Latest comment: 6 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion
A first draft for a logo.
Hi,
It is very early to discuss a logo, but to communicate and create user boxes, we need one. So, I sent a request for the user group to be accepted officially. Until a positive answer, we are not very authorize to use Wikimedia trademark. Well, I am very enthusiast today so I made a draft to propose a suggestion for a logo. feel free to comment and suggest a better one! Noé (talk) 11:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A second draft for a logo. I have been working on another idea; I used only preexistent characters from wikt’s logo for the moment, but others may fit better (especially for the green part) — Ltrlg (talk) – 10:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
P.S.: It work without the tile, too. Not sure which one I find better, both are fine.
I think the first proposal is very understandable. Nemo 18:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikimedia Community LogoIt is very early. Personally, I think of wiktionary as a literary and linguistic tool/community; I usually think of tiles as toys/games. I would like to see a derivative of ethe Wikimedia Community Logo for an affiliation group, since it suggests it is a community. It is also not a trademark of the WMF, and therefore does not require permission to create a derivative, and does not require approval in order to use it. See wmf:Trademark_policy, wmf:Wikimedia visual identity guidelines. The Wiktionary logos are trademarked by the Foundation as well, so any derivatives of those would likewise require permission and approval. - Amgine/metawiktwnewsblogwmf-bloggoog news 05:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes,it is early but we need to discuss this topic to build the group. You're right about the community logo, but anyway, we need to discuss before to ask for an approval. The tile logo is Wiktionary official trademark, this project is known widely with this picture and favicon, so it makes sense to have it for the user group. Personaly I like the idea of compounds and reorganisation of letters and meanings, so tiles makes a good allegory for language production. Please, share any suggestions you have to produce collectively throught a good democratic practice, I am still trying to figure out how to do so. --Noé (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Un wiktionnaire logo débutThe tile logo is an official logo, as is Brion Vibber's words logo. Compounds and reorganisations of (unconnected) letters are not words, or lexemes, which are what I feel is the core of the Wiktionary project after the people who make up its communities. In some respects this is the central disagreement which has in the past failed to achieve consensus. The tiles logo was created by, and perhaps for, people who were not wiktionarians, so for some people the tiles logo can never be acceptable. Common icons related to dictionaries (and spell-checking, a common use for dictionaries) for english-speakers are [abc] + checkmark7, 'Aa'8, and a book shape with the word 'Dictionary' on the cover9. Each of these icon concepts has previously been proposed, and rejected, by historic communities - but the current population may accept one or another of these.
That said, I believe the WTG, having a goal to be User Group, would likely benefit from a logo which is related to wikimedian community, and linguistics. (Interesting images from linguistics sites: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 They all use text to express the idea.) - Amgine/metawiktwnewsblogwmf-bloggoog news 03:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here is an idea, since Wiktionary is about document speech chunks, what about a using a speech ballon chuncked and being assemble as the Wikipedia globe logo? --Psychoslave (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not sure I imagine it properly so feel free to make a draft! Well, a comment: the globe logo stand for Wikipedia, not for Wiktionary. This W is more representative. A tile can also be a symbol, but not for all Wiktionaries and some English contributors do not like it. Noé (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi all,
I started a process for doing this group an official user group and the name do not fit very well with the Naming guidelines so we are asked to change for another one. Is Tremendous Wiktionary User Group sounds good for you? Acronym can be TWUG, almost THUG, so we can have a great logo with sunglasses at some point! Any opposition on this name or alternative suggestions? Noé (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pamputt: if no one is against it, can you please rename this page to Tremendous Wiktionary User Group? (si personne ne s'oppose, serait-il possible de renommer la page, ce qui nécessite des droits d'administrateur de traduction) Noé (talk) 13:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok I will do it, not sure if translation admin right are needed but I checked and I can do it. I will do it on Monday if nobody oppose. Pamputt (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You need to first create it in the Wikimedia Incubator. It will only be created as a real project once the test-project in the Incubator is active enough. Amqui (talk) 23:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi!
There is an on-going Community Wishlist Survey November 9 to 20 and there is a specific attention for small projects this time. It is an opportunity for Wiktionaries to be taking in account by the Tech Community!
It's time to write suggestions and ideas and to endorse ideas for Wiktionaries!
Recognition as a Wikimedia affiliate - a chapter, thematic organization, or user group - is a privilege that allows an independent group to officially use the Wikimedia name to further the Wikimedia mission. While most Wikimedia affiliates adhere to the basic compliance standards set forth in their agreements with the Wikimedia Foundation, a protocol has been developed to address the exceptional cases when a Wikimedia affiliate does not meet basic compliance standards and their continued recognition as a Wikimedia affiliate presents a risk to the Wikimedia movement.
In the past year, the Affiliations Committee - with support from Wikimedia Foundation staff - has made a concerted effort to address a handful of chapters with long-standing issues of non-compliance. As a result, in the coming days and months, a small number of chapters that have been unable to return to compliance through their efforts in the past year will not have their chapter agreements renewed. As a consequence, these organizations will no longer have the additional rights to use the Wikimedia trademarks, including the Wikimedia name, that had been granted under those agreements.
If you have questions about what this means for community members in the affected affiliates’ region or language areas, we have put together a basic FAQ. The FAQ talk page is available for additional questions and comments, and the Affiliations Committee is happy to answer questions directly.
The Wikimedia movement is beginning a movement-wide strategy discussion, a process which will run throughout 2017. For 15 years, Wikimedians have worked together to build the largest free knowledge resource in human history. During this time, we've grown from a small group of editors to a diverse network of editors, developers, affiliates, readers, donors, and partners. Today, we are more than a group of websites. We are a movement rooted in values and a powerful vision: all knowledge for all people. As a movement, we have an opportunity to decide where we go from here.
This movement strategy discussion will focus on the future of our movement: where we want to go together, and what we want to achieve. We hope to design an inclusive process that makes space for everyone: editors, community leaders, affiliates, developers, readers, donors, technology platforms, institutional partners, and people we have yet to reach. There will be multiple ways to participate including on-wiki, in private spaces, and in-person meetings. You are warmly invited to join and make your voice heard.
The immediate goal is to have a strategic direction by Wikimania 2017 to help frame a discussion on how we work together toward that strategic direction.
Regular updates are being sent to the Wikimedia-l mailing list, and posted on Meta-Wiki. Beginning with this message, monthly reviews of these updates will be sent to this page as well. Sign up to receive future announcements and monthly highlights of strategy updates on your user talk page.
Here is a review of the updates that have been sent so far:
The core movement strategy team, team tracks being developed, introduction of the Community Process Steering Committee, discussions at WikiIndaba conference 2017 and the Wikimedia movement affiliates executive directors gathering in Switzerland
As we mentioned last month, the Wikimedia movement is beginning a movement-wide strategy discussion, a process which will run throughout 2017. This movement strategy discussion will focus on the future of our movement: where we want to go together, and what we want to achieve.
Regular updates are being sent to the Wikimedia-l mailing list, and posted on Meta-Wiki. Each month, we are sending overviews of these updates to this page as well. Sign up to receive future announcements and monthly highlights of strategy updates on your user talk page.
Here is a overview of the updates that have been sent since our message last month:
We invite you to join the movement strategy conversation (now through April 15)Edit
This message, "We invite you to join the movement strategy conversation (now through April 15)", was sent through multiple channels by Gregory Varnum on 15 and 16 of March 2017 to village pumps, affiliate talk pages, movement mailing lists, and MassMessage groups. A similar message was sent by Nicole Ebber to organized groups and their mailing lists on 15 of March 2017. This version of the message is available for translation and documentation purposes
Dear Wikimedians/Wikipedians:
Today we are starting a broad discussion to define Wikimedia's future role in the world and develop a collaborative strategy to fulfill that role. You are warmly invited to join the conversation.
There are many ways to participate, by joining an existing conversation or starting your own:
Track A (organized groups): Discussions with your affiliate, committee or other organized group (these are groups that support the Wikimedia movement).
This is the first of three conversations, and it will run between now and April 15. The purpose of cycle 1 is to discuss the future of the movement and generate major themes around potential directions. What do we want to build or achieve together over the next 15 years?
We welcome you, as we create this conversation together, and look forward to broad and diverse participation from all parts of our movement.
Once the questions submission period has ended on April 20, the Elections Committee will then collate the questions for the candidates to respond to beginning on April 21.
The goal of this process is to fill the three community-selected seats on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. The election results will be used by the Board itself to select its new members.
The full schedule for the Board elections is as follows. All dates are inclusive, that is, from the beginning of the first day (UTC) to the end of the last.
April 7 (00:00 UTC) – April 20 (23:59 UTC) – Board nominations
April 7 – April 20 – Board candidates questions submission period
April 21 – April 30 – Board candidates answer questions
May 1 – May 14 – Board voting period
May 15–19 – Board vote checking
May 20 – Board result announcement goal
In addition to the Board elections, we will also soon be holding elections for the following roles:
Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC)
There are five positions being filled. More information about this election will be available on Meta-Wiki.
One position is being filled. More information about this election will be available on Meta-Wiki.
Please note that this year the Board of Trustees elections will be held before the FDC and Ombuds elections. Candidates who are not elected to the Board are explicitly permitted and encouraged to submit themselves as candidates to the FDC or Ombuds positions after the results of the Board elections are announced.
More information on this year's elections can be found on Meta-Wiki. Any questions related to the election can be posted on the election talk page on Meta-Wiki, or sent to the election committee's mailing list, board-electionswikimedia.org.
The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees is the ultimate governing authority of the Wikimedia Foundation, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization registered in the United States. The Wikimedia Foundation manages many diverse projects such as Wikipedia and Commons.
The Wikimedia movement strategy core team and working groups have completed reviewing the more than 1800 thematic statements we received from the first discussion. They have identified 5 themes that were consistent across all the conversations - each with their own set of sub-themes. These are not the final themes, just an initial working draft of the core concepts.
You are invited to join the online and offline discussions taking place on these 5 themes. This round of discussions will take place between now and June 12th. You can discuss as many as you like; we ask you to participate in the ones that are most (or least) important to you.
Here are the five themes, each has a page on Meta-Wiki with more information about the theme and how to participate in that theme's discussion:
Funds Dissemination Committee
The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) makes recommendations about how to allocate Wikimedia movement funds to eligible entities. There are five positions being filled. More information about this role can be found at the FDC elections page.
Funds Dissemination Committee Ombudsperson
The Funds Dissemination Committee Ombudsperson receives complaints and feedback about the FDC process, investigates complaints at the request of the Board of Trustees, and summarizes the investigations and feedback for the Board of Trustees on an annual basis. One position is being filled. More information about this role can be found at the FDC Ombudsperson elections page.
We will also be accepting questions to ask the candidates until May 28. You can submit your questions on Meta-Wiki. Once the questions submission period has ended on May 28, the Elections Committee will then collate the questions for the candidates to respond to.
The goal of this process is to fill the five community-selected seats on the Wikimedia Foundation Funds Dissemination Committee and the community-selected ombudsperson. The election results will be used by the Board itself to make the appointments.
The full schedule for the FDC elections is as follows. All dates are inclusive, that is, from the beginning of the first day (UTC) to the end of the last.
May 15 (00:00 UTC) – May 28 (23:59 UTC) – Nominations
May 15 – May 28 – Candidates questions submission period
May 29 – June 2 – Candidates answer questions
June 3 – June 11 – Voting period
June 12–14 – Vote checking
June 15 – Goal date for announcing election results
Please feel free to post a note about the election on your project's village pump. Any questions related to the election can be posted on the talk page on Meta-Wiki, or sent to the election committee's mailing list, board-electionswikimedia.org.
Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Hi, I am looking for the most efficient way to ping every participant of the groupe (user registered here. So if someone with technical skills could give some advice, it would be great. The idea is to find an easy way to notify every participant at the same time. I think this could be very useful to inform participants of the Tremendous_Wiktionary_User_Group that discussion about Wiktionary is ongoing. This is currently the case with that one on Wikidata. I guess something like a brutal call like this should work :D
Notifications only works if you sign it and put names and signature in one single edit Noé (talk) 08:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Concerning the way to ping very participants of the user groupe, we can probably adapat Modèle:Notif projet from the French Wikipedia. I let a message here in order to have a look and try something later. Pamputt (talk) 15:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, Template:Ping project from Wikidata is better. It uses Template:Participants (and its sub-pages) and Module:Wikitext. The best is probably to import them here and to adapt them then. Yet, I have not the rights to import them. Stryn, as an admin, could you do it? BTW, what is the policy of template and module on Meta? Do you need to announce these imports somewhere? It can probably be useful for other user groups. Pamputt (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pamputt it's not possible to import pages from Wikidata, see Help:Import#Transwiki_import. So someone should create a phabricator task, but it would require consensus on Meta. Stryn (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, as an official affiliate of the Wikimedia movement, it is expected that we produce an annual report of our activities. This report is expected to be delivered at the end of September. I think we will not have any problem to write it since a lot of stuffs have been done during this first year. I will try to contribute to this report in the following weeks. You can bring your ideas here. Pamputt (talk) 07:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi! I started the report, looking at Wikisource's one. I haven't found any guideline on how to ask for a renewal or to write this report, so any suggestion welcome! Noé (talk) 09:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Beta feature: advanced filters and more options for Watchlists, starting September 5Edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Hello!
I'm posting this message to your Tremendous Group because I think I'll have more impact this way: I'm sure you can spread the word to your community better than me! ;)
On September 5, the Beta feature will have a new option. Watchlists will have all new features available on Recent Changes Beta now.
If you have already activated the Beta feature "⧼eri-rcfilters-beta-label⧽", you have no action to take. If you haven't activated the Beta feature "⧼eri-rcfilters-beta-label⧽" and you want to try the filters on Watchlists, please go to your Beta preferences on September 6. It will not be possible to try the filters only on Recent Changes or only on Watchlist.
Please also note that later in September, some changes will happen on Recent Changes. We will release some features at the moment available in Beta as default features. This will impact all users, but we will provide an option to opt-out. I'll recontact you with a more precise schedule and all the details very soon.
You can ping me if you have questions. And I hope this process works for you!
PS: you are an official user group, but your're not in the affiliates template. Normal? Trizek (WMF) (talk) 15:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could you be more explicit about you "PS" statement? What are you referring to when you say "affiliates template"? --Psychoslave (talk) 14:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Someone told me "oh, they aren't on the affiliates template". But I don't remember who. And apparently you are. Trizek (WMF) (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi!
I made some changes in the organization of the subpages. I made a clearer distinction between what we done internally and what other people do with or about Wiktionaries. Also, I create the last via I want to explore with this group: meetings! I imagine it can become an agenda and also a place to share idea and form task forces to build specific actions. I hope it is not worst than before and I stay open for feedbacks! Noé (talk) 10:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So please go add yourselves at Tech/Ambassadors/List (or tell others to)! We hope this will lead to a happier and more serene way of working together in the technical field. Thank you, --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the invitation. I think I am too much of a dreamer to be a good contact, but some people I know may like to do this, like JackPotte, Darkdadaah or Automatik. Maybe they also know people in other community that may help too. Noé (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Hey, that's what the "Other ambassadors" column is there about though ;) --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC) )Reply[reply]
Hey @Elitre (WMF):, next time try with a […] in your message, you might reach more people in the group. :) --Psychoslave (talk) 00:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll keep that in mind, thanks. Maybe document that somewhere? Elitre (WMF) (talk) 10:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Hi everybody. From yesterday it is asked to affiliate whether they want to endorse the strategy direction of the Wikimedia movement. Other user groups have already endorsed this direction. Do you think the TWUG should endrose it as well?
From my point of view, I see no reason not to endorse this direction since itis based on the broad outlines of the strategy that has been the strategy of the movement since its inception. On the other hand, the text is flat overall and provides almost nothing new; it is not a good signal for the next 15 years. Supporting him is not a big commitment. Pamputt (talk) 06:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As staff I can't give you a yes or a no, but just some advice: you should define an action you will take in X days if no one has replied. For instance, if you think endorsing it worse it, you can say that you will sign on behalf of the group in 15 days. Or the opposite. Or something else. :) Trizek (WMF) (talk) 07:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not in favor of endorsing this text, for few reasons:
"Most of the content we have created is in the form of long-form encyclopedia articles and still images" and later "We must continue to write encyclopedia articles, develop software, donate money, curate data, remix artwork, or all of the above. " There is no attention for the kind of contribution people do on Wikisources, Wikidata or Wiktionaries. We did already much more than that.
"There are also opportunities for Wikimedia to fill a gap in education, by offering learning materials and communities" No mention of Wikibooks nor Wikiversity. I don't get what "offering communities" means.
"We need to challenge inequalities of access and contribution, whether their cause is social, political, or technical." I don't think my contribution will do that, and I do not think sharing knowledge and challenge inequalities is the same fight. I do both, but knowledge do not reduce inequalities. I feel this is a naive statement.
"The utility, global reach, and large audience of the Wikimedia platform give us legitimacy and credibility." Argumentum ad populum, it is not a good base for an argumentation.
"As a service to users, we need to build the platform for knowledge or, in jargon, provide knowledge as a service." Make no sense to me. I feel it is related to the possibilities to use knowledge in the economic market and I am not interested to defend this as a goal.
"Many of our efforts will benefit all users and projects equally." oooh so maybe there will be no more small projects and "at least 25% of Tech development will be dedicated to small projects". I do not think this sentence represent an exact vision of what the WMF plan to do.
"Our openness will ensure that our decisions are fair, that we are accountable to one another, and that we act in the public interest." Accountability is not that easy to set and structure. Openness is not enough, it sounds like a magic word here, and I don't buy it.
"We will focus on highly structured information to facilitate its exchange and reuse in multiple contexts." and in the following paragraph " We will extend the Wikimedia presence globally, with a special focus on under-served communities, like indigenous peoples of industrialized nations, and regions of the world, such as Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America." I don't think those people need structured information. For me, exchange and reuse is interesting but not a priority in regard of the needs of under-served communities.
My main concern is the lack of interest for the diversity of knowledge and the idea of knowledge as a service. I am open to discuss if the User Group want to sign it, and I may change my mind if someone can explain why we need so much to endorse it. Noé (talk) 08:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with the flatness of the proposal, and in a sense, that's a good result for such a proposal. Actually, as show Noé answer, there is still room for improvement to address community concerns, but probably you can not content everyone on everything.
So, endorsing or not this proposal, per se, is not really significant as it doesn't engage to anything new. And as a chapter member, I did actually voted as "neural".
But as a member of the TWUG I would argue that we should endorse it, just as I did on the wikisource-l mailling list: not that much to mark our support, but for mere promotional perspectives of our project. --Psychoslave (talk) 09:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Latest comment: 5 years ago11 comments7 people in discussion
Hello,
Following a message on wikimedia-l from Léa Lacroix (see bellow), I inform you that this Sunday at 11am Berlin local time will happen a Wikidata + Wiktionary: lexicographical data for everyone session. There is a live streaming and an etherpad for those who – like me – wasn't able to go to the event.
What makes me happy today: the WikidataCon, the first international
conference dedicated to the WIkidata community, is about to start, and will
Report draft is in etherpad. There was more questions than reported so far, so I suggest anyone interested to watch the whole video once it is online.
Thank you @Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): for the conference. I'll be happy to also have an answer about my late question in the pad:
would it be possible to have an exploration of an other "ontology", based on "vocable" (concrete segments of discourse transcription) rather than "lexems" (language elements abstracted under flexionnal paradigm), in parallel with this project? A lexeme based ontology can't include all data which pertains a vocable based approach, but one might reuse most data from the former in the later and some of the later in the former, so bridges would be possible.
Also in your answer to the license question, you say it needs discussions, so please define where it should be discussed, and let's do it, and let's launch a process that is transparently seeking community feedback and achieving some form of community consensus on this point. --Psychoslave (talk) 10:39, 29 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wiktionary isn't machine readable ???? O_o WTF ! It's one of the most readable project for machines in the wikimedia galaxy ! Are they real devs ? --Lyokoï (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, I was thinking the same when I saw the talk. But what she said is that it is machine readable for only one project at time. And that is true. One can develop a parser or the French Wiktionary but one has to do the same from scratch to parse the English Wiktionary, and again for other languages. Pamputt (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the meaning was « Wiktionaries are not easy to parse » and indeed it's not easy (just do a quick Google search, you'll find that a lot of people ask how to parse Wiktionary with very few answer). The fact that others projects are harder to parse (which is true, except for Wikidata or specific part like infoboxes) just make Wiktionaries the easiest project to parse, not a project easy to parse (on a scale from 1 to 10, being at 5 when others are at 3 doesn't make it a 10 ;) ). I myself tried to look how to do something similar to Google ngrams based on Wikisources and Wiktionaries but I gave up, in part because the Wiktionaries are not easy to parse (I'll wait for L-items in Wikidata). Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 14:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My enthusiasm for this project didn't grew up very much with this update. In this proposal, I heard much more advantages for other people to exploit Wiktionaries to do an economical product than the benefits for readers or contributors. I really like the mention of new tools may be build with Wikidata but it is still a empty promise (in French un vœu pieux) and Lydia did not specify that her team do not plan this step. It is totally speculative and I am, as a contributor, firstly interested by this part of the project. Also, mentioning the possibility of creating lessons based on Wiktionaries content is nice, but to forget Wikibooks made me very sad. There is a place to develop it inside the Wikimedia projects, not only outside for people that seek for free data to get more money by selling apps. Well, I already expressed my opinion on this development several times, and raised a lot of problems. I feel some of my concern were taken seriously and others were postpone to an hypothetic discussion (like for CC BY-SA or CC0 issue and the forking menace). I am interested in participating in the step that concern contributors and the data itself. Noé (talk) 08:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Noé: You rightfully said I didn't spend a lot of time talking about the tools that can be build for Wiktionary editors once we have structured lexicographical data. One of the reasons is that I don't want to come from the outside and tell you which tools would be best for you to make your work easier. Even for Wikidata so far it was often other people who came up with the best ideas for new tools because they needed them to make their work easier. I do have some ideas of course but I'd like to hear if there is anything that you really want or need. Maybe Léa can help set up a page to collect all our ideas and then we can see which of them can be done by my team, which will be done by volunteers, which we can get students for and which are not realistic. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Lydia, and thanks for this clarification. Will be happy to give you more work to do As a starting point, I suggest you have a look at our eight suggestions for the Tech Community, wrote for the on-going survey. You may be able to handle some of those proposals, or see how to improve some of them with/by/through Wikidata. I realize it can be touchy to fix a long-term plan based on structured lexicographical data but I imagine more commitment from the wiktionarians and also more people eager to collaborate to your project if it benefits to the community directly, readers or contributors. With Lyokoï, we did a lot of presentations and workshop and the first problem for peoples is the complexity of the structure. I would love to have something similar as Wikisource books edition, but still compatible with raw text editing. An interface that make easier to add a synonym, a new definition, an attestation or anything else, without an inquiry to with the appropriate template. We'll be happy to work on a list with you all Noé (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Noé,
With Lydia, we went carefully through the proposals from the Community Wishlist Survey. Some of them are really interesting!
Add "insert attestation" to Visual Editor: I'd like to know more about this. I'm not sure I understand the difference between "attestation", the references, and what some Wiktionaries have in their "Citation" tab :) I'd also like to know more about the usual workflow to add attestations. Is it something you usually add at the same moment when writing a definition, or it's more like "at some point I start working on it and I add thousand of them on a row"? In any case, we could think about an external tool, a bit like the Wikidata games, that would allow users to add quickly some attestations to Wiktionary through Wikidata.
Share templates on Wiktionaries: just a quick comment on this proposal: it is also possible to build customizable templates, that display different information depending on parameters one assign to them. For example to adapt the name of the tenses. Obviously, if some part of the data is centrally stored and displayed on Wiktionaries, this idea of global templates would be even more feasible.
Parse dumps for DICT clients: I don't know the specificities of DICT, but generating automatic dumps is quite easy with Wikibase, we already do that for Wikidata (and the Query Service is built on it) so it would be also easy to replicate for lexicographical data.
Wikisource dictionaries for Wiktionary: If Wikisource is able to provide a tag/anchor/link directly to a word in their texts, which I'm not sure about, we could add a statement in the Lexemes to point to this word (or at least, to the page of the book where it's used). Therefore, lexicographical data in Wikidata will make this feature easier to build.
Custom list for language learner: this tool could definitely be built on the top of Lexemes. With their unique identifiers, it will make very easy for the developers to store (locally or online) a list of words.
You also mentioned creating a list of ideas that could improve the life of Wiktionary editors and readers. It is now created :) I added only one example and didn't copy the content from the Community Wishlist, but feel free to add your own ideas and share it with people who may want to work on this. We will follow this page with attention, provide comments and technical feedback, and even if we can't promise to fullfill all of the wishes, we will definitely analyze them and consider some of them as part of our development plan.
Thanks for this constructive discussion (and I'll answer your other message below very soon) Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Use of Wikidata to create a multi-lingual multi-dialectal dictionary for Arabic dialectsEdit
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You might be interested by the following message posted on 6 November 2017 at 23:13 by abdelwaheb turki on wikimedia-l
<quote>
Dear Ms.,
I thank you for your answer. You did not cite my presentation about using Wikidata to create a multi-lingual multi-dialectal dictionary for Arabic dialects in AICCSA 2017 held last week. In fact, my presentation was successful and had been attended by Prof. Mustafa Jarrar and Prof. Ashraf Elnagar, ones of the most prominent specialists in Arabic Natural Language Processing. I will write a report about it and I will publish the proceedings papers, the presentation slides and the transcription of my speech online after the final official publication of my work in IEEE Xplore.
Yours Sincerely,
Houcemeddine Turki
<quote>
Hello,
In fact, we announced it in the newsletter of next week: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Status_updates/2017_10_30
Feel free to send me the slides and report when you have it, I'll be happy to include it in the next newsletter.
Best,
Léa
</quote>
I think that everybody that is affected by the Wikidata project should be aware that the CC0 it use was – as far as I was able to find – mainly pushed by Denny Vrandečić who is now working for Google on the Knowledge Graph, Google which was also a major initial funder of the Wikidata project. Currently, my personal feeling is that Wikidata looks like a giant Trojan horse instigated by some giant for-profit tech companies. But I stay open to any evidence that I'm completely wrong, hopefully I am.
I'm sad that @Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): have still not yet replied to the proposal above of discussing concerns of our group. As far as I'm concerned they are:
how will be the license lexicological extension of Wikidata be choose;
if this will CC0 because the wikidata team decided it with no consultation of the Wikitonaries community: how do you expect the project won't come in direct head-on opposition with our Wiktionary communities and projects?
As previous informal engagement from the Wikidata team to not allow massive import from Wikipedia for both license reason and avoid bad circular references was not respected, I think that – sadly – only a formal contractual and firm commitment to not allow massive import from Wikitionaries might give enough credit to such a potential promise, if they ever dare to respond to this message with such an intent. Note that this is also based on the hypothesis that this project will be CC0 licensed, if it goes with CC-BY-SA, you'll count me as a fervent contributor and promoter.
In hope that we will receive answers that reassure us and dissipate current impressions of Wikimedia hijack, Psychoslave (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC) Psychoslave (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Psychoslave and all,
This is only a short preliminary answer. We are aware of your concerns and I'll also follow with attention the research work you're preparing. We take these seriously and we are currently preparing a more elaborate and detailed answer, also compiling the sources to rebuild the history of the decision regarding choosing CC-0. This takes a bit of time because we're asking several people, diving deep in the archives of mailing-lists and wikis ;) But I hope that in a few days, we'll be able to provide more groundwork to continue the discussion about the license, the next steps of the lexicographical data project and how we hope to work together with the Wiktionaries communities.
I like feedback just to say you are at work (I am not cynical, I really think it is a good practice.) In a way, I feel confuse by the expression "rebuild the history" but I am sure you will share your investigation in a wiki-way, with plenty sources, and I think this make a very nice Wikiversity/Wikipedia article on this matter Noé (talk) 11:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Lea Lacroix (WMDE):, I join @Noé: in its warm welcome for this communication. Communication is difficult, probably the most difficult problem we have to deal with on a daily base, so every effort which seems to go in the right direction should be saluted. I also join him in its demand to well source you statements. To my mind, this is probably the most important topic I ever have been involved within Wikimedia, because I have strong concerns for the future of our beloved Wikimedia community depending on this topic of Wikidata license. One may say I'm giving exaggerated importance, I have my own bias, but being aware of that won't make my concerns disappear magically. Thus said, this bias are not leading me against Wikidata, as I'm afraid it might looks like. So it's maybe not too much to recall that, this license problem apart, I utterly adhere to Wikidata as I see it as an extremely powerful and versatile tool whose real potential for our Wikimedia community (and users beyond it) goes much further than what it already revealed. Also I'm using critique in order to find solutions, just grumbling is worthless. And sure I would prefer to dedicate time to other Wikimedia contributions than this research, although as I'm doing it, I do learn a lot of things and it does pay with some new ideas. Actually, I submitted this proposal in the 2017 technical wishlist thanks to ideas I didn't have before I started the research project. Feel free to use and contribute directly to the Wikiversity project, as indeed you are! Also feedback on the wishlist proposal is warmly welcome. :) --Psychoslave (talk) 10:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey Psychoslave, I am on vacation since right after WikidataCon. I will be back next week and catching up with things. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 07:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great @Lydia Pintscher (WMDE):, enjoy your vacations, thank you for taking the time to precise you won't be available to respond before your return. --Psychoslave (talk) 10:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the "mainly pushed by", note that CC-0 is nowadays a standard recommended by most for most open data efforts, so it doesn't take a big effort to understand why most people gave it for granted. It's true of course that few open data projects are as complex as Wikidata (let alone Wikidata + Wiktionary). Nemo 20:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Nemo bis:. Well, it doesn't really say much about the source of "standard recommended", as "most open data" is a fuzzy term which doesn't enable to check specific actors and what led them to that kind of recommendation. I'm fine with government releasing data in public domain or its closest legal equivalent. Also, letting people use whatever free license is fine – even CC0 –, just as it's done on Commons. But forcing them to systematically withdraw all legal rights they have is a point everybody should be cautious about. Mass import of material from sources which are not licensed under CC0 should not be permitted until solid legal investigation provide evidence of its legality which is highly doubtful. The rhetoric which try to mix facts, a single factual statement, data carrying such a statement, and database of millions of that kind of statements is not a convincing argument for the legality of such a practice. Provide legal facts about what can be done what can not be done within the project should be the first duty of Wikidata, rather than throw random personal feelings about what is fine according to this or that Wikidata stackholder. --Psychoslave (talk) 12:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey, I'm sorry. I am on it but it is taking me longer to put my thinking into writing in a coherent way than I had hoped and I need to reach out to the legal team still. I'll get back to you before next week. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey folks :) I have put my general thinking about Wikidata and CC-0 here now. I hope this makes the reasons for CC-0 a bit clearer for the bigger picture. There is one thing I would like to add here: There was fear about people importing data from Wiktionary that is protected there into Wikidata and thereby violating the license of Wiktionary. License violations are obviously a thing I am not ok with and that I will speak out against. My current understanding is that this covers the senses part of Wiktionary for example. Since I am not a lawyer however I am still talking to the legal team to get a better understanding of what is and what is not protected. I'll let you know when I know more. Have a good rest of the weekend. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Lydia, great to see we move on this topic. I am still very confuse by your idea "My current understanding is that this covers the senses part of Wiktionary for example." What do you mean by "senses part"? Legal protection is based on creative performance, and there is a subjective perception of this performance. For example, lexicographers consider that writing a definition is a creative task. It is not only true from a wiktionarian perspective but also for published dictionaries. So, in my opinion, definitions are CC BY-SA and will not be extracted from Wiktionaries to Wikidata. You suggested to let people write glosses instead, or new definitions in CC0 in Wikidata. If so, how to control those new definitions to be sure it is not pale copies of definitions already published in Wiktionaries? Noé (talk) 11:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First of all, we don't deny that the work achieved for years on the Wiktionaries is valuable. We are aware that collecting the definitions step by step is a huge amount of work, just like collecting, cleaning and organizing data on Wikidata is. The project we're running to include lexicographical data in Wikidata is not meant to minimize the work of editors in any way, but to help them in their tasks and make their lives easier.
"the senses part" means the sense section of our data model, that you can find in this example. In almost all the parts of this example, what we will store in the database are facts. Saying that "hard" is an adjective in English is a fact. Saying that its grammatical feature is "normative" is a fact. Saying that “harder” is the comparative form or “hard” is a fact, and so on.
Now, let's look at the summary of database rights proposed by the WMF legal team. Quote: "A database is protected by copyright when the selection or arrangement is original and creative. [...] Databases that meet this level of creativity are protected as compilations". We agree that the Wiktionaries are compilations of information that are selected and organized in a creative way.
One can also read on the next part: "For many databases, the data contained in them is not protected even if the database itself is protected as a compilation. For example, factual data is not protected by copyright. This includes dates, names, locations, heights, weights, and other measures or statistics, and many other types of purely factual data. A database containing the dates and locations of important historical events would likely be a protected compilation, because the author made certain choices in deciding which events to include. However, the dates and locations themselves are unprotected facts. It would likely not be a violation of copyright law to extract and use that information, but it would likely be a violation to copy the entire database."
The facts that are previously cited as example enter under this definition of factual data, and therefore can't be protected. One entire Wiktionary, or even one single page of it, is protected as a collection, and can't be copied identically without respecting the terms of CC-BY-SA.
The goal of lexicographical data on Wikidata is not to copy the whole Wiktionaries as they are. It is to store the facts, the data, in a complete and neutral way, so the Wiktionary editors can reuse them, if they want, to create their collections.
Back to the Senses: some parts of this section are quite borderline. We're not sure that the synonyms, antonyms, can be considered as factual data or not. We’re pretty sure that the glosses, short sentences like “presenting difficulty” are protected. This is the point that we're still investigating on.
About the automatic extraction: no massive extraction of content will be made by the Wikidata development team. We will not actively push the editors for massive import. We will communicate to all communities about the project, the difference between Wiktionary pages and Lexemes, to avoid any misunderstanding. But in the end, the communities add the content. If they follow the principles of the Wikimedia projects, we are not preventing them to edit. We are not judging if some content is "pale copie" (which is quite a subjective appreciation) of some other. Some Wiktionary users already shared with us their will to include data in Wikidata and experiment on displaying it on Wiktionary. We will provide the technical structure, let the editors test it, adapt it to their needs, and answer as best to their requests in term of features and uses.
I hope this answers to your questions. Once again, we commit to work in collaboration with the Wiktionaries communities, since we’re working together to improve the content of the Wikimedia projects :) Cheers, Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 13:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An answer to Lydia general thinking about Wikidata and CC-0Edit
Hi,
Thank you @Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): for taking the time to answer. Unfortunately this answer miss too many important points to solve all concerns which have been raised.
Notably, there is still no beginning of hint in it about where the decision of using CC0 exclusively for Wikida came from. But as this inquiry on the topic advance, an answer is emerging from it. It seems that Wikidata choice toward CC0 was heavily influenced by Denny Vrandečić, who – to make it short – is now working in the Google Knowledge Graph team. Also it worth noting that Google funded a quarter of the initial development work. Another quarter came from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, established by Intel co-founder. And half the money came from Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen's Institute for Artificial Intelligence (AI2)[1]. To state it shortly in a conspirational fashion, Wikidata is the puppet trojan horse of big tech hegemonic companies into the realm of Wikimedia. For a less tragic, more argumentative version, please see the research project (work in progress, only chapter 1 is in good enough shape, and it's only available in French so far). Some proofs that this claim is completely wrong are welcome, as it would be great that in fact that was the community that was the driving force behind this single license choice and that it is the best choice for its future, not the future of giant tech companies. This would be a great contribution to bring such a happy light on this subject, so we can all let this issue alone and go back contributing in more interesting topics.
Now let's examine the thoughts proposed by Lydia.
Wikidata is here to give more people more access to more knowledge.
So far, it makes it matches Wikimedia movement stated goal.
This means we want our data to be used as widely as possible.
Sure, as long as it rhymes with equity. As in Our strategic direction: Service and Equity. Just like we want freedom for everybody as widely as possible. That is, starting where it confirms each others freedom. Because under this level, freedom of one is murder and slavery of others.
CC-0 is one step towards that.
That's a thesis, you can propose to defend it but no one have to agree without some convincing proof.
Data is different from many other things we produce in Wikimedia in that it is aggregated, combined, mashed-up, filtered, and so on much more extensively.
No it's not. From a data processing point of view, everything is data. Whether it's stored in a wikisyntax, in a relational database or engraved in stone only have a commodity side effect. Whether it's a random stream of bit generated by a dumb chipset or some encoded prose of Shakespeare make no difference. So from this point of view, no, what Wikidata store is not different from what is produced anywhere else in Wikimedia projects.
Sure, the way it's structured does extremely ease many things. But this is not because it's data, when elsewhere there would be no data. It's because it enforce data to be stored in a way that ease aggregation, combination, mashing-up, filtering and so on.
Our data lives from being able to write queries over millions of statements, putting it into a mobile app, visualizing parts of it on a map and much more.
Sure. It also lives from being curated from millions[2] of benevolent contributors, or it would be just a useless pile of random bytes.
This means, if we require attribution, in a huge number of cases attribution would need to go back to potentially millions of editors and sources (even if that data is not visible in the end result but only helped to get the result).
No, it doesn't mean that.
First let's recall a few basics as it seems the whole answer makes confusion between attribution and distribution of contributions under the same license as the original. Attribution is crucial for traceability and so for reliable and trusted knowledge that we are targeting within the Wikimedia movement. The "same license" is the sole legal guaranty of equity contributors have. That's it, trusted knowledge and equity are requirements for the Wikimedia movement goals. That means withdrawing this requirements is withdrawing this goals.
Now, what would be the additional cost of storing sources in Wikidata? Well, zero cost. Actually, it's already here as the "reference" attribute is part of the Wikibase item structure. So attribution is not a problem, you don't have to put it in front of your derived work, just look at a Wikipedia article: until you go to history, you have zero attribution visible, and it's ok. It's also have probably zero or negligible computing cost, as it doesn't have to be included in all computations, it just need to be retrievable on demand.
What would be the additional cost of storing licenses for each item based on its source? Well, adding a license attribute might help, but actually if your reference is a work item, I guess it might comes with a "license" statement, so zero additional cost. Now for letting user specify under which free licenses they publish their work, that would just require an additional attribute, a ridiculous weight when balanced with equity concerns it resolves.
Could that prevent some uses for some actors? Yes, that's actually the point, preventing abuse of those who doesn't want to act equitably. For all other actors a "distribute under same condition" is fine.
This is potentially computationally hard to do and and depending on where the data is used very inconvenient (think of a map with hundreds of data points in a mobile app).
OpenStreetMap which use ODbL, a copyleft attributive license, do exactly that too, doesn't it? By the way, allowing a license by item would enable to include OpenStreetMap data in WikiData, which is currently impossible due to the CC0 single license policy of the project. Too bad, it could be so useful to have this data accessible for Wikimedia projects, but who cares?
This is a burden on our re-users that I do not want to impose on them.
Wait, which re-users? Surely one might expect that Wikidata would care first of re-users which are in the phase with Wikimedia goal, so surely needs of Wikimedia community in particular and Free/Libre Culture in general should be considered. Do this re-users would be penalized by a copyleft license? Surely no, or they wouldn't use it extensively as they do. So who are this re-users for who it's thought preferable, without consulting the community, to not annoy with questions of equity and traceability?
It would make it significantly harder to re-use our data and be in direct conflict with our goal of spreading knowledge.
No, technically it would be just as easy as punching a button on a computer to do that rather than this. What is in direct conflict with our clearly stated goals emerging from the 2017 community consultation is going against equity and traceability. You propose to discard both to satisfy exogenous demands which should have next to no weight in decision impacting so deeply the future of our community.
Whether data can be protected in this way at all or not depends on the jurisdiction we are talking about. See this Wikilegal on on database rights for more details.
It says basically that it's applicable in United States and Europe on different legal bases and extents. And for the rest of the world, it doesn't say it doesn't say nothing can apply, it states nothing.
So even if we would have decided to require attribution it would only be enforceable in some jurisdictions.
What kind of logic is that? Maybe it might not be applicable in some country, so let's withdraw the few rights we have.
Ambiguity, when it comes to legal matters, also unfortunately often means that people refrain from what they want to to for fear of legal repercussions. This is directly in conflict with our goal of spreading knowledge.
Economic inequality, social inequity and legal imbalance might also refrain people from doing what they want, as they fear practical repercussions. CC0 strengthen this discrimination factors by enforcing people to withdraw the few rights they have to weight against the growing asymmetry that social structures are concomitantly building. So CC0 as unique license choice is in direct conflict with our goal of equitably spreading knowledge.
Also it seems like this statement suggest that releasing our contributions only under CC0 is the sole solution to diminish legal doubts. Actually any well written license would do an equal job regarding this point, including many copyleft licenses out there. So while associate a clear license to each data item might indeed diminish legal uncertainty, it's not an argument at all for enforcing CC0 as sole license available to contributors.
Moreover, just putting a license side by side with a work does not ensure that the person who made the association was legally allowed to do so. To have a better confidence in the legitimacy of a statement that a work is covered by a certain license, there is once again a traceability requirement. For example, Wikidata currently include many items which were imported from misc. Wikipedia versions, and claim that the derived work obtained – a set of items and statements – is under CC0. That is a hugely doubtful statement and it alarmingly looks like license laundering. This is true for Wikipedia, but it's also true for any source on which a large scale extraction and import are operated, whether through bots or crowd sourcing.
So the Wikidata project is currently extremely misplaced to give lessons on legal ambiguity, as it heavily plays with legal blur and the hope that its shady practises won't fall under too much scrutiny.
Licenses that require attribution are often used as a way to try to make it harder for big companies to profit from openly available resources.
No there are not. They are used as a way to try to make it harder for big companies to profit from openly available resourcesin inequitable manners. That's completely different. Copyleft licenses give the same rights to big companies and individuals in a manner that lower socio-economic inequalities which disproportionally advantage the former.
The thing is there seems to be no indication of this working.
Because it's not trying to enforce what you pretend, so of course it's not working for this goal. But for the goal that copyleft licenses aims at, there are clear evidences that yes it works.
Big companies have the legal and engineering resources to handle both the legal minefield and the technical hurdles easily.
There is no pitfall in copyleft licenses. Using war material analogy is disrespectful. That's true that copyleft licenses might come with some constraints that non-copyleft free licenses don't have, but that the price for fostering equity. And it's a low price, that even individuals can manage, it might require a very little extra time on legal considerations, but on the other hand using the free work is an immensely vast gain that worth it. In Why you shouldn't use the Lesser GPL for your next library is stated proprietary software developers have the advantage of money; free software developers need to make advantages for each other. This might be generalised as big companies have the advantage of money; free/libre culture contributors need to make advantages for each other. So at odd with what pretend this fallacious claims against copyleft licenses, they are not a "minefield and the technical hurdles" that only big companies can handle. All the more, let's recall who financed the initial development of Wikidata: only actors which are related to big companies.
Who it is really hurting is the smaller start-up, institution or hacker who can not deal with it.
If this statement is about copyleft licenses, then this is just plainly false. Smaller actors have more to gain in preserving mutual benefit of the common ecosystem that a copyleft license fosters.
With Wikidata we are making structured data about the world available for everyone.
And that's great. But that doesn't require CC0 as sole license to be achieved.
We are leveling the playing field to give those who currently don’t have access to the knowledge graphs of the big companies a chance to build something amazing.
And that's great. But that doesn't require CC0 as sole license. Actually CC0 makes it a less sustainable project on this point, as it allows unfair actors to take it all, add some interesting added value that our community can not afford, reach/reinforce an hegemonic position in the ecosystem with their own closed solution. And, ta ta, Wikidata can be discontinued quietly, just like Google did with the defunct Freebase which was CC-BY-SA before they bought the company that was running it, and after they imported it under CC0 in Wikidata as a new attempt to gather a larger community of free curators. And when it will have performed license laundering of all Wikimedia projects works with shady mass extract and import, Wikimedia can disappear as well. Of course big companies benefits more of this possibilities than actors with smaller financial support and no hegemonic position.
Thereby we are helping more people get access to knowledge from more places than just the few big ones.
No, with CC0 you are certainly helping big companies to reinforce their position in which they can distribute information manipulated as they wish, without consideration for traceability and equity considerations. Allowing contributors to also use copyleft licenses would be far more effective to collect and use different forms of free, trusted knowledge that focus efforts on the knowledge and communities that have been left out by structures of power and privilege, as stated in Our strategic direction: Service and Equity.
CC-0 is becoming more and more common.
Just like economic inequality. But that is not what we are aiming to foster in the Wikimedia movement.
Many organisations are releasing their data under CC-0 and are happy with the experience. Among them are the European Union, Europeana, the National Library of Sweden and the Metropolitan Museum of Modern Arts.
Good for them. But they are not the Wikimedia community, they have their own goals and plan to be sustainable that does not necessarily meet what our community can follow. Different contexts require different means. States and their institutions can count on tax revenue, and if taxpayers ends up in public domain works, that's great. States are rarely threatened by companies, they have legal lever to pressure that kind of entity, although conflict of interest and lobbying can of course mitigate this statement.
Importing that kind of data with proper attribution and license is fine, be it CC0 or any other free license. But that's not an argument in favour of enforcing on benevolent a systematic withdraw of all their rights as single option to contribute.
All this being said we do encourage all re-users of our data to give attribution to Wikidata because we believe it is in the interest of all parties involved.
That's it, zero legal hope of equity.
And our experience shows that many of our re-users do give credit to Wikidata even if they are not forced to.
Experience also show that some prominent actors like Google won't credit the Wikimedia community anymore when generating directly answer based on, inter alia, information coming from Wikidata, which is itself performing license laundering of Wikipedia data.
Are there no downsides to this? No, of course not. Some people chose not to participate, some data can't be imported and some re-users do not attribute us. But the benefits I have seen over the years for Wikidata and the larger open knowledge ecosystem far outweigh them.
This should at least backed with some solid statistics that it had a positive impact in term of audience and contribution in Wikimedia project as a whole. Maybe the introduction of Wikidata did have a positive effect on the evolution of total number of contributors, or maybe so far it has no significant correlative effect, or maybe it is correlative with a decrease of the total number of active contributors. Some plots would be interesting here. Mere personal feelings of benefits and hindrances means nothing here, mine included of course.
Plus, there is not even the beginning of an attempt to A/B test with a second Wikibase instant that allow users to select which licenses its contributions are released under, so there is no possible way to state anything backed on relevant comparison. The fact that they are some people satisfied with the current state of things doesn't mean they would not be even more satisfied with a more equitable solution that allows contributors to chose a free license set for their publications. All the more this is all about the sustainability and fostering of our community and reaching its goals, not immediate feeling of satisfaction for some people.
@Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): "All this being said we do encourage all re-users of our data to give attribution to Wikidata because we believe it is in the interest of all parties involved." So it is in the best interest of all parties to do it, yet you were saying the reverse all in the rest of your text? If it is really in the best interest of all parties, as I agree it is, why not encourage it with the proper license? Amqui (talk) 15:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This would mean that Wikidata should use CC-by licence (not CC-by-sa)? Pamputt (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am saying that it is in the interest of all involved to mention Wikidata as the source of the data. That is different from forcing them to do it via the license and forcing it to happen on a more fine-grained level (to specific editors etc.). --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikimedia Conference 2018 - Registration closes in one month!Edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion
Dears […]
Next year there will be a new Wikimedia Conference session in Berlin. It would be good to send there people to talk in the name of the TWUG.
Bellow is the original message that was sent on wikimedia-l mailling list.
Dear Wikimedians,
Thanks to those of you who have already registered for the Wikimedia
Conference 2018 – we are already very excited to host the conference
from April 20 to April 22, 2018 in Berlin!
You have not registered for the conference yet? Your affiliation is
eligible [1] to attend the conference and you have been selected to
represent your affiliation in Berlin? Then please be kindly reminded
to register until Monday, January 15, 2018. To register for the
conference, please find the link to the registration form below. [2]
In view of the upcoming holidays, we would like to inform you that the
WMCON18 organizing team will be out of the office from December 22,
2017 until January 3, 2018.
If you need assistance or have any questions, we recommend you to
contact us before December 22. Otherwise, we will respond to your
emails as soon as possible upon our return.
We strongly advise all those of you who need a visa to register until
Monday, December 18, 2017.
We will do our best to send the documents (letter of invitation,
foreign travel health insurance, copy of registration of association
of WMDE) by December 22, 2017, which are needed for the visa
application process, to everyone, who registers until Monday, December
18, 2017. Should you register after this date, we will prepare and
send the documents to you beginning of January.
Further information on the visa process and assistance can be found on Meta. [3]
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Daniela & Michelle on behalf of the organizing team
Wikimedia Deutschland
wmcon@wikimedia.de
Please, feel free to propose anyone that you would estimate a good representative for our group. Keep in mind that this session is a lot of talk, mainly in English. Also, obviously, the person must agree and be available at the time of the event. All the more, some people might already go to the event due to their involvement in the Wikimedia movement on other sides. For example Lyokoï might go there as a Wikimedia France board member, and Tpt already expressed on Wikisource-l that he was "probably not the best person to talk with people so [he] believe[s] it would be much better fo the user group to send someone else that would represent the group better". --Psychoslave (talk) 09:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree it's better to send new people, let me ask on the Italian Wiktionary village pump. --Nemo 13:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you @Nemo bis:, I'm looking forward to hearing from you and others TWUG members. :) --Psychoslave (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree too that it would be really nice to be able to send someone over there to speak about the TWUG. I missed the first message because of the holidays so maybe it is the same for other people. For myself, I am not available at this period so I cannot go. Pamputt (talk) 11:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would be available, so please consider my application as a TWUG delegate. For information, there are two slots, so it would be good to have at least three candidates. --Psychoslave (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not sure about the idea of sending someone to speak on the behalf of the User Group. We do not act as a group for now, and we basically never do any meetings or ingroup decisions. It is rather a space to exchange about Wiktionary and get people working together. Until now, there is no common idea in the group, and I do not want to write a manifest for it, I prefer the diversity of point of view and a structure without any hierarchy. So, I am in favor of helping two people to get there to speak about Wiktionaries and meet other peoples to share idea on our beloved project, but not to defend the existence of the group. Plus, I'll be happy to have a feedback on how other people reacts to Wiktionary, to smell the temperature as we say in French (prendre la température), but not to promote a specific direction. In particular, I do not want TWUG delegate to sign any support for the 2017 Movement Strategy in the name of the group. If nothing is voted in the group, the so-called delegate will have no delegation to use. I'll be happy to discuss this opinion, and read feedback on how others considers the group. Noé (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Noé I agree with almost everything you wrote. I agree that it would be interesting to send someone at this Wikimedia Conference to speak mainly about the Wiktionary project but I think he/she could also speak a bit about the TWUG even to say what you wrote (it is not (yet?) an organised user group that has a common opinion, we cannot pronounce ourselves on the 2017 Movement Strategy, the position of the user group about Wikidata and so on) because it could motivate new people to join this user group. I do not think it could be bad to speak about TWUG if these points are clearly presented. Pamputt (talk) 09:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Until now, there is no common idea in the group, and I do not want to write a manifest for it, I prefer the diversity of point of view and a structure without any hierarchy.
It's all a matter of definition (of course ;), but I don't see any requirement of hierarchy to form a group. Just joining together to discuss is enough to form a group, isn't it?
Plus, I'll be happy to have a feedback on how other people reacts to Wiktionary, to smell the temperature as we say in French (prendre la température), but not to promote a specific direction.
Here I disagree, because I keep in mind the adage "if you don't care about the direction, someone will take care of it for you". And as I perceive it currently, a direction is already being actively pushed in a top-to-bottom fashion. Now we, as a group, still have plenty of time to discuss and formalize bottom-up goals that we want to push as a broad direction, whether it does or does not match with the one proposed otherwise.
In particular, I do not want TWUG delegate to sign any support for the 2017 Movement Strategy in the name of the group. If nothing is voted in the group, the so-called delegate will have no delegation to use. I'll be happy to discuss this opinion, and read feedback on how others considers the group.
I'm fine with that. I think we can create far better result through broad discussion targeting consensus than delegation to a far smaller group of people that will, despite all their good will, always have a narrower vision of issues. --Psychoslave (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the first point, I didn't mean I want a hierarchy, I said I consider that the TWUG do not have any common idea. On hierarchy, I published a translation of an article by Joreen, you may be interested to read it: original and translation
On the second one, we haven't discuss about a direction for the group. You have your own opinion, and you may express it, but as yours not as the opinion of the group. There is a difference between a mandate and a constraint mandate (in French, un mandat et un mandat impératif) and here I prefer a constraint mandate saying that you do not vote for a position when there was no vote for it in the group in prior. I'm not sure to be clear, so I came back to French: un mandat impératif qui implique de n'exprimer la position du groupe que lorsque celui-ci l'a déjà discuté ou voté précédemment. Looking at the group now, this imply to give only your own personal opinion, because we did not discuss anything yet. Is it clearer? Noé (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the link. For the second point, it seems clear to me, although not clearer than previously. The main point you seems worried about, as I understand it, is that I (currently) have some opinions that might differ from what a consensual discussion might come with. So we do have to make this discussion happen before this event, so whoever goes there, will have the appropriate information to express the consensual willed direction. Only after that, we may see where there is an actual opinion gap between mine and the consensual one, if any. Would the gap be too large, I would of course no longer be interested to make the voice of the group. But I think it's very unlikely. So most probably I should be able to just put my diverging point of view apart to expose the consensual one. Also, I doubt that this session is about taking firm decision with participants acting as group chosen deciders. I would more expect it to be a session to discuss and expose important points for each represented groups, and thereafter make a report to each group of provided feedback. --Psychoslave (talk) 08:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Latest comment: 5 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion
On Wikimedia Conference page, there is a list of questions to be send to the delegate in a way to prepare the conference. Here is a copy of that:
Movement Strategy
What does “Knowledge as a service“ mean for your organization/group/community and its future activities?
See: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Direction The paragraph is: "Knowledge as a service: To serve our users, we will become a platform that serves open knowledge to the world across interfaces and communities. We will build tools for allies and partners to organize and exchange free knowledge beyond Wikimedia. Our infrastructure will enable us and others to collect and use different forms of free, trusted knowledge."
What does “Knowledge equity“ mean for your organization/group/community and its future activities?
See: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Direction The paragraph is: "Knowledge equity: As a social movement, we will focus our efforts on the knowledge and communities that have been left out by structures of power and privilege. We will welcome people from every background to build strong and diverse communities. We will break down the social, political, and technical barriers preventing people from accessing and contributing to free knowledge."
What kind of conditions do you need to realize these activities?
Describe what you think would be good conditions for you to move forward in this direction. Think of conditions in the broadest sense; e.g., capacity, skills, partnerships, clarification, structures and processes, room for development or experimentation, financial resources, people, access to other means of support etc.
Movement Partnerships
Is there an insight, idea, method or something else around partnerships you can imagine to share or talk about during the Wikimedia Conference?
Is there an insight, idea, method or something else around partnerships you would like to learn about during the Wikimedia Conference?
During the first half year of 2018 (for example, at the Wikimedia Conference) we will discuss how to realize what we have endorsed in the Wikimedia movement’s “Strategic Direction”. What is your wish or hope regarding Partnerships within and beyond the Wikimedia movement based on the Strategic Direction?
What do you need to fulfill this wish or hope? *
Capacity Building
Please name one or two skills, tools, or resources, that you want to be able to bring back home to your local organization/group.
How can you contribute to the Wikimedia Conference? What skills, knowledge or insights can you bring to share that others can learn/benefit from?
I think it is interesting questions, and I think it is funny to question what does "knowledge as a service" means, because I am quite sure no one know. These questions convinced me not to go there, but I'll be pleased to see what you all can answer to it. Noé (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you @Noé: for highlighting this question. I propose that […] provide feedback on each dedicated section below. --Psychoslave (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What does “Knowledge as a service“ mean for your organization/group/community and its future activities?Edit
I think that "knowledge as a service" makes huge sense for wikitionary, because by its lexicolgical goal it provides rather obvious recurring needs it can answer as a service platform, and could largely be improved on this model. Providing homogeneous tools to answer questions about word inflections, synonyms, antonyms, translations and other misc. word relations makes a great match with the idea of "knowledge as a service".
On the other hand, it's not all about "knowledge" consumption", but there is a great deal about improving participation easiness, including for oral traditions. On this side both Lingua Libre and Wiki Speaks Your Language are already leading the way, but still miss integration in the main Wikimedia contribution interfaces.
I think the question refer to the position of the User Group, not the position of Wiktionary community. For me, I have no idea of the meaning of the expression "knowledge as a service", I consider it means nothing for the future activities of the TWUG. Noé (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To me the TWUG must serve the community, as well as it can. I recognize it can not wholly represent the full diversity of the community, but it should seek to extract the main issues that the community encounter and that have chances to be resolved through a user group effort. I already gave some hint of my own view of what kind of service could be promoted by the TWUG. I would be happy to have critical feedback on this vision. --Psychoslave (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What does “Knowledge equity“ mean for your organization/group/community and its future activities?Edit
The first thing which come to my mind pertain to gender gap, as we do have a dedicated project within the French Wiktionary and that gender gap is an important topic in our community.
Dictionaries, contrary to what might commonly guess, are often subject to vehicle profound biases. Their definitions and citation might include or highlight many segregationist biases, of course. But even the way they classify words are often presented as "empirical facts" rather than "statements based on some linguistic theories".
That was more for the internal part of the equity topic. But there is also a more "around/social" part pertaining to equity. My very own main concern on this topic is related to how CC0 is pushed as unique option to contribute to Wikidata, so far, and its expected extension to lexicographic matter. Although in many cases I think a copyleft license is better from a social equity perspective, I'm also personally perfectly fine with using non-copyleft free licenses for some works – an extensive part of my later translation works are under an MIT license. And I'm promoting public-domain-like licenses for any work existing thanks to public funding. But I find the CC0 license totally inappropriate to meet the goals of the Wikimedia Foundation. Systematic withdrawing all rights of contributors is at the extreme opposite of knowledge equity. All the more, not requiring attribution means not favouring traceability of information, which is an other crucial point of our common goal to achieve trustable knowledge data banks.
Psychoslave (talk)
The project Parité des genres in French Wiktionary is not about gender gap, it's about correcting a bad habits in French dictionary that is to describe masculine nouns more extensively that feminine nouns. This project do not aim at reinforcing the presence of women as contributors, and will probably not have this result.
Well, again, I think this is not the expected answer, as the question is not about Wiktionary but about the user group. So, in my opinion, "knowledge equity" in our group means to translate guidelines and Help pages from one Wiktionary to the other to give material for new communities to create their owns easily. Also, facilitate access to knowledge about Wiktionary for people out of our community is one of the goal of the group, with posters (creation and translation), conferences, and tracking of publications about Wiktionaries. I don't call this activities knowledge equity, but I assume they may fall under this umbrella. Noé (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for this feedback. To my mind, Parité des genres is a project which does pertain to gender gap, just as writing more women biographies on Wikipedia pertains to gender gap. Sure it won't solve the whole gender gap per se, but I do believe that it can contribute to attract more contributor of any gender.
Regarding your proposal of facilitating access, I don't know in which measure it might fall into the equity umbrella. Sure people have to know that the project exist in order to consult it, but it's not what I would categorize as an equity or even an access problem. Your proposals are important and should be conducted, but I would call them promotional and communication activities, regardless of the equity of our movement. To me, equity pertain more to equal right of accessing, using, modifying, and publishing the knowledge banks that we are building. --Psychoslave (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What kind of conditions do you need to realize these activities?Edit
Well, first of all we should achieve a consensus within our group. To do that, and more, I think that making a dedicated international "Wikitionary Conference". Thus said, I'll already be busy with the organization of the Wikisource Conference this year, so should it happen this year I couldn't manage to be a leading force here.
But there are also plenty of room for doing coordination online. I plan to advance on the Wikiversity research work I started regarding Wiktionarists needs during 2018[1]. Probably moving it to the English version would be more useful for international collaboration. Having the translation tools installed on both the English and French Mediawiki instances would be fine if this is not already the case. Also, as suggested by some contributors, I will probably use UML, so having PlantUML extension installed would be great.
Is there an insight, idea, method or something else around partnerships you can imagine to share or talk about during the Wikimedia Conference?Edit
Right now, the TWUG have no partnerships but there is some plans to build some in 2018. I will start a conversation on this matter later this quarter. Noé (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there an insight, idea, method or something else around partnerships you would like to learn about during the Wikimedia Conference?Edit
What is your wish or hope regarding *Partnerships* within and beyond the Wikimedia movement based on the Strategic Direction?Edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
Dear […]
The third WikiIndaba Conference will be held in Tunis from 16 to 18 March 2018. It is the regional conference for Africans both within and in the diaspora. I think it could be a really good place to speak about the Wiktionary project and of the TWUG. Is anyone interested to go there? The deadline for the submission is January 15th, 2018. Pamputt (talk) 11:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey Why not? I would be interested in presenting Wiktionary. Someone else interested? Perhaps think about a topic oriented to languages in Africa? Fee free to contact me to discuss about. --Benoît Prieur (talk) 11:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would love to attend. Unfortunately I think it would be beyond my means. Rich Farmbrough 23:30 6 January 2018 (GMT).
Ok, still one week before the deadline. I do not know yet if I could attend to this conference but Benoît Prieur, if you are ready to go over there, I think I can help you to write an abstract for a lecture (and will see later whether I can travel). It is specified that a lecture is about 25-minute long (but could be 55-minute long for few lectures). There is also the possibility to supervise a workshop of about 1 hour. So I guess that a lecture of 25 minutes and a workshop might be a good proposal. Pamputt (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, Benoît Prieur and I will be at Tunis from 16 to 18 March to attend at WikiIndaba conference 2018. We will go there to present the Wiktionary (especially the French version) and hope to incite some people (everybody?) to contribute at the Wiktionary in languages from Africa that are currently underrepresented on Wiktionaries (Arabic, Berber, Fula, ...). A conference and a workshop have been accepted. The goal of the presentation is to try to show the interest of the Wiktionary (mainly French one) for the development and the visilibility of languages spoken in Africa.
I have posted a first version of the presentation. Don't hesitate to give me your feedback by Thursday so that I can take it into account. The form is surely to improve (this is not something I am good). Other information, we have 20-25 minutes for the presentation so we cannot talk about everything. I can provide the odp file if needed. Pamputt (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Latest comment: 5 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion
Hi,
The deadline is the 15th of January. I remember some of them were interested in attending that conference (in representation of the Wikt user group). I guess the staff of the conference whish a lot to have someone from our group in Berlin in April.
If there is nobody to go I can think to be the one but it was not in my plans initially (I would prefer someone else for many reasons).
I am sorry, I will not be attending. I you can go, that would be great ! GastelEtzwane (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am already going with another hat. Amqui (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Same, I'll be there for the Wikisource Community User Group. Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 17:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm still interested to go at this event, and will be available. Please let me know if there is any more formality that would be required to do so. Of course that should be conditioned by consensus in the group. --Psychoslave (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok for me. --Benoît Prieur (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC) => You have to follow the registration process [1] before the 15/01. --Benoît Prieur (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Benoît Prieur: I'm no longer part of any WMF project community. Thanks anyway for the invitation. --Ernest-Mtl (talk) 01:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Share your feedback in this global Wikimedia surveyEdit
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Dear Wikimedia Affiliates,
My name is María Cruz and I work for the Wikimedia Foundation on the Learning and Evaluation team. In one week or so, the Foundation is starting a global survey to learn about the experiences and feedback of Wikimedians. I am writing here, because I wanted to share with you a bit more about the project.
The survey is called "Wikimedia Communities and Contributors" and is conducted annually. We will send the survey to editors across all the Wikimedia projects, as well as Wikimedia affiliates and volunteer developers. This survey is going to be our way of making sure that we can hear feedback from a significant number of users from across the projects. This research supports editors and Wikipedia’s mission. This is our second annual CE Insights survey, and we look forward to improving it every year. We will be contacting 2 people from each affiliate, based on the primary contact information that we have. Each affiliate will receive an additional third link which they can distribute to any leader in their chapter or user group.
Go to the project page to see the results of last year’s survey, and to see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support communities. You can sign up to be notified about the results of the survey, or to learn how you can help with planning the survey next year.
If you have any questions or concerns about this project, please feel free to send them to Edward Galvez's talk page on Meta-Wiki or email him directly at surveyswikimedia · org in any language. You can learn more about this project and read about frequently asked questions. You can also share your feedback on Meta-Wiki.
Thank you for your time supporting this project! María Cruz
Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Hello, I just discover that Template:Ping/twug has been deleted one month ago. I think the group should have been warned about this deletion proposal. So, we have no way anymore to ping all the TWUG affiliate. What do you think of that? Pamputt (talk) 05:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Xaosflux: and @Pamputt:. This is indeed problematic. Could we have information about why it was deleted? If this is not a simple error, then what should we do to have a equivalent way to notify our group without going into a creation/deletion conflict? Please notify me if you provide any reply to this section. Cheers --Psychoslave (talk) 07:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I copy here a message posted by Tofeiku on my Wiktionary talk page. Pamputt (talk) 08:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bonjour Pamputt! I joined the Tremendous Wiktionary User Group and I just want to let you know that I attended the ESEAP Conference 2018 in Bali, Indonesia as a participant. --Tofeiku (discussion) 9 mai 2018 à 08:10 (UTC)
@Pamputt: I joined the conference in the last minute since there was a lack of representation from my country and I was invited to join this. I did mention about Wiktionary and TWUG with some of the participants there. --Tofeiku (talk) 09:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for attending to this meeting. If you want to write a small (or big) report of what you did and discuss durint the meeting about Wiktionary, this would be really interesting. Pamputt (talk) 09:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi,
Our user group is not very active and I am not so sure of its necessity. For me, it is interesting to have in some way a Liaison inbetween wiktionaries. We share a common goal but each project is unique, and more heteroclit as wikipedian communities. I don't know what can help more to tied our community and to share ideas, good practices and tools. So, if you have any idea, feel free to share them here! -- Noé (talk) 10:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sharing ideas as an external observer.
Share ideas is a first step. Actualités du Wiktionaire exist as a liaising document. Have you considered to have an internationalized version, where people can share best practices?
Is anyone interested by working about how to ease newcomers first steps, or how to unify most used templates so that a new Wiktionary will have a eased start?
Have you considered to have a meetup, like Wikisource has done?
J'ai complètement oublié de te répondre. Et puis, j'ai souvent observé que de répondre à une personne limitait le nombre de réponses ensuite. Bref, j'étais un peu déçu de ne pas t'avoir croisé à la Wikiconvention francophone le weekend dernier !
Alors, une version internationalisé des Actualités, c'est pas évident. Le constat sur la wikipresse que j'ai proposé à la Wikiconvention était déjà pas enthousiaste, et j'ai l'impression que les anglophones (la communauté la plus nombreuse) s'en fiche un peu de présenter au monde ou aux collègues ce qu'ils font. J'aurai envie qu'il y ai davantage d'échange sur les bonnes idées ou bonnes réflexions que l'on a développé, mais pour l'instant, ça ne prend pas.
Faciliter l'accueil des nouvelles personnes, c'est un sujet qui n'intéresse pas grand monde et j'ai l'impression que les motivations sont très diverses d'une personne à l'autre. Et puis, pour moi, la première étape reste de faire connaitre les contenus du Wiktionnaire pour que les gens le consultent. Ils viendront à y contribuer éventuellement dans un second temps, mais ce n'est pas la priorité. La majeure partie des gens ignorent complètement que les définitions qu'ils trouvent ne sont pas sur Wikipédia mais sur un autre projet, qui contient aussi des tableaux de conjugaison des verbes, des traductions, des milliers de citations, etc. Mais on travaille aussi sur l'amélioration de l'accueil. J'ai commencé à écrire des visites guidées et une personne est motivée pour faire des vidéos afin de lancer un MOOC pour la version francophone. Alors après, sur la facilitation de création d'un nouveau wiktionnaire, pfiou, on est loin d'avoir les forces nécessaires pour réussir à aider à ça. Chaque langue a ses traditions et façons de faire pour décrire les langues et nous ne pouvons pas être neutres et donc pas de bons conseils pour aider des gens à le faire sur une langue que nous ne connaissons pas. Le kit "votre Wiktionnaire en un mois" est loin d'être facile à créer, et ce n'est pas une priorité alors que les Wiktionnaire des langues les plus parlées dans le monde sont encore à l'état d'ébauche (l'espagnol par exemple).
Pour la proposition de rencontre, c'est en discussion, mais si on fait quelque chose, ça ne sera certainement pas une convention, mais plutôt un weekend à la montagne avec une vingtaine de personnes, à la fraîche et sans communiquer dessus hors du mouvement. Et probablement seulement entre francophone dans un premier temps car la plupart des francophones ne sont pas du tout à l'aise avec l'anglais et ne souhaiteraient pas être contraint à parler cette langue. Pour l'instant, nous nous retrouvons une fois par mois à Lyon et allons tenter de nous croiser au moins une fois à Paris avant l'été prochain, rien de plus fou.
Merci encore pour tes suggestions, et désolé d'avoir un peu abandonné cet espace de discussion Noé (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
So, Wikipedia Asian Month is coming this November. So, I was thinking that we should have our own little activity as well. Maybe like we can dedicate that month to focus in improving existing Asian-language lemmas or create one in your respective Wiktionary. I always have this plan to do a "foreign exchange programme" between other Wiktionaries where we get someone from other language Wiktionary go to other Wiktionary help create lemmas of his/her language with the help of the community of the Wiktionary. Just my ideas. Cheers! --Tofeiku (talk) 09:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Tofeiku ! Good idea. It is often quite difficult to contribute to other wiktionary as the structure largely differ and you need to understand the language quite well to be able to ask questions if needed. Doing something about Asia in November is a good idea. It could be through LexiSession operation. I think it could be interesting to describe and classify Asian languages, it's a good base but it's already quite complex with language/dialect descriptions. Maybe something about culture rather than language. I don't know. Maybe Assassas77 could have some idea? Noé (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, we could indeed focus on words that already exist in other Wiktionaries. I was planning to work on that list Otourly made : fr:wikt:Utilisateur:Otourly/IMISSU. I also enjoy working on Thesaurus, maybe Thesaurus about cooking in Asia ? (I contribute on food on Wikipedia ;) ) Assassas77 (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Noé, it's not impossible to help other Wiktionaries without knowing the language. I myself edit at fr.wikt but I don't speak French. You can see my contributions there. Just need to analyse the common structure of the Wiktionary and then you good to go. --Tofeiku (talk) 00:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, Tofeiku and Assassas77, November is almost here and we haven't fixed a topic to focus on. So, I suggest we look at the boardgame Go (围棋 , 碁, 바둑) as a culturally significant element, wildly diffused in Asia and outside. I remember Assassas being fund of food, but there is already something but almost nothing on asian games, so I think it can be interesting. If you have a better idea, I'll be please to let someone else elect the better topic! Noé (talk) 07:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Noé, maybe we can do traditional games in Asia too. I know a few for in Malay culture. --Tofeiku (talk) 09:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Traditional Asian games would be a great topic, I agree. I have a Chinese Xiangqi board, Japanese Hanafuda cards, and a Mahjong set of cards at home ;) Assassas77 (talk) 10:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
┌─────────────────────────────────┘ Great! WAM has started already. In conjuction to WAM, Wikimedia Community User Group Hong Kong holds a side contest by promoting to edit Hong Kong-related articles and win prizes from them. Maybe next year we can do something similar like that! --Tofeiku (talk) 15:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi,
Hope all knows the registration for wikimedia summit 2019 is underway. Who is going to represent our Tremendous wiktionary user group? Do we have a procedure for that? -- Balajijagadesh (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello everyone. For wikimedia conference 2018 there was interesting discussions regarding whom to send on behalf of TWUG for the wikimedia conference. Though we had two representative to be sent last event, only one attended on behalf of TWUG. For wikimedia summit 2019 no such discussions are taking place. Only one person can represent the TWUG for the forth coming event. The last date for the registration of the candidate is December 17, 2018. Even the mails in the mailing list didn't elicit any response. I have proposed a selection procedure here for the candidate selection. Please support or guide if I am going in the wrong way. Thanks -- Balajijagadesh (talk) 18:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Affiliations Committee – the committee responsible for guiding volunteers in establishing Wikimedia chapters, thematic organizations, and user groups – is looking for new members!
The main role of the Affiliations Committee is to guide groups of volunteers that are interested in forming Wikimedia affiliates. We review applications from new groups, answer questions and provide advice about the different Wikimedia affiliation models and processes, review affiliate bylaws for compliance with requirements and best practices, and advise the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees on issues connected to chapters, thematic organizations and Wikimedia user groups.
The committee can include up to fifteen members, roughly half of whom are selected every twelve months for staggered two-year terms. Those joining the committee during the current process will serve a two-year term ending in December 2020.
Key skills
Being a part of the Affiliations Committee requires communication with volunteers all over the world, negotiating skills, cultural sensitivity, and the ability to understand legal texts. We look for a healthy mix of different skill sets in our members, including the following key skills and experience:
- Willingness to process applications through a set, perhaps bureaucratic process.
- Readiness to participate in political discussions on the role and future of affiliates, models of affiliation, and similar topics.
- Availability of up to 5 hours per week, and the time to participate in a monthly two-hour voice/video meeting.
- International orientation.
- Fluency in English.
- Ability to work and communicate with other languages and cultures.
- Strong understanding of the structure and work of affiliates and the Wikimedia Foundation.
- Knowledge of different legal systems and experience in community building and organizing are a plus.
- Skills in other languages are a major plus.
- Experience with or in an active affiliate is a major plus.
- Strong track record of effective collaboration (such as evidenced skills at facilitation, mediation, negotiation, and so forth) are a major plus.
- Willingness to use one's real name in committee activities (including contacts with current and potential affiliates) when appropriate.
We are looking for people who are excited by the challenge of empowering volunteers to get organized and form communities that further our mission around the world. In exchange, committee members selected will gain the experience of supporting their world-wide colleagues to develop their communities as well as personal development in guiding organizational development, facilitating affiliate partnerships, and professional communications.
Selection process
As a reflection of our commitment to openness, transparency, and bilateral engagement with the Wikimedia community, the 2018 member selection process will include a public review and comment period. All applications received by the committee will be posted on Meta at Affiliations Committee/Candidates/December 2018, and the community will be invited to provide comments and feedback about each candidate.
At the end of the public comment period, the applications will be voted on by the members of the committee who are not seeking re-election, taking into account comments put forward by the committee's members, advisors, Wikimedia Foundation staff and board liaisons, and the community. A final decision will be made by mid-January 2019, with new members expected to join later that month.
How to apply
If you are interested in joining the committee, please post your application on the nomination page and send an email announcing your application to affcom@lists.wikimedia.org by 31 December 2018. Your application must include the following information:
- Your full name and Wikimedia username
- A statement describing your relevant experience, skills, and motivation for joining the committee.
- Answers to the following three questions:
How do you think affiliates work best together to partner on effective projects and initiatives?
What do you see as the role of affiliates in the Wikimedia movement in the next three years?
What do you feel you will bring to the committee that makes you a uniquely qualified candidate?
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me and/or the committee as a whole. We are happy to chat or have a phone call with anyone about our work if this helps them decide to apply. Please distribute this call among your networks, and do apply if you are interested!
Best regards,
Kirill Lokshin
Chair, Affiliations Committee
NEWS : Wikimedia Summit 2019 - The Movement Strategy Roles and Responsibilities Working Group surveyEdit
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Just i want to share the below information.
*You ([[User:Info-farmer|info-farmer]]) have registered for a Wikimedia affiliate at the Wikimedia Summit 2019. By request of the Movement Strategy working group "Roles & Responsibilities" I'm forwarding you a survey created by them to gather put for their scoping work. If you have any questions regarding the survey please contact Anne Clin ([[user:Risker]]) via risker.wp@gmail.com
*The survey link is being distributed to contact persons for Chapters, Thematic Organizations, User Groups, and several committees and other movement-related groups. It is possible that you may receive more than one link because we are using several mailing lists to distribute.
Results will be shared with the Wikimedia Foundation, the other Strategy Working Groups, and an aggregate report will be published on Meta as part of the Movement Strategy project. Thank you for your participation.
Yours truly,
Anne Clin (User:Risker)
On behalf of the Roles & Responsibilities Working Group
I completed the survey. Please never participate the above mentioned survey because it is only for the attendee of Wikimedia Summit 2019 --Info-farmer (talk) 07:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
AffCom is excited to share with you the news that the Wikimedia Foundation Board has unanimously approved the changes to the Bylaws during the last Board meeting on January 30, 2019.
Help us make Wikipedia talk pages more accessible to more participantsEdit
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello!
Our team at the Wikimedia Foundation is working on a project to improve the ease-of-use and productivity of wiki talk pages. As an affiliate, I can imagine you’ve run into challenges explaining talk pages to first-time participants, or it is an consultation that would interest your members.
We want all contributors to be able to talk to each other on the wikis – to ask questions, to resolve differences, to organize projects and to make decisions. Communication is essential for the depth and quality of our content, and the health of our communities.
We're currently leading a global consultation on how to improve talk pages, and we're looking for groups that can discuss and report on their experiences using (or helping other people to use) wiki talk pages. We'd like to invite you to participate, with the user groups that you belong to. You can learn more about the consultation at Mediawiki.org and if you're interested in hosting a group discussion (on-wiki or off-wiki), you can sign up at the participant sign-up group.
If you’d like to participate or if you have any questions, please contact us and let us know. The more people participate from many horizons, the better the outcome will be.
Call for complementary facilitators and more to get the ASBS 2019 process started!Edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi everyone, hope all is fine with you!
The next weeks will be intense, as affiliates figure out their participation in the process that will soon select 2 people for the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees.
Since new Bylaws established that the user groups are for the first time going to be involved in such process, a lot more support than before is certainly going to be necessary, among other things, for big and healthy conversations on the topic. Hence, please encourage members of your group to become a complementary facilitator, or sign up yourself! You can add yourself to the list on Meta or reply to me to flag availability. One person from the facilitators group should soon be selected to liaise with the Foundation Board’s Chair, María Sefidari, on behalf of all affiliates, and it may be wise to also find a deputy for them.
Finally, if you can think of any huge obstacles that would prevent your group from participating to the process (for instance, a language barrier, or lack of good decision-making mechanisms, etc.), please reach out to me directly: it is really important that we hear about them as early as possible.
Thank you! Elitre (WMF) 15:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi,
Is there anyone interested to be in touch with other affiliated by email? I don't have any time for that but someone from the Great Wiktionary community could join, if anyone want Noé (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@User:Info-farmer, hi! since you are also going to Berlin this year, which will feature a session on the ASBS process outlined above, would you like to be one of the 2 contacts for the TWUG who can follow and participate in it on behalf of the rest of the group? Thanks for your attention, --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Update on the Affiliate-selected Board seats 2019 processEdit
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi all,
The Election Facilitators met on Friday, April 5. We finalized the resolution, which is now frozen. The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation will be asked to approve the resolution.
We have made two small changes to be more inclusive. We extended the date for compliance with AffCom reporting and being in good standing to May 7 to allow time for as many Affiliates as possible to be current with these requirements. The Election Facilitators adjusted the language in case a quorum is not met during the election.
On the talk page of the resolution one issue was raised. The issue looks like to be about a possible candidate. Affiliates will have ample time to discuss the merits of candidates during nomination time, screening time, and they can cast their votes on candidates. The Election Facilitators didn't see the necessity for this change, and left the resolution on this point unchanged.
The Election Facilitators will be Abhinav Srivastava, Lane Rasberry, Jeffrey Keefer, Ad Huikeshoven, Neal McBurnett and Alessandro Marchetti. We will welcome more volunteers to assist us in this process, to reach out to the diversity in language and gender in our communities, and do so in an advisory role.
The nomination period opens on April 15. We are going to prepare nomination pages on Meta. You can expect a call for nominations. There is a draft call, including a candidates' profile section with non-binding guidelines about experience and characteristics for nominees. You are welcome to add your insights, or discuss on the talk page.
Erica Litrenta (WMF staff) supports us in this process. She will reach out to all affiliates through mail and other channels to make sure we are up to date with (user)name and contact details of your primary contact.
The Resolution has been approved by the Board of Trustees;
Nominations phase is now open, from April 15 00:00 UTC to April 30 23:59 UTC. See the Call for Candidates and Nominations pages;
Community members may ask questions of the candidates;
Your main representative has just received an email to confirm that they are indeed the primary contact and will perform official actions on behalf of your group (such as endorsing candidates and then voting). Some groups also need to verify their eligibility status in due time, as explained in the email;
New content is available to spread awareness around the process - the infographic on this page has clickable links and can be translated, and a primer is available, that we hope will be particularly helpful to those new to such a process;
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello.
The name of the only person who will vote on behalf of this group to select the next two Board members is now at m:Affiliate-selected Board seats/2019/Eligible entities. Please contact me directly as soon as possible if you need any kind of corrections there. There's only a few hours left to endorse candidates, and only the official voter can do that. I would also like to take this opportunity to remind you that you can make a difference with the necessary translations.
Appreciate your attention and your support so far! Thank you! Elitre (WMF) and Facilitators of ASBS 2019, 12:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Collecting feedback on a brand proposal for Wikimedia 2030Edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Dear Tremendous Wiktionary User Group members,
My name is Samir Elsharbaty. I work with the Wikimedia Foundation's Communications team.
Or send thoughts via email: brandproject@wikimedia.org
It’s a big topic, but this is not the final point of discussion. Instead, we are collecting community feedback to deliver a report to the Board of Trustees at the end of May. The report will summarize risks, concerns, needs, and opportunities in changing our branding.
Upcoming 2019 Affiliate-selected trustee position on the Board of Wikimedia FoundationEdit
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Greetings Tremendous Wiktionary User Group,
My name is Gerald Shields, also known as user:Geraldshields11. I am asking for your top rank vote for me in the election for one of two open trustee positions on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees.
I am asking for your vote to help support emerging communities and promote an inclusive education environment on all wiki projects. Also, I plan to promote various other issues as I mention in my statement and answers to various questions. I ask that you show your support for the issues that need to be address by voting for me as one of your preferences.
My candidacy information page is Affiliate-selected Board seats/2019/Nominations/Gerald Shields on Meta or can be found at Gerald Shields candidate. I have responded to the “Questions for all candidates - Questions for this individual candidate that do not apply to other candidates”. My answers give more details on why your affiliate should vote for me.
Thank you for your time, discussion, and consideration of my candidacy. I appreciate it.
Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
@Pamputt: Anyone joining this year's Wikimania in Sweden? I will be participating it and I suggest that we should hold a meetup or an edit-a-thon for Wiktionary during Wikimania. --Tofeiku (talk) 03:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Tofeiku. At some time, I was thinking to attend the next Wikimania but finally I changed my plan. I am not aware about the people who will join from the French Wiktionary. Maybe Lyokoï has more info about that. Pamputt (talk) 08:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pamputt It would be great to meet fellow TWUG members in the summit. Nevertheless, I will talk about Wiktionary and TWUG to the participants there. I might be doing a meetup to discuss more for those who are interested about Wiktionary and maybe do an edit-a-thon in conjunction to UN Year of Indigenous Languages. --Tofeiku (talk) 13:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tofeiku: Hey ! Normaly I will go to the next Wikimania ! I will be glad to see you ! :) Lyokoï (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lyokoï Are you going to attend this year's Wikimania too? --Tofeiku (talk) 14:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tofeiku Sorry, I misunderstood. XD I will be at Wikimania this year. I'm not sure for next year. Lyokoï (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Introducing Wikimedia Space: A platform for movement news and organizationsEdit
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Wiktionary/Tremendous Wiktionary User Group,
I’m writing to let you know that the Community Engagement department [1]at the Wikimedia Foundation is launching a new platform, Wikimedia Space. Here, you will find stories for and by contributors to the Wikimedia movement, and a space for discussions of different topics.
We know that finding information about Wikimedia activities and processes is very complicated, which makes the learning curve to enter our movement and be successful afterwards, really steep. By centralizing community stories and conversations in one shared space, we believe we are facilitating access and discoverability of topics across the movement, improving, in turn, connections among Wikimedians.
As an affiliated organization to the Wikimedia Foundation, we hope that you can share this platform with your local community, and we count on you to encourage them to add their voices. If you’d like to contribute stories, and overall, participate in the discussion section, please read our blogging guidelines and our code of conduct and join the conversation. Find more information about the project on its page on Meta.
Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, following the message above and taking in to account the fact we experienced some troubles to ping all the TWUG members when we create a new topic that could be interested for anyone, I asked for the creation of a dedicated space on the new Wikimedia space website. The request is here. Once it will be created, every members of the TWUG will have to follow the TWUG category so that they will be informed automatically of all the new topics, and more. Pamputt (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The TWUG has now a dedicated space on space.wmflabs.org. Please, follow the category so thath you will be informed automatically when any new topic will be created or when a new message will be posted.
The idea witht this new space is to create a new topic over there (instead of here) so that everyone can be informed much easier than here (who check regurlarly whether new messages have been posted here?). So, in the future, if you want to talk about something, I think the TWUG on Space is a better place than here (you can of course post your messages here as well). Pamputt (talk) 07:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for that, dude Noé (talk) 07:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hey,
This year is dedicated to non-encyclopedic projects, so it's the best/only year to suggest idea to upgrade our project. I am available to help you write a proposal in English, so let's talk about it here if needed, or let's go to the Community Wishlist Survey 2020Noé (talk) 14:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Introducing Wikimedia Diary: A memory book (notebook) for allEdit
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello Wiktionary/Tremendous Wiktionary User Group, I wanna share you about Wikimedia Diary, a public memory book (notebook) in which Wikimedians from all over the world are free to write any worth noting event/activities/experiences by them or community in this Wiki world. It is a more casual place to write about what one is up to.
As we all know, a diary is a book in which diarist keeps a daily record of events and experiences. Likewise, the basic idea of Wikimedia Diary is that we do many activities here in wiki world which we are proud of, but unfortunately it became only the history anytime. So, It is meant to record those activities on the happened date with a signature (~~~~) which is worth noting, and letting fellow Wikimedians know about what inspirational you've did. It would motivate users from all around the world to keep on cool activities and publish a note. I hope you share your activities with all of us on the page, and please let your friends know about Wikimedia Diary. Also, your feedback is welcome on the discussion page. Thank you! Kind regards, Tulsi Bhagat, Initiator of Wikimedia Diary, Wikimedia movement communications group. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I want to submit my application to represent this user group at Wikimedia summit 2020 in berlin. If, of course, you have not yet chosen another contributor.
My motivation is that I want to propose a presentation if it is taken about the experience of my team to create a Wiktionary of a minority language, and why we have to start with the Wiktionary, not with the Wikipedia as the first project of the language. as you now in the few days our Wiktionary will be created (T238105) and it is the very first Wikimedia language project where the Wikipedia is not the first project to be created. And also I am always supporting the Lingualibre project at all the conferences around the globe (Russia, Morroco, Algeria, Philippine ...ex).
I will wait for your answer thank you in advance.--Reda Kerbouche (talk) 08:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's perfect, your proposition is great. TWUG don't have fixed procedures for this election, but you may have a look at what we did last year to support a candidature. Then, massive ping is not well appreciated by some members, so I don't have any good solution for the canvassing of your proposal. Noé (talk) 09:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very nice proposal. You have my support too For the publicity, you can create a page similar to the 2019 one and then you can post a new message on Wikimedia Space (in the TWUG category). Pamputt (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have sent my application to the summit 2020. Cornelius Kibelka just write me that the Wikimedia Summit will focus only on the Movement Strategy Process, and that I have not mentioned the strategy process in the motivation.
Here I will correct and add more strategy process to my motivation. I will focus my work in this summit on two sections. diversity as I will represent the group I will focus on linuistic diversity, as I represent minority languages I will give my personal experience and recommendations based on my work in the Wiktionary in Different languages. And in the Partnerships working group, I will discuss and share the steps to follow to have a good partnership with educational institutions in North Africa. how to find local sponsors and of course the following problems during these partnerships. Also I will discuss about the decentralisation.Reda Kerbouche (talk) 21:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Reda Kerbouche sounds good to me. Your motivation fits with both diversity and partnership items. Good luck. Pamputt (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Affiliations Committee (AffCom) – the committee responsible for guiding volunteers in establishing Wikimedia chapters, thematic organizations, and user groups – is looking for new members!
The main role of the Affiliations Committee is to guide groups of volunteers that are interested in forming Wikimedia affiliates. We review applications from new groups, answer questions and provide advice about the different Wikimedia affiliation models and processes, review affiliate bylaws for compliance with requirements and best practices, and update the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees as well as advise them on issues connected to chapters, thematic organizations and Wikimedia user groups.
The committee consists of fourteen members, selected every twelve months for staggered two-year terms. Those joining the committee during the current process will serve a two-year term ending in December 2021.
AffCom continues to closely monitor the Wikimedia 2030 Strategy process that was initiated in 2016. While the affiliation models continue to be discussed as part of the broader strategy discussion, as no decisions have been made to change the current affiliation models yet, AffCom will continue to work in the same manner with regard to affiliate recognitions and intervention support for affiliates with issues of non-compliance in 2020. Specifically, AffCom will continue to process applications for user group and chapter/thematic organization creation, while we await the strategy next steps and begin to prepare for a smooth transition of the committee and affiliates ecosystem to any changing movement structures and systems in 2021.
Being a part of the Affiliations Committee requires communication with volunteers all over the world, negotiating skills, cultural sensitivity, and the ability to understand legal texts. We look for a healthy mix of different skill sets in our members.
Required and Recommended Skills for Affiliations Committee MembersEdit
Across all committee members there are additional relevant skills as well as requirements which help to support the committee and its sustainability which include both required and relevant general skills
Public Communications (English writing and speaking skills)
Strong understanding of the structure and work of affiliates and the Wikimedia Foundation.
Documentation practices
Interviewing experience
Knowledge of different legal systems and experience in community building and organizing are a plus
Experience with, or in, an active affiliate is a major plus.
Teamwork
Focusing on shared goals instead of disagreements
Focusing on the conflict at hand and not past ones
Ensuring each member of the team has a clearly defined role, which can help reduce disagreements over areas of responsibility
Project and people management to coordinate different parties on a shared plan and seeing it through to completion.
Problem-Solving
Ability to evaluate various solutions
Ability to consider multiple interests and points of view
Willingness to revisit unresolved issues
The capacity to recognize and respond to important matters
The ability to seek compromise and avoid punishing
Ability to work and communicate with other languages and cultures.
Given the expectations for maintaining course in 2020 and preparing for potential 2021 transitions, it is important that we are also clear about two different skill sets critical to committee support at this time. The first skillset is oriented to understanding affiliate dynamics and organizational development patterns to successfully process affiliate applications for recognition; the other is oriented to conflict prevention and intervention support for affiliates in conflict.
Being culturally sensitive at the same time remaining clear and concise when explaining a concept or opinion
Stress Management
Patience
Positivity
Ability to inject a dose of humor to dilute anger and frustration when needed
Taking well-timed breaks that can bring calm in the midst of flared tempers
Ability to manage stress while remaining alert and calm
Emotional Intelligence
Being emotionally aware,
Ability to control emotions and behaviors,
Ability to practice empathy,
Impartiality,
Don’t take anything personally,
Being aware of and respectful of differences.
Facilitation skills
Meeting facilitation experience
Peer or community mediation training
Peer or community mediation experience
Do you have any of these skill sets and an interest to support movement affiliates?
We are looking for people who are excited by the challenge of empowering volunteers to get organized and form communities that further our mission around the world. In exchange, committee members selected will gain the experience of supporting their world-wide colleagues to develop their communities as well as personal development in guiding organizational development, facilitating affiliate partnerships, and professional communications.
As a reflection of our commitment to openness, transparency, and bilateral engagement with the Wikimedia community, the 2019 member selection process will include a public review and comment period. We invite you to share with us you applications, specifying your focus area you’re interested in. All applications received by the committee will be posted on Meta, and the community will be invited to provide comments and feedback about each candidate.
At the end of the public comment period, the applications will be voted on by the members of the committee who are not seeking re-election, taking into account comments put forward by the committee's members, advisors, Wikimedia Foundation staff and board liaisons, and the community. A final decision will be made by mid-January 2020, with new members expected to join later that month.
If you are interested in joining the committee, please post your application on the nomination page and send an email announcing your application to AffComlists.wikimedia.org by 10 January 2020. Your application must include the following information:
Your full name and Wikimedia username
A statement describing your relevant experience, skills, and motivation for joining the committee.
Answers to the following questions:
How do you think affiliates work best together to partner on effective projects and initiatives?
What do you see as the role of affiliates in the Wikimedia movement in the next three years?
What do you feel you will bring to the committee that makes you uniquely qualified?
Which subcommittee are you most interested in serving on: Recognitions OR Conflict Prevention & Intervention?
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me and/or the committee as a whole. We are happy to chat or have a phone call with anyone about our work if this helps them decide to apply. Please distribute this call among your networks, and do apply if you are interested!
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hello, I think it would be interesting to centralize in one place all the grant projects that have been proposed and approved and that are about Wiktionary. Here is a list:
Participants will choose among Wikipedia pages without photo images, then add a suitable file from among the many thousands of photos in the Wikimedia Commons, especially those uploaded from thematic contests (Wiki Loves Africa, Wiki Loves Earth, Wiki Loves Folklore, etc.) over the years.
WPWP offers a focused task for guiding new editors through the steps of adding content to existing pages. It can be used to organize editing workshops and edit-a-thons.
The organizing team is looking for a contact person at the Chapter, Thematic group & Wikimedia User Group level (geographically or thematically), or for a language WP, to coordinate the project locally. We’d be glad for you to sign up directly at WPWP Participating Communities
Thank you,
Deborah Schwartz Jacobs
On behalf of Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos Organizing Team - 21:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the news. Because we are the user group that cares about Wiktionary projects, we would be very interested to attend to such picture project but for the Wiktionary projects. As for Wikipedia page, the Wiktionary pages lack a lot of pictures and could benefit as well of project like WPWP. Hope you can think about us next time ;-) Cheers. @T Cells: as coordinator of WPWP. Pamputt (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the ping Pamputt. WPWP is intended to be simple and allows participation across projects, languages, and regions. You are allowed to participate and coordinate the project in Wiktionary. You can sign up here. Please let me know if you have additional questions. Regards. T CellsTalk 07:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The main role of the AffCom is to guide groups of volunteers that are interested in forming Wikimedia affiliates. We review applications from new groups, answer questions and provide advice about the different Wikimedia affiliation models and processes, review affiliate bylaws for compliance with requirements and best practices, and update the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees as well as advise them on issues connected to chapters, thematic organizations and Wikimedia user groups.
The committee consists of five to fifteen members, selected at least once every year, to serve two-year terms. As the committee must hold mid-year elections to replenish its members at this time, those joining the committee during the current process will serve a slightly extended term from July 2020 through December 2022.
AffCom continues to closely monitor the Wikimedia 2030 Strategy process initiated in 2016. While the affiliation models continue to be discussed as part of the broader strategy discussion, as no decisions have been made to change the current affiliation models yet, AffCom continues to work in the same manner with regard to affiliate recognitions and intervention support for affiliates with issues of non-compliance in 2020. AffCom continues to process applications for user group and chapter/thematic organization creation, while we await the strategy next steps and begin to prepare for a smooth transition of the committee and affiliates ecosystem to any changing movement structures and systems in 2021.
Being a part of the AffCom requires communication with volunteers all over the world, negotiating skills, cultural sensitivity, and the ability to understand legal texts. We look for a mix of different skill sets in our members.
Latest comment: 3 years ago18 comments18 people in discussion
Hi fellows,
In 2017, the Communications department of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) conducted research on the state of Wikimedia brands, with external companies specialized on brand and design (Wolff Olins, then Snøhetta). Their conclusion in 2018 was that a change is needed to reinforce the brand visibility and avoid the confusion Wikimedia/Wikipedia. The best move suggested was to change the name for something based on the best-known brand, Wikipedia.
The WMF team made several workshops and meetings to gather feedback and concepts that may help. They planted "interconnection" as a key value of the movement. They also set six criteria to evaluate the options.
Finally, on June 16th, they revealed the proposed names for the Wikimedia Foundation:
Wikipedia Network Trust
Wikipedia Organization
Wikipedia Foundation
They initiate a two-weeks survey and a separate one for the affiliate I received by email.
I am posting to request opinions of the members of the group in order to fill the form for the User Group. Below, I suggest a communique to express our position, if we want to do this kind of communication. I think a collective and public answer as affiliate could be useful.
Opinions of the members of the Tremendous Wiktionary User GroupEdit
Thanks to express your opinion before the June 30.
Opposed to 1, 2 and 3. I don't feel any need for this change. Sure, the Wikimedia brand is not well know, but it does not have to be. Moreover, there was no communication made by the WMF to reinforce this name. I think this procedure is a waste of money and energy, going in a wrong direction, and it ignore inputs from the community. Noé (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Opposed to the three propositions. The wiktionaries suffers of disinterest of the Foundation. This operation doesn’t make any changes about this situation. The Wiktionaries have an important number of views [2] (but this seems leave indifferent the Foundation) and the name Wikipedia doesn’t represent us. A more generic name could be better; like « Knowledge Foundation ». Otourly (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pour reprendre les termes du sondage, je dirais "Pas du tout d’accord" avec la proposition 1 (Network et Trust, deux termes très mal connotés en français comme en anglais) et "Pas d’accord" avec les propositions 2 et 3. Ceci dit, pour nuancer les propos de @Noé: avec lesquels je suis globalement d'accord, je ressens un certain besoin de mieux faire connaître la marque et le mouvement (ne serait-ce que pour mieux assurer les revenus dudit mouvement) ainsi que de clarifier la situation (Wikimédia/Wikipédia est à la fois trop proche et trop différent, c'est perturbant). Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 15:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Je partage les avis que les termes "Network" et "Trust" sont très laids et ne représentent pas notre mouvement. J'aime l'idée d'utiliser "Movement" et je vois pas pourquoi "Foundation" n'est pas un bon terme et qu'il faut le changer. J'aime aussi la proposition d'Otourly "Knowledge Foundation", ou pourquoi pas "Free Knowledge Foundation". Je me questionne encore sur l'utilisation de "Wikipedia" comme terme générique pour l'ensemble des projets Wikimédia... Si je comprends bien, on pourrait dire "Wiktionary, a Wikipedia dictionary" ou "Wiktionnaire, un dictionnaire Wikipédia" ? Je pense que c'est une bonne idée de vouloir "inter-connecter" davantage les différents projets Wikimédia, mais sans pour autant "effacer" les autres projets au profit de Wikipédia. Amqui (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm against it as well... Changing the name to "Wikipedia" something will only reinforce the impression that all the sister-projects are not important... Never would they suggest to change it for "Wiktionary Foundation" or "Wikisource Foundation"... I really don't see why they want to spend money on changing the name. If they really want to change it, I love the idea above mentionned : "Free Knowledge Foundation"... this would be INCLUSIVE of all projects, WP, WS, WK, etc... Wikipedia Foundation will only bring more distension within the communities. --Ernest-Mtl (talk) 17:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm in favor. I for one welcome our new overlords. Both here and in my national chapter, I will argue for accepting whatever suggestion comes up, so we can move on and focus our energy on other, more important issues. You have to pick your fights. Having to explain that "Wikimedia" is different from "Wikipedia" has taken a lot of time and energy for me since 2003, and it feels like a waste of time. Similarly, explaining Wiktionary and Wikisource to friends who are already interested in languages and literature, is made more difficult by the various different translations of these names such as Wikikilden, Викитека, and Викисловарь. Perhaps renaming it to Wikipedia's dictionary could streamline that process. --LA2 (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Opposed to the three proposals. Wikimedia sister projects are as important as Wikipedia but unfortunately they were neglected from the beginning. Now stamping the organizations as Wikipedia will severely hamper the attention and care these sisters need badly. Also, the RfC clearly states community opposition, I wonder how this proposal is still alive ignoring all the community voices. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Against three proposals. The process and the rationales are interesting. But it's 15 years too late. At this time, the most efficient and respectul (for sibling projects) solution is to keep the current branding. Kvardek du (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I’m for Wikipedia Foundation. Currently, Wikimedia Foundation is often abbreviated to Wikimedia, which is very confusing with Wikipedia for laypeople. Wikipedia Foundation wouldn’t have such a problem. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 23:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am against it right now because I don't think it would be appropriate to do it now. -- कन्हाई प्रसाद चौरसिया (talk) 04:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia Foundation is the least awful of the 3 options. But I'm still opposed, making Wikipedia more known than it already is won't help smaller projects. – Jberkel (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The main problem from my point of view is that there is no thinking about sister projects related to this change name. If the foundation name is Wikipedia Foundation, the encyclopedia project name will be Wikipedia. But what about the name of the other projects. If Wiktionary is renamed Wikipedia dictionary, Wikisource "Wikipedia library", Wikiversity "Wikipedia university", and so on, then why not. The main advantages would be that it would be much clearer for everyone. But I am not sure at all than it will be done this way. So, for now, oppose to the three name; it is better to keep a distinct name to identify the foundation. If people have to do with the foundation then they learn that its name is Wikimedia foundation. Otherwise, they do not care and it does not matter. Pamputt (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am opposing all three names let Wikipedia remain Wikipedia, and Wikimedia Foundation remain Wikimedia Foundation, under which sister projects are given an umbrella.JogiAsad (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also do not support all three names. The current name the "Wikimedia" is more neutral and would ensure fairness to all projects. Converting "Wikimedia" to "Wikipedia" would imply that "Wikipedia" is more important than other non-Wikipedia projects and this will cause divisiveness between editors from different projects. KevinUp (talk) 05:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not support all three names. 'Wikimedia' is correct word for all projects. Stalinjeet Brar (talk) 05:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Opposed to the 3 names. Wikipedia will make a lot of troubles in readers minds, and it’s just easiness. I prefer things like « The Wikiknowledge Foundation » or other ambitious names ! :D 2A01:E35:2F86:A20:58F8:FCBB:6163:4594 11:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
English is not a convenient language for me. Any how ..excuse me. I too Strong oppose the brand name's change. The history [3], [4] shows that you are wasting our "constructing energy and public fund, valuable time over a decade". You may show the analytical data which is the result of "narrowed search engines effect on the surveyed society". Please understand; we have to educate globally that Wikipedia is one of the product of Wikimedia projects. In India, where <1000 of languages. Do you need change? Change as wikipedia--> Wikiarticles like wiki books, wikisource,.. Already lots of public money over Wiki articles(wikipedia) related meet-ups. "Product quality is important than product name". Let us improve to catch more people. Worrying about the brand name is copy right policy. Wiki is copyleft policy. Let us educate in out-reach well. Don't follow "search engines AI. Wiki is important that other names--Info-farmer (talk) 03:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Opposed to 1, 2 and 3. Wikimedia is much more than Wikipedia. Wikipedia is only one of the projects. --Teromakotero (talk) 19:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A communique by the TWUG for the survey on the movement brand projectEdit
Latest comment: 3 years ago18 comments13 people in discussion
We, as the Tremendous Wiktionary User Group, refuse all three propositions.
Looking at the six criteria, we consider that:
Those brands increase confusion between the organization and the projects. It is confusing to say "I am supporting a Wikipedia project but not Wikipedia". It also does not clarify the role of each part, making less clear that the Foundation also support others projects than Wikipedia.
Those brands may solely increase the reputation of the Foundation, while they definitely will not strengthen nor protect the movement itself. From a Wiktionarian perspective, trying to center the whole organization around one project, be it the most famous one, could only cast a shadow over the other projects which are already struggling to make themselves a name in the whole Wikimedian movement. The gain of reputation for sister project seems null.
Having Wikipedia over Wiktionaries always was a problem for the reputation. Many attempt have been made to challenge this issue by the concerned people. For example, Wikidata made some large efforts in communication and branding to reinforce their brand (stickers and other by-products); French Wiktionary worked on a design change to increase their identity in regards of Wikipedia. Wiktionarians always have to clarify that Wiktionary is broadly similar as Wikipedia but different in many regards: knowledge about words not concept of course, but also some original values, a separated and connected community, original process of decisions and patrolling. Having Wikipedia in the name of the Foundation will not resolve this issue and may make it worst by reinforcing for the readers the feeling it is only a subproject with a similar workflow and community.
Legal risks seems the same for Wiktionarians.
We do not consider the change of the WMF could have any effect on the growth of our community. The improvement of the quality and discoverability of the content, the stability of the service and a reasonable increase of the communication for each project could have a better effect on this.
A opt-in personalized adoption for each groups and communities may lead to a division between those who want to be associated with Wikipedia and those who don't, with a strong risk of split, and the opt-out of some groups or communities in favor of a more equitable and horizontal association.
Wiktionarians are eager to be part of a umbrella organization with Wikipedians, Wikidatians, Wikisourcerers and more, but we want equity and respect between projects. We are not a little one, we are a decent relative and a partner. We aims to describe knowledge and create new connections between content of several natures: words in Wiktionary with encyclopedic explanations in Wikipedia, data in Wikidata, cultural an touristic content in Wikivoyage, grammatical explanation in Wikiversity, pedagogical exports in Wikibooks, examples from sources you can read in Wikisource, pictures and recording from Wikimedia Commons, and so on.
Wiktionarians may be happy to join a Wikiverse Coalition, or whatsoever it may be named, that promote our vision rather than the unequal Wikipedia-centric vision those propositions are offering.
There is no urge to publish this text, or to publish it at all. So, I invite you to comment it, not to vote for or against it yet. I know a large part is my own analysis and it doesn't come from the group at this point. I am open to make it evolve largely, and I won't be sad if it is finally not published. Noé (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to write it down. I changed a couple words. Nemo 04:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a community open letter on renaming here. We could decide to sign it, as TWUG, if most of the affiliates want so. Pamputt (talk) 12:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1. It would be good to send a notification about this talk page discussion to all Wiktionary village pumps. Noé, do you want to do that? Can I help? Nemo 16:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. Even if, in the end, I see some good points about this rebranding (see my comment above), since the foundation is going through the roof, I don't think this is the right way at all. Pamputt (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral: I don’t think renaming is a problem, but I don’t find an urgent need to do so either. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, I signed it for the group. If more people give their opinion against this vote, we still can delete it. Noé (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Affiliations Committee elections announcement June 2020Edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi everyone,
This is a friendly reminder that the Affiliations Committee (AffCom) – the committee responsible for guiding volunteers in establishing and sustaining Wikimedia chapters, thematic organizations, and user groups – is seeking new members! The deadline to post your application on the nomination page is 30 June 2020.
Application process: Considering the anticipated changes following the Strategy recommendations, we had a limited scope to introduce changes in the process. We have made a small but impactful addition to the application process by introducing the Self Assessment survey form which will help the committee know more about your engagement as endorsements are not consistently shared, may not be representative, and often do not speak to the specific skills needed.
If you have any questions, please contact me and/or the committee as a whole. We are happy to answer questions about our work if this helps people decide to apply. Please distribute this announcement among your networks. Good luck to all the candidates!
There are a lot of conversations happening about the future of our movement names. We hope that you are part of these discussions and that your community is represented.
Since 16 June, the Foundation Brand Team has been running a survey in 7 languages about 3 naming options. There are also community members sharing concerns about renaming in a Community Open Letter.
You should have received a separate affiliate survey via email. If you have not, feel free to email brandprojectwikimedia.org.
Our goal in this call for feedback is to hear from across the community, so we encourage you to participate in the survey, the open letter, or both. The survey will go through 7 July in all timezones. Input from the survey and discussions will be analyzed and published on Meta-Wiki.
Thanks for thinking about the future of the movement --The Brand Project team, 13:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Note: The survey is conducted via a third-party service, which may subject it to additional terms. For more information on privacy and data-handling, see the survey privacy statement.
Announcing a new wiki project! Welcome, Abstract WikipediaEdit
Hello everyone. I am posting the announcement below, which you may have missed elsewhere, and in the hope that you can share it with your local communities. Please note that it may be available in your language at m:Special:MyLanguage/Abstract Wikipedia/July 2020 announcement. Thanks for your attention! m:User:Elitre (WMF)
Hi all,
It is my honor to introduce Abstract Wikipedia, a new project that has been unanimously approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. Abstract Wikipedia proposes a new way to generate baseline encyclopedic content in a multilingual fashion, allowing more contributors and more readers to share more knowledge in more languages. It is an approach that aims to make cross-lingual cooperation easier on our projects, increase the sustainability of our movement through expanding access to participation, improve the user experience for readers of all languages, and innovate in free knowledge by connecting some of the strengths of our movement to create something new.
This is our first new project in over seven years. Abstract Wikipedia was submitted as a project proposal by Denny Vrandečić in May 2020 [1] after years of preparation and research, leading to a detailed plan and lively discussions in the Wikimedia communities. We know that the energy and the creativity of the community often runs up against language barriers, and information that is available in one language may not make it to other language Wikipedias. Abstract Wikipedia intends to look and feel like a Wikipedia, but build on the powerful, language-independent conceptual models of Wikidata, with the goal of letting volunteers create and maintain Wikipedia articles across our polyglot Wikimedia world.
The project will allow volunteers to assemble the fundamentals of an article using words and entities from Wikidata. Because Wikidata uses conceptual models that are meant to be universal across languages, it should be possible to use and extend these building blocks of knowledge to create models for articles that also have universal value. Using code, volunteers will be able to translate these abstract “articles” into their own languages. If successful, this could eventually allow everyone to read about any topic in Wikidata in their own language.
As you can imagine, this work will require a lot of software development, and a lot of cooperation among Wikimedians. In order to make this effort possible, Denny will join the Foundation as a staff member in July and lead this initiative. You may know Denny as the creator of Wikidata, a long-time community member, a former staff member at Wikimedia Deutschland, and a former Trustee at the Wikimedia Foundation [2]. We are very excited that Denny will bring his skills and expertise to work on this project alongside the Foundation’s product, technology, and community liaison teams.
It is important to acknowledge that this is an experimental project, and that every Wikipedia community has different needs. This project may offer some communities great advantages. Other communities may engage less. Every language Wikipedia community will be free to choose and moderate whether or how they would use content from this project.
We are excited that this new wiki-project has the possibility to advance knowledge equity through increased access to knowledge. It also invites us to consider and engage with critical questions about how and by whom knowledge is constructed. We look forward to working in cooperation with the communities to think through these important questions.
There is much to do as we begin designing a plan for Abstract Wikipedia in close collaboration with our communities. I encourage you to get involved by going to the project page and joining the new mailing list [3]. We recognize that Abstract Wikipedia is ambitious, but we also recognize its potential. We invite you all to join us on a new, unexplored path.
Hello all, after the closure of Wikimedia space for discussions, the TWUG no longer has a place to discuss TWUG-related topics.
The Wikimedia Foundation recently announced the creation of Wikimedia Chat to fill this need. The idea is to centralize in this place all the discussions that could take place on Facebook, Telegram, Discord and other similar platforms.
I therefore invite you to create an account there. At the moment, I don't think the accounts on chat.wmcloud.org are linked to the one of the Wikimedia projects so please keep an eye on what's going on there (I don't think there's much activity) or set your preferences to receive an email when a new message is posted. Pamputt (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pamputt: A correction: This was not announced by or created by the WMF, it's built and maintained by volunteers (assuming I'm understanding Ladsgroup's announcement correctly). --Yair rand (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, it's in WMF infra (called Wikimedia Cloud services that helps building nice tools by volunteers) but it's all volunteer work. Amir (talk) 23:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, thanks for the clarification. Pamputt (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Following up on the August SWAN meeting and June's All-Affiliates Brand Meeting, as well as strategic and outreach topics of mutual concern to all affiliates, this month we are meeting on Sunday September 20, and you are all invited to RSVP here.--Pharos (talk) 01:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Movement Strategy - What Are Your Choices For ImplementationEdit
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello Wiktionary/Tremendous Wiktionary User Group,
The Movement Strategy Design Group and Support Team are inviting you to organize virtual meetings with your community and colleagues before the end of October. The aim is for you to decide what ideas from the Movement Strategy recommendations respond to your needs and will have an impact in the movement. The recommendations are available in different formats and in many languages. There are 10 awesome recommendations and close to 50 recommended changes and actions or initiatives. Not everything will be implemented. The aim of prioritization is to create an 18-month implementation plan to take some of the initiatives forward starting in 2021.
Prioritization is at the level of your group, affiliate, and community. Think local and relevant! Regional and thematic platforms are great ways to prepare and share ideas. Afterwards, we will come together in November to co-create the implementation plan. More information about November’s global events will be shared soon. For now and until the end of October, organize locally and share your priorities with us.
You can find guidance for the events, the simple reporting template, and other supporting materials here on Meta. You can share your results directly on Meta, by email, or by filling out this survey. Please don’t hesitate to get in touch with us if you have any questions or comments, strategy2030wikimedia.org
We will be hosting office hours to answer any questions you might have, Thursday October 1 at 14.00 UTC (Google Meet).
Notification of Affiliate Expiration - Renewal pending submission of reportingEdit
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Greetings
This is a notification to bring to your attention that your organization is currently past due on its required annual reporting. Wikimedia User Groups are required to submit an annual activity report covering the entirety of the 12-month agreement period in order to prompt review for a renewal. Reports must be written in English, posted to meta via the Wikimedia Affiliates Data Portal.
This page is used to track how organizations and groups are meeting reporting requirements described in their agreements with the Wikimedia Foundation (e.g. chapter agreements, thematic organization agreements, user group agreements). It is the central place where affiliates can add reports about their activities, share their plans, and even news or social media channels with the wider movement. When new reports are available, organizations and groups should add them to this page to keep their columns up to date.
As noted on the meta Reports page, your organization’s 2019-20 annual reporting became past due in September. Please be sure to :
Post your 2019-20 annual reporting to the meta via the Wikimedia Affiliates Data Portal as soon as possible to return to compliance with your user group agreement. # Check that your group’s page is also up to date with past report links for historical record-keeping, and# Please send an email to Wikimedia-l in order to share with a movement-wide audience.
If you have any questions or need any further guidance, please don’t hesitate to reach out.
Wiktionary/Tremendous Wiktionary User Group, we would love to see you at the upcoming Movement Strategy Global Conversations. It’s been a while.
The Movement Strategy Global Conversations will take place on Saturday November 21, 11:00 to 15:00 UTC, and Sunday November 22, 17:00 to 21:00 UTC, and you are warmly invited.
The focus will be to look at priorities identified by communities and affiliates, and to begin to create a movement-wide implementation plan for 2021. The main sessions will be in English. Any group interested to support live interpretation in another language may be able to receive a rapid grant. Let us know as soon as possible.
Please register by Nov. 20 so we can share the Zoom login information with you. If you have any questions or comments, don’t hesitate to reach out to the Support Team via Telegram, Wikimedia Chat or by email at strategy2030wikimedia.org.
Looking forward to seeing you on November 21 or 22.
Call for insights on ways to better communicate the work of the movementEdit
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Movement Strategy recommendations published this year made clear the importance of establishing stronger communications within our movement. To this end, the Foundation wants to gather insights from communities, including affiliates, on ways we all might more consistently communicate about our collective work, and better highlight community contributions from across the movement. Over the coming months, we will be running focus groups and online discussions to collect these insights. We hope your affiliate will decide to share your thoughts by participating in a focus group or joining the discussion on Meta-Wiki.
(Note that the UTC times of and are the same as before, although a number of places have had daylight savings time changes since our last meeting).--Pharos (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Global Conversations continue on December 5 and 6Edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Wiktionary/Tremendous Wiktionary User Group. 250 people participated in virtual Global Conversations that took place on November 21 and 22. The conversation continues on December 5 and 6 and we warmly invite you to take part. Registration is open until December 4. Looking forward to seeing you.
Since September, many groups have shared their local, regional, and thematic priorities for implementing the Movement Strategy recommendations. During the first set of Global Conversations on Nov. 21 and 22, we focused on initiatives that should be globally prioritized and coordinated. We invite you to read the selected global priorities. What do you like about them? What is missing? And what would make you want to play an active role in implementation? Share your thoughts in advance and continue the conversation on December 5 and 6.
Looking forward to seeing you again, or for the first time, on December 5 and 6.
To start the exchange of ideas on the IGC early, and to help prepare before the SWAN calls, we have set up and invite everyone to participate at this etherpad.If you like a more interactive way of discussing, we have also made a jamboard. Check here for more details.
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This is the announcement for the Project Grants program open call that started on January 11, with the submission deadline of February 10, 2021. This first open call will be focussed on Community Organizing proposals. A second open call focused on research and software proposals is scheduled from February 15 with a submission deadline of March 16, 2021.
For the Round 1 open call, we invite you to propose grant applications that fall under community development and organizing (offline and online) categories. Project Grant funds are available to support individuals, groups, and organizations to implement new experiments and proven ideas, from organizing a better process on your wiki, coordinating a campaign or editathon series to providing other support for community building. We offer the following resources to help you plan your project and complete a grant proposal:
Weekly proposals clinics via Zoom during the Open Call. Join us for #Upcoming_Proposal_Clinics|real-time discussions with Program Officers and select thematic experts and get live feedback about your Project Grants proposal. We’ll answer questions and help you make your proposal better.
Program officers are also available to offer individualized proposal support upon request. Contact us at projectgrants@wikimedia.org if you would like feedback or more information.
We are excited to see your grant ideas that will support our community and make an impact on the future of Wikimedia projects. Put your idea into motion, and submit your proposal by February 10, 2021!
Please feel free to get in touch with questions about getting started with your grant application, or about serving on the Project Grants Committee. Contact us at projectgrantswikimedia.org. RSharma (WMF)MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Following up on the August, September, October, November, and January SWAN meetings and June's All-Affiliates Brand Meeting, as well as strategic and outreach topics of mutual concern to all affiliates, this month we are meeting on Sunday February 21, and you are all invited to RSVP here.
To help set priorities for the SWAN agenda, and also to help manage which global conversations should be a focus in general, we have set up and invite everyone to participate at this SWAN priorities form.
Following up on the August, September, October, November, January, and February SWAN meetings and June's All-Affiliates Brand Meeting, as well as strategic and outreach topics of mutual concern to all affiliates including
wikimedia.org.
Fixed Noé (talk) 13:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
As a starting point, I suggest you have a look at our eight suggestions for the Tech Community, wrote for the on-going survey. You may be able to handle some of those proposals, or see how to improve some of them with/by/through Wikidata. I realize it can be touchy to fix a long-term plan based on structured lexicographical data but I imagine more commitment from the wiktionarians and also more people eager to collaborate to your project if it benefits to the community directly, readers or contributors. With Lyokoï, we did a lot of presentations and workshop and the first problem for peoples is the complexity of the structure. I would love to have something similar as Wikisource books edition, but still compatible with raw text editing. An interface that make easier to add a synonym, a new definition, an attestation or anything else, without an inquiry to with the appropriate template. We'll be happy to work on a list with you all 
wikimedia · org in any language. You can learn more about this project and read about frequently asked questions. You can also share your feedback on Meta-Wiki. 
_-_The_Noun_Project.svg)
Noé (talk) 14:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Strong oppose the brand name's change. The history [3], [4] shows that you are wasting our "constructing energy and public fund, valuable time over a decade". You may show the analytical data which is the result of "narrowed search engines effect on the surveyed society". Please understand; we have to educate globally that Wikipedia is one of the product of Wikimedia projects. In India, where <1000 of languages. Do you need change? Change as wikipedia--> Wikiarticles like wiki books, wikisource,.. Already lots of public money over Wiki articles(wikipedia) related meet-ups. "Product quality is important than product name". Let us improve to catch more people. Worrying about the brand name is copy right policy. Wiki is copyleft policy. Let us educate in out-reach well. Don't follow "search engines AI. Wiki is important that other names--Info-farmer (talk) 03:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Support Noé (talk) 12:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Neutral: I don’t think renaming is a problem, but I don’t find an urgent need to do so either. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Strong support--Info-farmer (talk) 03:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
