User talk:Sue Gardner: Difference between revisions

--Aphaia 01:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Sue, thanks for your message. Yep, I think I was first to fill the table in, and I was half afraid I'd break something hehe. I did have an edit conflict with Pete, who was tweaking the table, which nearly stopped my heart because I thought I'd had to start all over again. xD I have spread the word so that other people will give their input.
You interviewed Ann Bannon? How cool is that? Is that interview available online? I'd like to read it! Cheers Raystorm 08:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC) (You do know who I am despite the username, right? :P Hint: WMES)Reply

I *think* I know who you are, but maybe I am wrong? Madrid and Berlin, right? /nervous!

Our world is so funny. Dozens of times, I'll be having a long conversation with somebody at Wikimania or a meet-up, and it slowly dawns on me that I know them really really well from the wikis or lists. It's such a strange feeling, because normally if you do not recognize someone, it's because you do not know them. But not for us :-)

My Ann Bannon interview is not online, which is such a shame. (I don't own the copyright and nor did the CBC; I think it was owned by the union I belonged to back then.) I interviewed her after seeing the Canadian documentary Forbidden Love which is also sadly not online. But worth viewing if you ever get the chance: it was really well made. Thanks Sue Gardner 13:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, that's me, exactly. xD And the same thing has happened to me a few times, most recently with Theo. xDD Sorry about the late reply, it just dawned on me maybe you replied on your talkpage. Pity about the interviews, it's so hard to get good sources/material on some topics. :/ At least I know they exist, if I ever come across them I'll be sure to check them out. Thanks! Raystorm 17:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello Sue, just wanted to warn you that I made some corrections to your automatically-translated user page on it.wiki in order to fix the Italian grammar :-) Take care -- Blackcat 01:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Blackcat. :) Knowing how much I appreciate it when people correct translation errors in my document, I'm sure Sue will be grateful. :D --Maggie Dennis (WMF) 22:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am! Thanks Blackcat:-) Sue Gardner 00:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ms. Gardner, I was wondering if a page on Meta could be created to mention the lobbying done on behalf of the WMF and the WM organizations? Basically, just describing who is on retainer and what governmental entities they have lobbied before as a record. The data would all be public regardless but it would be nice to see a record/chronology about the matter. After all, I would find it more interesting than the GLAM stuff as lobbying deals with actual public policy instead of just PR. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Ottava Rima. I'll look into this and see if it's feasible. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) 22:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Just to update, I don't think there's any movement afoot to create a page of this sort at the moment (everybody's pretty busy with other work, particularly in the mid-holiday backlog), but Geoff has just posted a little more about our work with government affairs consultants, here. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) 19:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Maggie, and hi Ottava. I believe hiring the DC firm to advise us on SOPA is the first time the Wikimedia Foundation has ever done anything remotely close to lobbying. (I don't want to say for sure, just because i) I haven't been with the Wikimedia Foundation since inception, ii) the definition of 'lobbying' is slightly grey, and it's possible we've done something that somebody else might see as lobbying, which doesn't register as such for me, and iii) chapters may have engaged in a small amount of lobbying, and it's possible they had expenses for it that were funded by the Wikimedia Foundation.) But I can say confidently that SOPA is the first time we've done it in any even semi-serious way. We're planning on tracking it going forward, so I'm sure there'll be a page created sometime within a month or so. I'll post the URL here once there is. Sue Gardner 00:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

A particular checkuser on WP has been repeatedly indef-blocking me over, and over, and over, and over ...

He claims I am an AIDS denialist. [1] I am not. [2] How do I address this harassment? --173.206.237.188 17:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC) (KBlott)Reply

You may wish to review the guideline to appealing blocks on English Wikipedia. If you are not able to convince the community that the blocks have been imposed in error, you are able to appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Directions for doing so can be found on that page. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) 22:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

WP has specific rules against outing. As long as WMF cannot see to it that WP follows its own rules I would not be interested in convincing “the community” of anything and WMF will certainly continue to lose market share to its competitors. Regards, KBlott.

WP’s antisocial CU still seems to be outing his victims. Ignoring this behaviour is probably not a good idea. Regards, KBlott --173.206.236.217 13:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry that I misunderstood your question. When you asked how to address the harassment, I'm afraid I mistook that as indicating concern with the block. Issues with checkuser privacy violations are addressed to the Ombudsman commission. If you send them the particulars, they should look into the matter and direct it as appropriate. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) 14:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

WP’s antisocial CU has outed another user here in violation of outing policy. He is also currently editing under a different user name in violation of WP hypocrisy policy. Regards, KBlott. --173.206.236.217 06:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

This diff outs Chrissymacc.

If you send the details to the Ombudsman commission, I'm sure they'll be able to evaluate the matter. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) 19:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Maggie is correct. The appropriate venue for this is the Ombudsmen. Philippe (WMF) 19:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank-you for your assistance. --KBlott

Hi,

I don't known if this is the right place but I want to propose an idea for a new Wikimedia Project. All the Wikimedia Projects are great in the sense that they are free collaborative tools. This is really good because it makes information free for everyone. I'm very supportive to this kind of iniciative. So, I was thinking about the restrictions many development countries have to access information that can help them to improve their people's live conditions. For example, I believe many people don't have access to pretty well-known basic scientific information that can help them solve common everyday problems. For example, check this link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rruNxURlWCY). It's about an African young man that helped his village only by information access and his impressive goodwill. I think it would be really nice if there were a place for collaborative scientific projects on the internet. Then people could share their knowledge on making simple scientific projects like this one. We live in a high-tech society but it's hard to understand why there are people in the world suffering because of problems that we have already found a solution for. High-tech science is useless for this people now because they lack the basic infrastructure to make it and technology costs a lot, there are many patents and so on. However, there is a big amount of scientific knowledge that is already open and very practical and these people don't have access to it. This is my suggestion: to create a Wiki for Scientific Projects. It could have every type of projects from simple Chemistry lab experiences to projects aiming to achieve Environmental Sustainability . Sorry for my english mistakes but my mother language is not english but portuguese.

Thanks for your attention,

Marcos Pereira da Silva Cruz (My portuguese wikipedia user is Marcos-cruz)

Hi, Marcos. While I'm not Sue, I read your idea with great interest. New projects, however, are not chosen by Foundation staff, but rather by the community. Proposals for new projects is the place to go to discuss such ideas. Alternatively, you might want to consider whether your idea would fit within the scope of one of the existing projects. It sounds as though you might be able to get something like this going at Wikiversity or Wikibooks. Good luck moving forward with it! --Maggie Dennis (WMF) 22:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Madam Gardner,

For a start, excuse me for my bad english. It's not my native language.

You probably don't know who I am, so please allow me to introduce myself. I'm active on Wikimedia's projects since beginning of 2005. I'm a former member of the board of Wikimedia CH, but I speak here in my own name. I work with Wikimedia CH but also with Wikimédia France. My activities with these chapter concern especially photographies and media outreach. You can see a part of my job in your last annual report (photographies in sports events, etc.). For media outreach, I often go on the Swiss national radio to speak about Wikipedia's and Wikimedia's projects.

In 2007, I was very happy about your arrival in our structures. I thought it was a good thing that the Wikimedia Foundation was becoming more professional. But I must say that I'm a little bit disappointed for the last two or three years. Last year, I read - without taking part - the discussions between Wikimedia Foundation and chapters about fundraising agreement. Last year, we (volunteers of projects) spent many times on this agreement. All this time didn't spend for contents projects. It's ridiculous.

And now ? Begining of 2012, you create this new draft. I read the draft and discussions about it. I completely agree with the remarks of Schutz. Your draft is completely out of reality. I can resume your draft with only two sentences of you :

« It’s important to note that this recommendation only refers to payment processing, not to the development or translation of messaging. The development and translation of messaging that’s suited to the local context should continue in partnership with the global, decentralized Wikimedia movement. »

So, I understand now that you consider that chapters are only your secretaries. Wikimedia Foundation decide all about all. Chapters and volunteers are only the executors and the translators. This is in total contradiction with the principles of operation of our projects. Do you know these principles ? I think not.

For two or three years, the Wikimedia Foundation give the impression that she wants ever more money. But not for developing Wikimedia's projects but for hire more and more staff to kill chapters.

For the future of Wikimedia's movement, I'm more afraid of the Foundation than our regulars problems as vandalism. I think really that the most important danger for the Wikimedia's movement is our Foundation.

I'm very sad to write this, but it's just the reality.

Cordially,

Ludovic Péron 11:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure that what you're saying naturally follows from what Sue wrote. She wrote "The development and translation of messaging that's suited to the local context should continue in partnership..." That's quite a long way from "secretaries and translators". In fact, one of the great areas in which chapters can make a huge impact is to partner (note that word) with the Foundation in messaging development. That's not being a secretary - that's a partnership. Philippe (WMF) 20:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

Of course, all that I said follows from what Sue wrote. Probably I'm the best person to know from where come from my sentences. No ?

The development and translation of messaging, it is already a job that volunteers make. At this time, volunteers make contributions for contents projects and for meta-job (translation, etc). Here we talk about the wish to summarize the job of volunteers at simply lackeys job. Using partnership, it's just a joke. But I don't find it very funny.

The new draft of Sue Gardner shows that there is a real wish to kill Wikimedia's chapters. It's a fact.

Finally, you're probably a nice person, but my post aimed at Sue Gardner, not you. If she don't want answer, she don't answer. I've not need the answers of other people.

Ludovic Péron 21:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ludovic. Thanks for commenting here, and thanks for writing in English: I appreciate it. I'm really sorry you're disappointed. And I think I mostly agree with you about the discussions we're all having about fundraising and funds dissemination. What's important is the work of the projects: the discussions about money are important only insofar as they make it possible for the projects to continue to flourish. Personally I find the discussions about money fairly exhausting, and I agree that they are often a distraction, for everyone, from other work that is more important. Having said that, there are some very basic tensions that need to get resolved, otherwise things will get worse, not better.

I do also think, though, that some of the conclusions you're drawing from what I wrote aren't supported by what I said. I've written some more on the talk page Friday, and I'll be writing more today. If you're interested, please keep reading those pages. I'll also say -- I appreciate that the discussions are particularly tiring for people for whom English isn't their first language: because of that, I try to be as succinct as I can. Regardless, thanks for your comment here. Sue Gardner 01:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your answer.

I'm totally agree with you about loosing our time in these questions. However it's you that launch...

I asked you a clear question. It's not very complicated to make a clear answer. I don't need to spend my time to read your answers, if you don't answer.

Do you want to kill the chapters ?

Ludovic Péron 09:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ludovic. The answer to your question is no. I want to see the chapters flourish. I would like to see them well-funded, and I would be happy to see them hiring staff and opening offices if that's what they want to do. I believe the chapters are an important part of the Wikimedia movement: I think they currently play an important role in helping the entire movement fulfil its mission, and I would love to see them do even more. Again: I am really sorry that my recommendations page is so long --- I know it's exhausting to read, and I wish I could have made it shorter. The talk page must be even worse. But if you are interested in my general thoughts about chapters at a more detailed level than I've written here, I'd point you towards this section of the Recommendations page, entitled Future of Wikimedia movement entities and tie-in with Movement Roles. Thanks Sue Gardner 18:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Take a look at the last item in this list. This guy is serious. How is this consistent with anyone can edit?

Hi. You might want to ask him. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) 00:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Done. The response is posted here. Where does WMF get its funding? May I see a copy of the auditor's report?

The audited financial statements (and other reports and plans) are all located here on the Wikimedia Foundation site. Thanks. Sue Gardner 01:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

This report states that WMF received $15M in revenues but does not state the source of the income. How much of this income was from government entities?

None of the Wikimedia Foundation's funding comes from governmental sources. Sue Gardner 16:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

1. mZm has outed another victim here. The diff links to this list which outs LM. He has also resumed old bullying habits on his alternate account. It seems that your Ombudsmen are not being very effective.

I don't understand why you are complaining to Sue about a CheckUser doing his duty. --Bsadowski1 22:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Your own outing policy states that "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, …. Personal information includes legal name, … whether any such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Wikipedia. …Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly,". If you honestly want to prevent WMF from biting the dust, you should start by following your own rules.

2. mZm has outed CB here.

No that still isn't outing. If someone creates multiple accounts and misuses them, then linking and blocking them is not outing - our policy en:Wikipedia:OUTING#Posting_of_personal_information explains this. If someone creates an account in their real name then they need to be more cautious as to what they do online. WereSpielChequers 12:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Sue, thanks for welcoming IRC office hours topics. I'd like to ask you about:

1. Performing an Inactive administrators survey, especially in light of the likely causal relationship from administrator attrition to editor attrition. It's been pending for almost two years after reportedly having been approved.
2. Lawrence Lessig's assertion that lobbyist-fueled adverse legislation such as SOPA and the Research Works Act are recurring symptoms of pay-for-play politics exacerbated by Citizens United v. FEC, and expending time and effort to fight them is counterproductive relative to working for public campaign finance, to address the root issue instead. In particular, Common Cause says we should ask U.S. state legislators to send "voting instructions" to congresspeople for a constitutional amendment to reverse Citizens United (such as Lessig's "The28th") They are calling it "VITAL" -- Voter Instructions To Accountable Legislators. Do you agree that this is a higher priority than fighting against individual pieces of legislation which represent symptoms of the larger problem?
3. Credit union certificates of deposit as an alternative to Treasury securities and CitiBank CDs.

I'm looking forward to the discussion. James Salsman 17:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Sue, I've translated your statement into Italian here, please upload it to the foundation's wiki or call for someone who can. Mail me via wiki in case there's anything to fix or correct. Thank you :-) --g 22:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much for working on that, g! I see that simultaneously, somebody else was translating it, and it is on the Foundation wiki at wmf:English Wikipedia anti-SOPA blackout/it. Does it look all right to you? --Maggie Dennis (WMF) 12:39, 18 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Dear Sue, per http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Foundation_wiki_feedback#Failed_implementation:_blackout which indicates that the work around is trivial and well known, what steps are WMF taking to implement en.'s decision; despite the current failed implementation. this message has been sent to Philippe (WMF)'s meta talk page as well. yours with thanks, an en. editor, Fifelfoo 08:55, 18 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Fifelfoo. I actually think the current situation is fine. The primary purpose of the blackout is to raise awareness about the problems with SOPA, not to create an impregnable barrier. This is not a security or privacy issue --- if the barrier is a bit leaky, that's okay. We are not trying to harm or punish readers: the goal is simply to get their attention. Thanks Sue Gardner 13:07, 18 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Dear Sue. I reread the closing statement of the RFC on en. The closing statement refers to emergency access. While I am quite willing to accept that technical limitations may prevent the coherent implementation of community will (Philippe's answers have emphasised the limited development time available), the community expressed a clear wish for the blackout to be predominant, and for access to be emergency based. "Leaks," from the objective, are acceptable as part of the "not-done-yet" model of developing content and infrastructure we use—but still remain undesirable when the consensus expressed was around emergency access. (Much like we prefer an article with general sources to exist, even while it is cluttered with requests for particular claims to be cited).

There was extensive discussion about the "harm" of boycotting within the community leading up to the result. The closing statement of emergency access being a necessary part of implementation was clear. But the closing statement's indication that we wish to generate public interest in these bills was coupled with a request for an action that would generate interest by highly and considerably limiting public access to the encyclopaedia (with the exception of emergency situations). I have to agree with Philippe that hitting the escape key while loading was a surprising discovery in the implementation. For me, this means that conformance to the limitation to emergency access only hasn't worked. The degree of "hassle and restriction" involved in shutting off Java requires a far more conscious attention to the SOPA issue than repeatedly hitting escape. If the community hadn't wanted such hassle and restriction, the closers would have noted in favour of a click-through or other soft blackout. I would not describe this as a consensus to harm or punish; but, it is a decision to restrict access to our output and this diminishes our readers (if only for a day).

The decision to leave en.m. going was and is similarly problematic in relation to the community's expressed consensus. For example, National Library Australia was still pulling clear text from mobile yesterday. The community's discussion through December and January over the potential diminishment of reader and downstream consumer reading experience in the context of a full blackout was fairly aware of these flow-on effects. Restricting these output, restricting the entire suite of non-emergency uses of the encyclopaedia, was part of the point of putting and closing consensus as a full blackout (other than emergency uses). Technical or time-limit reasons not to implement (that covered en.m.'s banner only implementation, for example) are reasonable—but the diminishment of reading experience was clearly envisaged, recognised, and incorporated as a key driver generating public attention to the bills.

This leaky implementation means that en. probably needs to request the development of a suite of potential "off-switches" to suit the varying community needs and expectations. We may not need them often, but, we need them to be sufficiently well developed that we don't discover a single key-stroke defeats the requested purpose of implementation. While I was pleasantly surprised that development was this successful given the time limits; the developed and implemented solution did not conform particularly well to the restriction against non-emergency use of the encyclopaedia. Fifelfoo 22:34, 18 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Fifelfoo. I appreciate your thoughts here: they're helpful. There will likely be a postmortem on meta within the next week -- if you don't restate this there, I will try to ensure it gets captured. I think we did fine this time, but I also believe, in general, it's always worth looking at how we could do better in future. Thanks Sue Gardner 22:54, 18 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I think we've done fine too. For the post-mortem you may be interested in the (currently incomplete during to the ongoing action) analysis of inappropriate steward edits of en. here: on my talk. I will be taking these to the Administrators' Noticeboard on en. to note the resolution of such edits by counselling; and to note any outstanding undiscussed edits. I actually see the rate of mistaken inappropriate edits by Stewards to be particularly low given the addictiveness of editing a free encyclopaedia. Many thanks for your work in this difficult week, and the work of all WMF volunteers and staff. en.wikipedians appreciate it. Fifelfoo 00:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

In the section "In carrying out this protest, is Wikipedia abandoning neutrality?", I suggest "Board of Trustee" should just read "Trustee". Thanks, Wdchk 14:49, 18 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Got it, and I made the change. Thank you so much Wdchk for your edits -- they've been super-helpful :-) Sue Gardner 22:25, 18 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Sue Gardner. You have new messages at Thehelpfulone's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Helpful One 21:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

about Steve Jobs here: [3] and elsewere. He knew how to share a vision. Thats quite interesting. --Angel54 5 00:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC) done ur job long enough to moderate the discussion. Have to work tomorrow again. Invited some people to contribute. Now ur turn again, ok?--Angel54 5 01:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC) This is ur task, not mine. Dont take my arguments for granted. Ur risking a general upheaval from Chapters at the moment - I will not comment anymore. Ur the one, not me.--Angel54 5 17:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

• Hi Sue Gardner :) Conference of Wikipedia will be held in Istanbul. I wanted to give notice :) Good afternoon :) Learn more... Emperyan-message/ileti-WMTR 18:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your support! :) Organized last on November 26, 2011. More will do :)

I wish I could do more translation. But I'm 14 years old. In the future will be better. Thank you! :) Emperyan-message/ileti-WMTR 10:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, at en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-10-31/News_and_notes (top section, third para, last sentence, "On October 28...") there is a diff link pointing to this page which gives an error. I've been pointed here indirectly from commons:Commons:Requests_for_comment/improving_search#Proposal:_Simple_safesearch. Can you please help clarify whether and why "the category-based solution" for the image filter was taken off the table; and perhaps whether or how that would affect my proposal to use such an approach to filter search results. Thanks, Rd232 (talk) 15:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Rd232 - I deleted that diff because it (along with several others) included a privacy violation inadvertently (not Sue's fault). The quote is below, unaltered by me. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

:::Thank you for raising this issue. I am going to try to be as clear as I can: if what I say here doesn't answer your question, please just tell me.

I'm not a Board member, and I can't speak on behalf of the Board. What I can do though, is tell you how I am interpreting what the Board has said, and how I plan to have the staff handle this issue.

The Wikimedia Foundation is continuing to discuss the issue of controversial content, from both a technical and social perspective. The Board has not changed its original resolution to me, and so I am still intending to execute on what it asked me to do in its resolution.

However, I am not planning to create a category-based image filtering system, as was referred to in the image filter referendum. It became clear in the referendum results and the discussion afterwards that a category-based filter system would be unworkable and unacceptable to many of Wikimedia's communities. Therefore, I will not be asking the staff to create a category-based filtering system: that idea is off the table. This is only reasonable. I conducted the referendum because I wanted to know what people thought; they told me, and I am listening to what they said. That's appropriate, and it's how we should work together.

I know there has been a lot of rage and pain on this issue. Everybody at the Wikimedia Foundation has been doing their best to engage honestly and openly and constructively, but I am also aware that we have been clumsy in a variety of ways, and we have made mistakes. I am sorry for that. And so I want to be clear here in case it has been unclear so far: 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.

And so we have entered a discussion phase. Some ideas, such as a general images on/off switch, seem to have broad general support. Some other ideas seem to be more controversial than that, but not as controversial as a category-based image filter system. There are other ideas that are new, and only now beginning to be discussed. 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.

My hope is that we can have a good, rich, open conversation about acceptability and usefulness of different ideas, and figure this out in a way that works for everyone. I hope you'll participate on pages like Controversial content/Brainstorming and talk through some of the options there.

Let me know if there's anything in your question I didn't answer. Thanks. Sue Gardner 02:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Rd232 (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Dear Ms Gardner ...

• Ref: Sue Gardner (Google+) 11 Feb 2012
• (perhaps thematically related, but less specifically - Feb 12 G+)

Preliminaries/stage setting

• Note: I have previously donated $1,000 ($700+300) to the Wikimedia foundation.
  • (To this message, I'll add an additional $100 "stamp" to sweeten diversion of attention to this message :-)
• Quickly scan barnstars in collapsed green box on my meta user page
• Briefly ponder recent quote by designer for w:OLPC XO-1 project (below)

Requisite rhetorical sonnet (as per 'the legend' of Proofreader77)

Comment Re line {MSG.001.13}: The public realm is heavier than that.

prose close :-)

Respectfully suggest office/board consider review of en/meta event of 11-23 February 2012, and consider possible strategic nullification of some misbegotten results (i.e., let not some systemic developmental/transient social dynamics issues/problems of one project, appear to be supported by the foundation/all).

Kindest regards,

(Real life identity link is available at bottom of meta user page)

Proofreader77 (talk) 23:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

(Sustaining donor: $1,000 past + $100 today)

Ok, he was quite good at that one, saw it.

https://plus.google.com/u/0/116145904876152932515/posts/FWWN3SrZyYC

But u have to be aware that this last step (No. four) is similar to what u call karma (sanskrit - wheel), means, if u try long enough to build hurdles in social media then people will react not to jump over but to avoid the hurdles. This is a kind of learning effect. Noone who ran against a brick wall, will do the next time, cause it hurt.--Angel54 5 (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Angel54, for sending me back to that video to ponder again. (See my full reply in the history) -- Proofreader77 (talk) 00:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

sry for that numbering, but in that video there were shown four steps. I meant the last one. Its made quite funny but it has a kernel thats very honestly to understand - and it reminded me of such things like karma (call it fate if ur luckier with that). Design of social media is like that, what I discribed, what u didnt understand? If u want to have a broad acceptance u have to lower the hurdles to participate, thats my opinion. As I see it in some communities there are approx. 300 to 400 members active (I can only see my range, dont know what u see - and they are getting older, but newbies are thrown out by reflexes I dont know). --Angel54 5 (talk) 03:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Agree, 300-400 is what I see. And as you perhaps suggest, the ease of (newbies) being "thrown out" is a hurdle to participation — although long-established members may also meet the same fate if throwing out is a significant element of the culture of the online environment.
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 04:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I dont want to spam her talk page, dear proofreader. But it was ur recommended vid making me spin those thoughts.--Angel54 5 (talk) 13:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Profoundly resist the phrase "spam her talk page" re your insights :-), but concur we should not expand further here. Thank you very much for your insights — pleasure discussing with you. -- Proofreader77 (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Talk:Pedophilia#Update, [4] – The WMF doesn't appear to have a clear policy on how to handle pedophilia. Stefan2 is also asking for pedophilia to be defined. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ok, Ill try to answer here at a very delicate subject. U should know Im a teacher at first, and Im trying to face hurdles many young adults have. There was a broad discussion at mid70ths of the last century, what is sex education and what is not. There has to be openness to such questions and there has to be a shut up if someone tries to misuse those questions for unappropriated reasons. In fact there are many many different laws in different countries (look within the US, then u have a very broad pic, what is allowed in California isnt allowed in Virginia). But I think child pornographic is a huge hurdle in internet now - cause there is as much available: means - to be restrictive would be good, to avoid questions young adults have, wouldnt. If u try to cut that off, it would give the opposite side more room to manage.--Angel54 5 (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC). Besides: out of my experience, some girls with eleven yrs old have the same questions some other boys or girls arrive at fourteen? - there isnt any clear cut u can make. In some cultures the same questions might occur at the age of seventeen or even eighteen. U cannot really define what makes sense. What now is pedophilia? Its showing kids naked or sexually reprobate. I think noone wants that.--Angel54 5 (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but I'm seeking an official response from Sue and the WMF. They need to clarify their policies and principles. The WMF needs to state plainly and clearly what they stand for and what they stand against. These issues can't be left unresolved. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

sry, didnt grasp that - excuse my interference.--Angel54 5 (talk) 20:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

It's alright. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Michaeldsuarez, I'm sorry I've taken so long to get back to you. I've been caught up in the office on a variety of things, and haven't been checking this userpage or my watchlist. I got pointed here today by Philippe.

I'm assuming you're asking because of the current community discussions around pedophilia and a global policy on child protection, that are happening on I believe enWP, Commons, at the meta link you posted, and a few other places. Am I right? I had a meeting a few hours ago about this issue, with Geoff, Philippe, Maggie and a few other people. Essentially as I understand it, the open questions are these: i) on what grounds might or would a user be globally banned or blocked, for purposes of child protection, and ii) who has authority to enact such a global ban or block. Is that basically what's being asked, or are there other open questions I'm missing?

To the general issue, I would say: the Wikimedia Foundation takes child protection seriously, and the Wikimedia community has always been vigilant on these issues. However, the projects do currently do not have a community body with decision-making authority to enact global blocks and bans. I wish we did have such a body, and if the community wants to develop one, the Wikimedia Foundation would be very pleased to provide support for it. In the absence of that, though, I believe that in some very rare circumstances the Wikimedia Foundation will need to be prepared to enact global blocks/bans itself, on grounds of child safety. That shouldn't be a normal every-day occurrence, but it needs to be something the Wikimedia Foundation is willing to do, if necessary.

Does that help? I can also tell you we're actively discussing this at the staff level: I expect I'll have another meeting about it tomorrow. We're talking informally with community members as well, and I'd be very happy to hear people's thoughts here (or elsewhere) on what I've just posted. Please point me to any links you think we should be reading, as well. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 08:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I created a separate page for Funds Dissemination Committee (including the advisory committee), and edited down your recommendations into something shorter. I haven't created pages on the wmf wiki for Fundraising Principles and Funds Dissemination Principles, but they're next.

The recs are still numbered by the original numbering scheme, though some are merged. I tried to preserve the original intent almost everywhere. Three exceptions: I applied the first two (less-controversial) proposed amendments from your original talk page, I added rec 3c. to clearly distinguish the three different options, and I changed 'payment processing' to 'donation processing'. (I'm of two minds about that last change. But it seems to me that at present we have no way of separating processing one part of donations from the other; until we sort out safe-harbor issues, whoever processes the payment of a donation is responsible for the long-term processing of the donor relationship, in a way that seems legally hard to share.)

I don't know if any of this is useful to you, and apologize in advance if this now reads like boiled cabbage; but it helps me visualize how all the pieces fit together. –SJ talk   00:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Sue. People still are discussing about the idea of an image filter. In another context, I decided to put this image on my talk page. Just a notice, thanks for reading. --Blogotron (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Blogotron. Sue is traveling and may not be able to come by her talk page soon, but I'll make sure she knows that the community is still discussing the idea. Thanks! --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Because of changing to archive now, the link has changed: [5] I tried to let someone know that we both shared the same encounter; standing nearby this autopsy table in the concentration camp. A picture that maybe a subject to filtering; but it is a part of history.--Blogotron (talk) 14:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Blogotron. Thanks for your comment here. I would really like to encourage you to get involved in any of the discussions where Wikimedia communities are talking about how to handle potentially objectionable or disturbing content. The quality of decisions made by the Wikimedia movement is directly related to the number and diversity of people participating in the discussions that lead to the decision, and so your presence would help improve the result. Talking is good :-) So please, do get involved. It's not just the notion of an image filter (or similar technical tool) that should be discussed: IMO the editorial issues are more complex and more important. (I wrote a little about that on my blog, here.) Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Do the fundraising growth projections include [6]? 71.212.249.178 18:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sue is out of the office at the moment, but while waiting for her return, I just wanted to check and see if you can link to the fundraising growth projections that you mean, specifically. :) I can tell you that, as I understand it, generally speaking the WMF didn't take the blackouts into account when doing next year's annual plan because they didn't see them as a susbtantial, long-term game changer. Obviously, if the trend follows into 2012, that'll be taken into account going forward. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi 71.212.249.178. We don't actually have any projections -- what we create & publish is targets. In other words, we are stating the growth we hope to achieve, not making predictions. But to your question: no, the 2012-13 targets don't assume any change to donation levels resulting from the Italian blackout (or the anti-SOPA activities, or the blackout on the Russian Wikipedia). That doesn't mean those activities won't have any effect --they may-- it just means that we are not making any predictions about what the effect might be, nor are we planning, nor did we plan, to use the protest activities to influence donations. It's definitely true that protest activities can have the effect of causing a spike in giving -- I think the German chapter has seen this two or three times, and now I gather the same has happened in Italy. But to be honest, I mostly aim to ignore those correlations. The Wikimedia Foundation doesn't want fundraising considerations to have any influence on how the movement handles policy issues, and the easiest way to ensure they don't is to behave as though there were a firewall, and zero correlation, between the two. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 00:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

see pls oldwikisource:Wikisource:Scriptorium#Comments, I guess it is rather something for you than for the Oldwikisource. Thanks, regards -jkb- 14:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, jkb. I'll make sure that the trademark team is aware. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 19:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

ok, regards, -jkb- 22:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi there,

You are receiving this message because you edited the initial naming straw poll for the Wikimedia Travel Guide.

The proposed naming poll is now open and you can vote for as many of the proposed names as you wish, if you are eligible. Please see Travel Guide/Naming Process for full details on voting eligibility and how the final name will be selected. Voting will last for 14 days, and will terminate on 16 October at 06:59:59 UTC.

Thanks, Thehelpfulone 23:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Regarding this, a good way to remove about 80% of the flak from Wikimedia is to stop support of "free culture" related activities and narrow it down to Wikimedia and legality surrounding Wikimedia. This includes actively involving the Foundation in attacking businesses, paying for lawyers to defend people that attack businesses, and other unethical behavior that potentially harms the Foundation's ability to support an encyclopedia. You can also trim the budget of Wikimedia down to staff essential to operating servers and designing software upgrades. After all, if the Foundation is not part of editing content (which allows the to keep the immunity), then philosophically they should have no other duty than to work the servers.

Just to be clear, I am building off your section "What is not the core work of the Wikimedia Foundation?" Ottava Rima (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ur impertinent, those were suggestions...read that paper again. U can read, can u? U intend to be against all. Fine, but very lonely view.--Angel54 5 (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Since he is your deputy, it would be best that you ask him from refraining to attempt to intimidate people who have been critical of positions and views he has pushed. There are many members of the press who were keeping an eye on the page, and it really does a lot of disservice, especially when the harassment is targeting a person who actually contributed a significant portion of the quality content on Wikipedia and was recognized for being one of the top content contributors. Mr. Moller is, as I have told you before, one of the people who has to be removed from the Foundation before it can move forward. It is no coincidence that he is attempting to abuse his power to intimidate now. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)Reply