out of Sue's Place and head on over to.....

Wikipedia:The Core Contest to take a look at what I am proposing, and Wikipedia talk:The Core Contest to discuss. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

News and notes: Arb's resignation sparks lightning RfC, Fundraiser 2011 off to a strong start, GLAM in Qatar

In the news: The closed, unfriendly world of Wikipedia, fundraiser fun and games, and chemists vs pornstars

Recent research: Quantifying quality collaboration patterns, systemic bias, POV pushing, the impact of news events, and editors' reputation

WikiProject report: The Signpost scoops The Bugle

Featured content: The best of the week

Arbitration report: Voting underway in the elections, finally a final decision on Abortion, scant movement on requests

Technology report: Foundation appears correct to back improved smartphone support; and how a Reddit slip meant no-one could read anything for thirty minutes

Ping

My apologies for the delay in pinging you; I was trying to get out the door to ski, but have just had to cancel, so can now devote more time to discussion of a video of a UK presentation you made. Please see User talk:SandyGeorgia#Please please please and User talk:SandyGeorgia#Fools rush in; your clarification is welcome, as quite a few FA writers are de-motivated (not only by your comments, but also by other Signpost activity, so the two discussions are somewhat intertwined). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail

Hello Sue, I seמt you an e-mail. Thanks Hanay (talk) 07:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sue, Did you received my e-mail? Hanay (talk) 03:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I did Hanay, thanks. I am doing a little internal checking around, with Frank etc. I'll probably write you back tomorrow. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 06:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful thanks. I wrote to Frank too before I saw your answer. I hope to see you both and tell you about the projects. I am very excited, it seems to go very well Hanay (talk) 05:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holy shit slide

I saw part of your recent presentation - I'll watch more later, and respond further. But, I thought you might want to respond to this (on WT:RFA). I suspect you'll go "no, it's not like that" - but I also suspect you can explain it better than I could. Chzz ► 21:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chzz. (Nice to see you here!) I will take a look at that page later today. Sue Gardner (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glad if you looked; pity you didn't add. Re. conference, I did say I would respond later; sorry that takes time. Best, Chzz ► 09:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

your presentation/slides/parody

Just to be clear, in regard to this [3], I was NOT parodying your talk (which I actually think was quite good). I was parodying some responses to it which, as far as I understand, where going to be published in the Signpost, and which were... let's say "parody worthy". Volunteer Marek 00:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks Volunteer Marek; I really appreciate you coming here to say that :-) Sue Gardner (talk) 01:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bot authors: please hire them

Hi Sue, please consider hiring bot authors per [4]; "this is due to me not being able to pay for the server" in particular. As I am sure you know (because I learned it from one of your slides) Cluebot is the most important bot not just in terms of anti-vandalism, but also because new users are more likely to encounter it than any other bot. This would give you the unique opportunity to both solve Rich's financial problems which have caused vandalism levels to max out even though more people are working Huggle than ever before and would allow you to direct ClueBot's warning templates to be more friendly which would likely have a tremendously positive impact on editor retention. Thank you. 67.6.191.142 (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No bot author should have to buy their own server. We're preparing to support bots in the new Wikimedia Labs environment; I'll get in touch with Rich to help get him set up there if he wants to be.--Eloquence * 19:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Loved your UK talk

But I'm here to give you a heads up about this:

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Opinion desk/~~Accessibility~~Openness versus quality

Going to press soonish, I believe. Alarbus (talk) 09:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

News and notes: Amsterdam gets the GLAM treatment, fundraising marches on, and a flourish of new admins

In the news: A Wikistream of real time edits, a call for COI reform, and cracks in the ivory tower of knowledge

Discussion report: Trial proposed for tool apprenticeship

WikiProject report: This article is about WikiProject Disambiguation. For other uses...

Featured content: This week's Signpost is for the birds!

Arbitration report: Elections due to finish this week, little activity on Betacommand 3, Abortion case amended

Technology report: Incremental dumps help mirrors, full screen search helps mobile visitors, and two MediaWiki releases help external sites

Main street not Wall Street

Hi again Sue, the audit report mentioned in the Signpost says that the $12 million reserve fund is invested in Treasury securities and certificates of deposit. Someone on IRC mentioned that the Foundation's CDs are probably from banks. I'm sure you know that taxpayers pay the (currently very low) interest on Treasury securities, but did you know that taxpayers subsidize the interest on bank deposits too? You can get certificates of deposit from credit unions which are still fully protected by the same FDIC guarantee which protects your bank CDs. The added benefit is that their usually higher rate of interest comes directly from loans to people in communities to whom banks often refuse to lend, not because of risk, but because Treasury and Fed deposits allow them to access even more capital, such as the $7.7 trillon (with a 't') they borrowed at 0.01% interest from the Fed's discount window.[5] Please see http://moveyourmoneyproject.org for more information. Thank you. 67.6.163.68 (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Since that site is geared more towards consumers, I should mention that this certificate of deposit rate finder currently lists three of the top paying five three-year, and the top two five-year, certificates of deposit for over $100,000 are at credit unions, and the rest are at small community banks. All are FDIC or NCUA insured for up to $250,000 per CD. It makes both dollars and sense to stop enriching Wall Street executives. 67.6.163.68 (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For example, CitiBank is currently offering 0.5% for a $250,000 3-year CD,[6] and Treasury securities currently pay much less, while the rate finder above shows that Melrose Credit Union offers a 1.91% APR certificate of deposit on the same term and amount. That's about $520,000 more from the credit union on $12 million principal over three years. Will you please ask the Board whether they want to take this opportunity? 67.6.163.68 (talk) 20:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SOPA and Wales role

Sue,

Is Jimbo acting as an agent of the WMF when discussing SOPA with politicans?

TCO (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TCO. Jimmy and the board and I have been discussing SOPA for about a month. AFAIK Jimmy hasn't been officially asked to represent the Wikimedia Foundation or convey specific messages from it to anyone, but I'm sure he's been giving his views with people he happens to be talking with. SOPA is a terrible, badly-drafted bill that could cripple sites like Wikipedia, Google, etsy, Flickr and lots of others: to the extent that Jimmy is speaking against it, that is great for the Wikimedia projects, and for a free and open internet. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 06:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. At least it is not some intrigue between you guys.

I hope you express those views, not shut the site down. I'm fine with us expressing our view, but to mess with content (even a shutdown is a form of using content as a weapon) will be violating NPOV. There was a faction, NOT happy with the it-Wiki for this reason.

And if you do decide to do it, some central community discussion, at least, not Jimbo's page would be better.TCO (talk) 10:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with TCO. Also, Sue, Jimbo made reference to WMF using paid lobbyists. He specifically said that WMF does. Can you give us further information about this, such as the name of the lobbying firm or registered lobbyists? Best,--Wehwalt (talk) 10:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wehwalt. I think Jimmy has answered this question on his own talk page. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add that given the heavy oppose trend this morning, and the fact that this poll has only run on the weekend so far, Jimbo would be most foolish to say to anyone, even in private, anything about the perceived views of Wikipedia editors. And, the process was deeply flawed by Jimbo holding it on his talk page and treating it like is talk page. Yes, Marek's comments were out of line. Some of them. But Jimbo hid the whole thread, and I doubt that encourages free and open debate. Yes, a majority so far have supported. At least half of the supports are conditional on the case being made there is a threat to Wikipedia. I will leave it at that.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the assertion that SOPA "could cripple sites like Wikipedia", could you please give a justification for that based on the text of the bill? I see many people saying this, but I'm having some difficulty with the textual argument for Wikipedia. Something like "Wikipedia would fall under provision X, if definition Y was interpreted as Z ...". For comparison, when Larry Sanger made his charges about illegal sexual material, and without endorsing his view, I could readily see his argument and his reasoning from the text of the law he cited. The process of claiming SOPA is a threat to Wikipedia strikes me as almost a mirror image of that in terms of Wikipedia politics. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 11:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If people were really concerned about this, and not just anxious to Occupy Wikipedia, they'd start going through all the copyvios at Commons and getting them deleted. That would at least be constructive. This whole thing's like pulling in the pitchfork and torches brigade and finding the mayor and two of the judges among the prisoners.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sue, could you point to where in WMF's 2012 budget is allocated funds for the paid lobbyists? If it's not in there, could you say how much WMF plans to budget for these lobbyists in 2012? Cla68 (talk) 22:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cla68. You can see the 2011-12 plan on the Wikimedia Foundation wiki, under I believe Financial Statements on the left nav. (It may also be housed on the front page; I can't remember.) There is an allocation in the plan for Legal. That amount includes all spending allocated for the legal defense and protection of the projects: assessing and/or mitigating the implications of SOPA would fall under that. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 00:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@everyone. I did a post that addressed some of these issues. Also we will be examining the new version of the bill (received today) and will post our analysis. Geoffbrigham (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for the response, Ms Gardner. Some follow up questions...Why wasn't it previously announced that the WMF would be retaining a paid lobbyist? When did the WMF decide to politicize the English Wikipedia by getting involved in the campaign against SOPA? When did the WMF executive board elect Jimbo to lead this campaign on behalf of the WMF? If you could link to the meeting minutes in which the executive board made these decisions, I think it would resolve most of the remaining questions about where Jimbo is coming from with all of this. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 04:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Clas68. Hiring a DC firm is a normal action that doesn't require any special approvals or announcements: it's reasonable that the Wikimedia Foundation would hire a firm in DC to assess the situation for us since, unlike other organizations such as Google, we don't have paid staff on the ground in DC. I'm not sure I follow your question about politicizing the English Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation has a position on SOPA which we laid out in a blog post on November 16. The Wikimedia Foundation doesn't intend to take any action on the English Wikipedia or any of the other projects: those are purely community decisions, and we will support whatever the community decides to do. WRT Jimmy, I will say this: the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees opposes SOPA, as do I, and as does Jimmy. (And the EFF, Google, Craigslist, the Free Software Foundation, the American Libraries Association, the Association of College & Research Libraries, the ACLU, Creative Commons, Mozilla, and many others.) Jimmy's expressing his views in multiple arenas, including asking community members what they think about the idea of organized on-wiki opposition. Judging from his talkpage, I'd say that opening the topic was a good idea: there is lots of interest in it, and it's a good rich discussion. Sue Gardner (talk) 07:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. If the executive council didn't vote in a formal session to hire the lobbying firm, who was it that decided to do it? Does the WMF charter stipulate that proposed expenditures above a certain amount be approved by a full quorum of the board? If so, then the expenditure for the lobbying firm doesn't exceed that amount? If not, then how is oversight provided by the board over spending decisions? Also, do you feel that Jimbo can both be a leader in the English Wikipedia's community while at the same time functioning as a mouthpiece and executive board member for the WMF? Do you see the potential for any conflicts there? Cla68 (talk) 08:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Greg Pak

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Greg Pak. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 03:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason to work on editor retention instead of admins?

Hi Sue, these questions were archived off of Jimmy's talk page twice before he replied. Would you please answer them? 67.6.163.68 (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, do you think administrator attrition is causing editor attrition or more the other way around, on balance? Are there any ways that the more quickly declining admin ranks could be caused by decreased editor retention? There are several reasons that fewer admins cause editor biting. Consider how fast WP:ANI is archived compared to about five years ago during the fastest growth period. Is there any reason to believe that admins make better decisions under one fifth the available amount of time? If it were entirely up to you, how would you prefer Foundation resources be allocated towards editor retention and admin retention, in terms of percentages of the entire budget? My opinion is 25% for admins and 1% for editors. 67.6.191.142 (talk) 12:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As neither admins or non-admin editors get any resources that I am aware of, dividing zero as you suggest should not be difficult. Personally, I think the barriers of entry are higher standards (thus, anyone cannot just edit it, at least for an article which is watched, without a significant risk of being reverted for good cause) and too much drama (the subsequent condescending note or block notice left on talk). I happen to agree that we are no longer just looking for bodies with fingers, and it is more important to concentrate on keeping experienced editors (who get bored or offended, and leave) and giving them resources to do their jobs.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but in fact according to [7] the foundation has decided to devote considerable resources to editor retention, which seems foolish to me as it has leveled off to a slope sustainable for decades, while all the admins will be gone in less than seven years at the rate they've been leaving. I hope that Jimbo will be able to address the question. 67.6.191.142 (talk) 15:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editor attrition is likely to be expected for a project involving documentation of knowledge. At the beginning all the easy stuff that just anyone can do is done. Ahem, Barbie, Easy bake oven, Kim Kardashian

Then it is followed by the harder work of citing and rewriting the more complex and technical articles for accuracy and completeness. That work is not as much "fun" so not as many people want to do it (or due to the costs of published scientific papers and industry standards, not many people CAN do it).. Tumor necrosis factor-alpha

In the end I think it'll be either the obsessed or the asbergers/autistics (or the in-field scientists/engineers -- which may or may not be classified separately from those already mentioned, heh) that really flesh out the niggly ultra-technical stuff.

So the slowdown seems entirely expected. It will likely never drop off completely, though it is possible for some articles to be eventually be "locked for completeness" at some point, just to reduce the vandalism hassle. DMahalko (talk) 15:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is broadly correct. By about 2007 Wikipedia already had articles on most things that most people care about. What is left is cleanup and QC, along with fleshing out more technical or esoteric topics. Those activities don't attract the masses. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and believe that supports the assertion that the Foundation should be focusing on administrator retention instead of general editor retention. 67.6.163.68 (talk) 00:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sue asked Maryana or I to give you some more details about this. I think the first thing that needs to be said is that we don't see it as an "either-or" choice. Unless someone from the Foundation specifically says, "new editor retention" (or engagement, or recruitment, you get the idea) we do not mean that the only important thing to focus on is throwing new editors into the mix. When you suggest that the viability of the project and the health of the community are intimately tied to a strong group of admins, no one at the WMF disagrees with that. However, so far we've found that there are many variables possibly contributing to the flat-lining or decline in Wikipedia communities, and that looking at only one issue like administrator "bitey-ness" is too narrow. That's why we're doing things like facilitating WP:UWTEST, trying new feedback mechanisms and doing larger projects like writing a rich text editor (more engineering stuff here). As for how to address the admin issue... I think a large part of that lies in the community-created policies and process around adminship, and despite best efforts things like RFA are really thorny problems. I think there are plenty of longtime Wikipedians at the WMF who would be interested in helping new reform efforts in the area of adminship (personally I think Derrick Coetzee's proposal for 10 day trial use of the tools is great) but at this point we would rather in be a role supporting community change from within, rather than trying to impose it in the area of adminship. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 00:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding admin shortage - the key is measuring the backlog of admin tasks over an extended period to see if there is an increase over time.

Regarding "completeness" of wikipedia, yes alot of easy stuff is done, but it is only when one delves into content for an extended period that one realises how many huge gaps there still are, both in articles and chunks missing from articles. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the completeness theory commentary, I will just note that, "[As of 2009] ...there are more Wikipedia articles written about Antarctica than all but one of the 53 countries in Africa" [8]. This may have been balanced slightly in the last couple years, but I would not be surprised to see how bereft we are of information on some very basic topics still. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 01:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Safeguards against "self-promotion, bias, and puffery"

Wikimedia Foundation head Sue Gardner addressed the American Library Association in June 2011. Afterwards she took questions:

Asked by an audience member if Wikipedia had problems with people contributing self-serving material, Gardner said, “They are vigilant in their defense of editorial integrity,” so they are the look-out for self-promotion, bias, and puffery. There are lots of safeguards, she noted.[9]

Is Ms. Gardner aware that there is no prohibition on self-serving editing or even paid advocacy, and that anyone who blows the whistle on it may be banned under Wikipedia's strict outing policy? In my experience, the greatest threats to Wikipedia's reputation as a reliable reference work are vandalism and conflict of interest editing. The community expends considerable efforts in cleaning up vandalism, yet it is forbidden from effectively dealing with conflicts of interest, no matter how great they may be. If Ms. Gardner thinks that there should be safeguards then I encourage her to investigate the actual state of affairs. The safeguards are not as extensive as she may believe. Will Beback talk 09:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sue_Gardner&oldid=465609905"

@@ Line 457: / Line 457: @@
 :Regarding "completeness" of wikipedia, yes alot of easy stuff is done, but it is only when one delves into content for an extended period that one realises how many huge gaps there still are, both in articles and chunks missing from articles. [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 01:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 ::To add to the completeness theory commentary, I will just note that, "[As of 2009] ...there are more Wikipedia articles written about Antarctica than all but one of the 53 countries in Africa" [http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/dec/02/wikipedia-known-unknowns-geotagging-knowledge ]. This may have been balanced slightly in the last couple years, but I would not be surprised to see how bereft we are of information on some very basic topics still. <font style="font-family:Palatino, Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font>  01:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
+== Safeguards against "self-promotion, bias, and puffery" ==
+Wikimedia Foundation head [[Sue Gardner]] addressed the [[American Library Association]] in June 2011. Afterwards she took questions:
+*''Asked by an audience member if Wikipedia had problems with people contributing self-serving material, Gardner said, “They are vigilant in their defense of editorial integrity,” so they are the look-out for self-promotion, bias, and puffery. There are lots of safeguards, she noted.[http://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/inside-scoop/sue-gardner-calls-librarians-dive-world-wikipedia]
+Is Ms. Gardner aware that there is no prohibition on self-serving editing or even paid advocacy, and that anyone who blows the whistle on it may be banned under Wikipedia's strict [[WP:OUT|outing policy]]? In my experience, the greatest threats to Wikipedia's reputation as a reliable reference work are vandalism and conflict of interest editing. The community expends considerable efforts in cleaning up vandalism, yet it is forbidden from effectively dealing with conflicts of interest, no matter how great they may be. If Ms. Gardner thinks that there should be safeguards then I encourage her to investigate the actual state of affairs. The safeguards are not as extensive as she may believe. &nbsp; <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]]&nbsp; [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]]&nbsp; </b> 09:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)