User talk:Sue Gardner/Archive 1

Add topic
Active discussions

Wikinews interview

You've probably already been informed, but: look here :) Thunderhead 06:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia Radio proposal.

Hi, There is a proposal for a Wikimedia radio project - WM:RADIO. Given your former role in broadcast journalism, your input would be appreciated :) ShakespeareFan00 15:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

New Wikis

Hey, since your staff, I was wondering if you could tell me how to suggest new wikis for wikimedia. VenomousNinja 00:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Try the New project policy page, VenomousNinja: it's outdated, but I think it's the best there is. Sue Gardner 01:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Now indef blocked user impersonating you on En

A heads up on [1]. Mfield 21:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Relating to you

See Talk:Wikimedia_board_manual#Wikimedia_board_manual.23ED_Evaluation_Committee. -- 23:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


Sj+ translate 01:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

An unblock on Commons

Hi Sue, there was recently some discussion on Commons involving unblocking a user locally who was blocked on other projects for pedophilia-related advocacy. The user is currently under a topic ban. Some users like Ottava have expressed an interested in hearing your input from you since you recently made public statements relevant to this issue. Please take a look at the discussion at commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Blocks_&_protections#Paedophile_bans_from_en.wp and leave a comment there if you wish. Thank you! Dcoetzee 22:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Sue Gardner 23:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Previous statements were removed by two patently false rationales and part of a trend of cross-wiki abuse. They have been reprinted here and further problems by Gmaxwell will be met with a swift block for his blatant disruption and abuse of multible projects. Defending those who are in blatant defiance of WMF policy and are claiming that people have a right to think that the policy is a "witch hunt" is not conducive to a safe educational environment. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I have, and have had, absolutely nothing to do with this pædophilia-whatever discussion. I haven't even read up on much of the background of the matters being discussed enough to have an informed opinion on the subject. If I'd previously commented on pædophilia related subjects it was long enough ago to be out of reach of my memory.
The Ottava Rima account was blocked on commons for two weeks, it has a history of abusive behaviour and several prior blocks. After reviewing the recent contributions I extended the block to an indefinite duration. My primary reasoning was that after repeated blocks without any evidence of an interest in improving behaviour making the block indefinite would be the most humane action for both the user and the commons community. I also cited the outrageous allegation of pædophilia that this user lobbed at another commons administrator, who to the best of anyone's knoweldge is not connected to paedophilia in any way except disagreeing with Ottava on something somehow connected to it.
Now, true to form, Ottava is also bunching me into his scatter-shot paedophilia accusations. For the record, I categorically reject and refute these slanderous allegations (Ottava Rima) is spreading about me on this project and Wikiversity and which he now claims to be broadcasting to journalists. I would generally prefer to ignore these allegations, but I've seen what has happened to other Wikimedians when they ignored rather than aggressively refuting these kinds of claims.
Sorry for the drama. Cheers. --Gmaxwell 23:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
You claimed: "calling a perfectly normal user a paedophile-advocate because they simply urged caution against what they perceived to be an unjustified witch-hunt". You characterized the banning of a pedophile as a "witch hunt". That states that there is nothing wrong with pedophilia. You stated that multiple times. Your wording makes it clear that you see nothing wrong in the unbanning of pedophiles. That is not conducive to an environment with children, especially not an educational one. Our first duty is to protect these children and calling that a "witch hunt" is completely unacceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Ottava Rima, please don't make wild, overreaching accusations about other editors: it's not responsible. Thanks. Sue Gardner 00:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Sue, the Supreme Court has stated that Pedophiles represent such a high danger that they can be kept in jail beyond their sentences. To say that -banning- them via -zero tolerance- is akin to a witch hunt or is fascist is to make completely irresponsible statements and to compare pedophilia to religion, or to downplay the seriousness of pedophilic editors. Pedophilia advocates, as defined by ArbCom, Jimbo, et al, have been those who state that pedophilia is normal, that it isn't dangerous, and that pedophilies are regular people. Claiming that they have the right to edit because they haven't done any harm is not based in the reality of the situation and completely ignores the actual danger they pose. To throw around blocks while claiming zero tolerance is a witch hunt or fascist, to use Mindspillage's IRC ops to promote absolutely inappropriate conduct on IRC, and to insist that pedophiles are "normal people" over a three hour period is not something that can be seen as "normal" behavior in relation to pedophiles. The Board needs a child protection policy now and a clear ban on pedophilies. This matter cannot be left to a handful of admin who do not have any experience with the horror and damage those people can cause, nor is it appropriate that those people can dismiss the problem as "witch hunts" and attack those who want pedophiles to be banned as "fascists". Pedophilia is one of the most dangerous problems that Wikimedia can ever face. It is an extremely important issue. I don't think it is fair for you to say it is not responsible for what I have said, when it is clearly irresponsible for someone to claim that zero tolerance of pedophiles is a witch hunt and fascist. Ottava Rima (talk) 11:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Pedophiles are people who have deviant sexual desires. No matter how wrong it is to express those sexual desires, they're still normal people, with their own cross to bear. The fact that you conflate them with pedophilia advocates is disturbing; not everyone who feels a desire to steal does so, and even fewer advocate for it. Furthermore, going after people not only for expressing their viewpoint but for arguing that they have a right to express their viewpoint is pretty fascist.
BTW, 25% of college males said they would rape a woman if they could get away with it. Do you that's okay? That that doesn't cause horror and damage? Where's your outrage there? We should ban all heterosexuals from the Wikis because some of them do bad things, and a few of them even advocate for it.--Prosfilaes 17:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Fascist to be against Pedophiles? What about the ban on Nazi related advocacy in Germany? Is that Fascist too? You don't understand what the word means, nor do you understand the ethical obligation of a website that provides educational material to protect child users from such harm. Now, you undermined your whole argument by saying that 25% of college males according to a made up statistic would do anything. Instead, what you have done is throw out made up statistics, taken extreme points of views, and labeled others as "fascist" for a mere ban on editing for what reason? Because you believe that pedophiles, a group of people who can do extreme amounts of physical, mental, and emotional harm to those who are incapable of protecting themselves, have the right to edit? Your statements are completely irresponsible. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
You gave us the US media and the WMF people an assurance that there was zero tolerance. The people at Wikiversity expect you to go through with that and all the ramifications of that. That would be no tolerance to people throwing around blocks and claiming that banning proven pedophiles is a witch hunt. It would also mean not unblocking them because you think they "do no harm". Are we going to stand up against the pedophile problem or not? Ottava Rima (talk) 11:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I have requested a global lock at Steward requests/Global#Global_lock_for_Tyciol. Please feel free to express your opinions there. Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ 23:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Global un(b)lock requested.

Dear mrs. Gardner, after some two years, I unfortunately have to inform you again about the structural nl.wikipedia problems - I attended you earlier on the at the time (see: here), which still aren't solved profoundly as you probably may discover yourself here and: Steward_requests/Global#Global_unlock_for_D.A._Borgdorff ... as en:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:JanDeFietser ... and e.g. also the last three items on (as) to my eternal blocked Dutch colleague.!
I'm preferring to take action in some more formal posting, say more directly, not by means of this medium, so I'll contact you in advance or office.
With utmost regards ever remaining as before i.c. Sincerely Yours: Borgdorff = 20:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I saw my case withdrawn so to speak. So I'll have to take further actions. Most sincerely obliged : D.A. Borgdorff - PE / 01:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Wiki- Broadcasting

During your office hours session the other week , I raised the issue of content partnerships with national broadcasters, in relation to the idea of 'broadcast' use of Wikimedia project content.

The reason was because previous attempts to get wiki- broadcasting going seem to fizzle out due to a lack of support. ( For example the previous WM:Radio project that I note previously on this page, seems to have sunk without mention.)

Another 'media project, Audio Wikinews, is another example of how not to do it, previous efforts at this have tended to be a single person effort at times, and thusly after considerable effort, that person burns out :(

I would STILL like to see Wikimedia contributors efforts (and those of of other open minded projects like Librivox) used to generate radio programming. However given the absence of a 'reliable' community originated project, I am thinking that a purely community driven attempt at this may not be the best approach.

I'd therefore like to strongly suggest some kind of discussion within the community and Foundation about an approach being made to established 'public service' broadcasters, such as NPR, CBC and BBC World Service, with a view to get a 'Wiki-Broadcast' on air. The details of this Wiki-Broadcast would vary depending on what content was deemed appropriate, but a beneficial side effect of this would be the promotion of Wikimedia projects and goals, by a means that does not involve the use of commerical airtime.

I'd appreciate a fuller disscussion on this , perhaps as part of an office hours session. Sfan00 IMG 13:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thekohser global ban

Dear Sue Gardner,

I would like some information. Apparently, Thekohser has been editing lately after convincing a few small projects to use Crat ops to break his SUL via renaming. In doing this, he is able to backdoor override his ban.

I cannot find any Meta discussion nullifying his global ban/lock. I cannot find any Meta discussion allowing the Crats to use a backdoor to nullify global bans/locks.

Are these actions deemed acceptable by the WMF? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey Ottava, Sue is currently on a pretty intense travel schedule, so I can answer your question.
The short answer is that, as always, the Wikimedia Foundation does not make blocking/banning decisions (global or local) except in cases where an office action is required. The ban you're talking about was instituted by community members based on a comment from Jimmy about how he considered Kohs globally banned, not based on a directive from the Foundation, and a global lock is still in place on that basis. A few communities either chose to locally override the SUL lock, or Kohs' account on a particular wiki was simply never integrated with his global account. If you have more questions about the state of any particular global lock, I would ask the Stewards at SRG here on Meta. Steven Walling at work 06:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion, Stockholm

Dear Sue. If you'll have the time, may I suggest the Chinese Terracotta Warrior Exhibition at the East Asian Museum? Kind regards, Bjoertvedt 23:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Why should we donate to Wikipedia to support your bloated salary? You guys should take a pay cut. And we all heard about what Jimbo did with volunteer funds. Nobody wants to donate to people who waste money ostentatiously.

Which is more important: porn or world visibility?

This came up in which one editor claimed that it is more important to have explicit sexual content than for 50% of the world to be able to access Wikipedia.

As a Literature person who does not deal with anything sexual, I am bothered that people will be unable to access my work because someone else needed to post up pictures of their graphic sex acts on what is supposed to be an encyclopedia.

What is the Foundation's official priority here? Mass visibility of traditional encyclopedic content or serving as another exhibitionist website? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I would like an answer to the above question or a means to submit the question officially to the WMF Board for any kind of response (even "we will not respond" will be a response). Ottava Rima (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Anniversary of the Russian Wikipedia

Good day, Sue. I wrote you at 25 of April about Anniversary of the Russian Wikipedia but didn't received any answer yet. On 11 of May the start of our project was announced and we want to write about it in our press release (here is a draft -лет_Википедии_на_русском_языке). May be we can get any comments/wishes/etc. about it from you to our release?

Thank you in advance, Lvova 11:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikis Love Leaders on Wikimania 2011

Thank You for your kind words and attendance! It was a surprise to have such an audience. :) I am sorry that it was not as polished (pun intended ;) ) as I wished - my corporate day job had cancelled my time off before Israel and made me work overtime instead. Having said that, I'm happy that you enjoyed the presentation - IMVHO there are many untold stories about Wikimedia like its self-governance. Wikis are often mentioned as a great match for librarians and young researchers, however we rarely think about them as a e.g. great internship for MBA students.

The materials will be uploaded promptly. In future I hope to keep on researching and delivering about Wikimedia, adding some more serious quantitative analysis.

Have a nice day and lot of fun from the wikis!
aegis maelstrom δ 08:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello again, as promised I have added the slides and a link to the Wikimania 2011 submission page. If I find some spare time I will elaborate more on them, as well as upload the slides from my 2 talks on previous Wikimania in Gdańsk. I was discussing issues of 1. what is really NPOV [2] and 2. differences between cultures and balance of 5 pillars among major wikis [3] - you might be interested with it.
Best regards, aegis maelstrom δ 09:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Background on the referendum

Hi Sue,

That was very helpful. A similar background on where the initial design on came from would be helpful as well. There is an equal amount of confusion about how that design was developed, if it is imagined as the template for any such feature in the future, whether it was expected to be a controversial technical decision, if future public design sessions would are planned, &c.

Warmly, SJ talk | translate   04:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Article about you

Hi, I have found your first (?) edit in German wikipedia in the "Missbrauchsfilter" and so I decided to write a German article about you, see (the wikipedia box will be changed). After that, I have tried to give you a welcome on your German talk site, but it failed, also because of the Missbrauchfilter :-). So, here is your welcome on a screenshot.

Does an official statement from the foundation exists according to this Missbrauchsfilter (on wp.en named "edit filter") ?. I would be very very very interested, because I am writing a series about the most interesting German filters. Regards Mutter Erde 21:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Your blog post

Dear Sue, re your recent blog post

I was active in the discussions on the Foundation mailing list. I'm also a perfect example of the white male Liberal/Libertarian stereotype that concerns you.

Yet I'm poles apart from you on this, both in my analysis of my fellow editors concerns and in the response I've had to my postings on the Foundation mailing list.

Firstly my analysis of the opposition is very different to yours. I understand your comments about the opposition, but I see other concerns as well.

Any proposal which depends on the category system will lead to complaints that x or y image has been on Commons for so many days without being categorised as depicting a penis. That's why people worry that this would increase the burden on a dwindling volunteer force, many of whom didn't want this in the first place.

A category based image filter system relies on all current and future images being appropriately categorised with regards to the categories used by the image filter. Including eleven million already on commons and millions more to come. In a paid operation you would hire lots of extra staff to do this. In a volunteer operation all one can say is that the management implemented a filter without recruiting the staff to do the tagging to make it work. Flickr resolves this by putting the onus on the uploader of an image to categorise it, and thereby gets into conflict with uploaders who don't want to do that, or have a different perception of controversial content. People worry that an image filter based on categories would place a categorisation burden on either the uploader or the whole volunteer community, or both, and that we have over eleven million images that would need to be reviewed against the new filter categories.

There are also people who argue that our category system is not designed for this purpose - categories are there to say what is depicted by an image not how potentially offensive it might be. The two do not always coincide.

There are people, including myself, who are comfortable with the idea of a personal filter which gives people greater choice as to which images they see, but who don't want to empower anyone to censor what others can see. Whether at the level of a Wikimedia project, a nation, an ISP or indeed a shared IP address.

People care about the projects so much that even if they oppose a decision, if the consensus goes against them they will put time in to making things work. But many people don't see the Foundation proposal for an image filter as either workable or a consensus based decision. Failing either is a problem, failing both more so.

Secondly I don't see consensus as a barrier to be overcome by appealing to a different audience, I see consensus as a process whereby people listen to each others concerns and seek to accommodate them.

So how come my posts to the Foundation mailing list proposing an image filter got a more polite response than the official Foundation proposal? Perhaps it was the move away from categories, the shift in the onus of responsibility and the labour from the uploader or the community to the actual users of the filters. Perhaps it was because I've been careful to describe the recent questionnaire as a survey or a consultation, but not as a referendum. Perhaps it was because my support for a filter was motivated by a desire to break the barriers that limit our readership in the Islamic world, more than concern to appease critics in a region where we have pretty high readership already. Or perhaps it was because I made it clear that I was listening to feedback and trying to adapt to it. So if you seek a "change in tone and emphasis" may I recommend an extra emphasis on achieving consensus by acknowledging and trying to understand and resolve objections?



PS Now that DE wiki's poll has come out 86% against an image filter, any further discussion of an image filter needs to respond to that poll. This can be done in many ways: One can seek to resolve and reverse that opposition and get the 60% shift in opinion needed to achieve consensus support on DE wiki; To bypass it by only implementing the filter in projects that have consensus for implementation; To overrule it by seeking a project wide consensus that all projects must have this, even if the local consensus is against;. Or to overrule it by discarding consensus and making a WMF decision. I think we should have an image filter, but I'd rather not have one at all than have one implemented against the will of the community. Would you and the board be willing to say the same?

(Originally written as a response to a Blog post, but as that didn't seem to work I've put it here where truthfully such dialogue really belongs) WereSpielChequers 10:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

WereSpielChequers, thanks for this. I appreciate you enumerating your concerns about the filter as clearly as you have here: it's helpful. And I actually don't believe that you and I are nearly as far apart as you seem to think. I'm reading the write-in comments to the referendum and all the discussions on our mailing list and on my blog: it's all useful, and I'm hearing what people are saying.
I'll say also too, just to clarify: 1) yes, the "while male Liberal/Libertarian" label is a stereotype, although it's also clearly rooted in reality. More importantly, 2) Those people don't "concern" me -- I think they are fabulous. Everyone who built the projects is amazing, and deserves readers' thanks. So I don't have any concerns about those people. What I'm concerned about is the other people who are still missing from our discussions. I think that when you aim to collect together the sum of all human knowledge via a consensus-driven process, you can only really succeed when you have a wide diversity of people represented at your table, and we haven't achieved that yet. That doesn't say anything bad about the people who are currently working in the projects: it just means we need to make an effort to bring in the folks who are missing.
Again, thanks for this comment :-) Sue Gardner 01:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Italian Wiki

Ms. Gardner,

I am concerned about developments on the Italian Wiki. They shut down the Italian Wiki over a law that would affect only Italians. This is problematic for two reasons: 1. There are many Italian speakers that are not citizens of Italy or residents of Italy, and are thus not affected. This unfairly hurts them. 2. Many citizens of Italy and residents of Italy use other Wikis, including Meta, Commons, etc.

As such, it seems the better option is to ban all users who use IP addresses that originate in Italy and restore the Italian language Wiki. That is the only logical way to appropriate adapt to the law if a shut down is necessary. As of right now, this misguided action is continuing the problem on other Wikis while denying non-Italians access to a core language Wiki. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Many Italian speakers that are not citizens or residents of Italy? Due to systemic bias caused partly by Italy's sluggishness in acquiring overseas colonies and ineffectiveness in defending them, I don't think this is the case. See List of languages by total number of speakers. Nation-level IP rangeblocks sound exciting, though. Demiurge1000 00:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Corsica parts of France, Sardinia (autonomonus and only under Italian Constitution and not individual laws), Switzerland, etc., are all areas with Italian speakers not affected. We have a fancy category. :) Even Little Monaco has many Italian speakers. I would define that as "many". Ottava Rima (talk) 03:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
ROTFLOL, I didn't see this, Sardinia not part of Italy! Thank you for you continued entertaining, Ottava. Nemo 07:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Um, I clearly marked it as "autonomous" and mentioned that it was under the Italian Constitution. It would not have been affected by the proposed law. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ottava. Sorry to just reply now: I am behind on my correspondence, in general :-)

Just wanted to say that I hear your concerns about the Italian shutdown, and I understand where you're coming from.

The situation the Italian Wikipedians faced was difficult. The proposed law that was under discussion in Italy, as I understand it, would have significantly harmed the ability of Italian Wikipedians to do their work, and would therefore also have hurt Italian people's access to information online. And so the Italian Wikipedians were faced with a difficult choice. They wanted Italian citizens (and I expect, also the international community) to understand the significant implications of the proposed law. And they faced time pressure: as I understand it, the proposed law was under discussion, and was therefore open to being influenced, that week. That's why they made the decision to temporarily interrupt people's access to the Italian Wikipedia: to draw attention to an important problem. My understanding is they didn't make that decision lightly -- they had a discussion about the pros and cons of doing it, and on balance they felt that a temporary shutdown was the best path to making the issue visible and understandable to a very large number of people, quickly.

The Wikimedia Foundation operates the sites, and if we had chosen to, we could have overridden the Italian community's decision, and restored readers' access. But we decided instead to support the Italian community. They are the authors of Italian Wikipedia: they are the people who created it, they understand the implications of the proposed law, and we trust that they made a good decision, with Italian readers' interests as their first priority. And it looks like their action was successful: they did influence development of the law.

If you feel differently, I respect that, and obviously you're not alone: it's a complicated and difficult issue, and people can reasonably disagree. But I just wanted to explain to you the Wikimedia Foundation's view, and how we arrived at it. Also -- I don't know if you've seen this page about project-wide protests -- it might interest you. Thanks. Sue Gardner 02:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Turn it around - if the Americans decided to protest against a US law and threatened to shut down the, how would that be fair to people in, say, the UK? The Italian citizens don't own the pages at the Italian Wiki. They should have no right to remove everyone else's ability to look at the pages and edit the pages because -they- can't. The Italian Wiki is my right just as much as their right. They trampled over the vast majority of the WMF community because they wouldn't be allowed to edit? That is really bad behavior. If someone thinks they cannot legally edit here, they don't have to feel obligated. I'm not allowed to edit the dozen FAs I wrote over at Wikipedia, does that give me the right to demand that they are all deleted? We both know it doesn't. CC-BY-SA. They do not own their pages, so they have no right to deny us those pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for Wiki Legal Counsel to Opine

Ms. Gardner, a group of users is trying to justify the keeping of this image and other images which clearly have complex images, logos, and other matters while using many legal cases in a very disruptive manner. In particular, they rely heavily on Ets-Hokin, which was a copyright case in which Skyy Vodka licensed a photographer to take an image, then licensed others to take an image. The first photographer sued the others, and the court ruled that the bottle was too simple and obvious to make the images copyrightable in a manner that allowed him to prevent the other images.

The matter of the case was 1. that he had no right to prevent others from using the images, 2. they were all licensed so permission was not an issue, and 3. is a smooth blue bottle with no artistic flourishes.

As you can see from that image, there are many artistic flourishes and more than on just the logo. The attempt by a group to try and use bad legal claims to justify these images is really problematic for the WMF and could put us in a high risk. Basically, they are arguing that we have the right to use any complex logo and display any product as long as it is "useful", which is loosely defined as whatever they want. That isn't what the law allows at all, and this is really upsetting. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ottava -- I'm answering quickly, between meetings. If you want to bring something to the attention of our General Counsel, you can find him here: User:Geoffbrigham Thanks Sue Gardner 22:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Office hour topics

Sue, these are the topics I hope to talk to you about here or during your next office hour:

  1. Shifting focus from more editors to more admins because editors are not falling as sharply[4][5][6] I recommend hiring a statistician who has experience running surveys and ask them whether the health-related questions in are appropriate,[7] and in either case distribute the survey to a statistically significant sample of inactive (please use the word "inactive" instead of "former") administrators as soon as possible.
  2. Testing user submitted banner text from last year, e.g.[8][9] etc. Given the amount of variation we have seen in banner messages, I recommend that the remaining volunteer submitted banner messages be tested as soon as possible because they almost certainly include top-5% performing messages. If there are any statistically valid reasons to the contrary, or technical reasons that you can not test such messages on a statistically significant number (about 1,000) of page views, then please bring them to my attention. Due to caching issues, I've recommended testing 15,000 impressions each, which should still allow you to test all outstanding messages in less than four days.
    I copied this to Talk:Fundraising 2011 and Zack's talk page for his office hour.
  3. Using third-party block lists instead of categories for the image filter[10] During the office hour, I asked whether there had been any objections to this approach, including specifically from dewiki, and there were no answers forthcoming. If there are any such objections, please bring them to my attention below.
  4. Protecting critics from censorship in the Google Summer of Code, Terms of Service, and in discussions of Foundation activities. Honestly, I think Greg Kohs, Jon Aubrey, Seth Finkelstein, and The Register are doing you more good than it is humanly possible for someone in your position to understand, but that humans will advance and five years down the road you will be able to see how much they have helped the projects. As for Ottiva, I'm not so certain.
  5. Endorsement of or e.g. on the fundraising post-donation suggestions page. Please let me know your thoughts on this, pro and/or con.
  6. Comfort on the fundraising mailing list. I would like to be a part of the fundraising mailing list, but I was told that someone was uncomfortable with me on the list. I would like to know what I might do to address that issue. I will ask Zack, too.
    I copied this to Zack's talk page for his office hour.
  7. Co-moderation of the San Francisco mailing list. I've asked to co-moderate the San Francisco and California mailing lists with Phoebe. If you have any objections, please let me know.
  8. Commissioning Hughes Telegraph (ticker tape) terminal replicas[11] with a Kickstarter project suggested from the post-donation suggestions page, Ideally we could connect these to Wikipedia in text mode for a top donor reward at some point. I will try to talk about this idea with Zack.
    I copied this to Zack's talk page for his office hour.
  9. Endorsement of I would be happy to answer any questions about this proposal.
  10. Funding for Wikinews reporters, travel, awards, and equipment. I really think you need to show some non-flagship projects some financial love. You're a journalist and you should be sticking up for volunteer journalists. Their output has been so low, and now they've forked, so you really should try to help.
  11. International scouts outreach for an "online free educational content improvement" merit badge. I sent email to Pharos about an update on this.
    I have heard back that NPR recently reported that the Girl Scouts are updating their badge system in a way which may accommodate online education.[12]  
  12. Public service announcement(s) encouraging girls to edit. I sent a ping and cc'ed you about this.
  13. Namespace hacks for development of simple language wikipedias in languages other than English without server, database, or major wiki installation provisioning[13]
  14. Most popular related articles[14]
  15. I recommend returning search failover links (one click links to perform the same search on other search engines) to the wikipedias' search results, and auctioning off the order of the search engines which appear on those results. Whether or not you actually auction them off, I recommend including PubMed, Google, Bing, and in search failover links, even if PubMed and DuckDuckGo are unable to pay to be listed. I am also asking Zack about this.

Please consider these questions.

Also, I was wrong about the 14% decline in English Wikipedia administrators over the past three years. Over the past four years, the numbers have been: -6% in 2008, -8% in 2009, -12% in 2010, and on track to lose 14% this year. I hope you agree I was technically mistaken but perhaps less alarming than I should have been in principle and spirit because of the trend. Thank you. James Salsman 01:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Sue, the White House petition above expired on the 26th. For future reference, here is the text:
Support single payer health care, "Medicare for All"
The cost of health care and insurance continues to increase at an unsustainable rate as the baby boomers retire. Canada and the vast majority of industrialized nations save more than half of what we spend per person on health care, and in return they get longer lifespans (theirs increased 11 years since 1970 while ours increased only 5), less infant mortality, and more money to spend on other needs.
Demand single payer health care -- Medicare for All -- now!
More info:
Please let me know your decisions on that and my other endorsement requests. Since the 150th anniversary of the first transcontinental telegraph message has come and gone, I am no longer as interested in trying to announce a ticker-tape Wikipedia terminal, so please consider that request the lowest priority. However, if you get frustrated in arguments about the image filter, it may be a useful source of comic relief.
Do you think it would be better to join the call to amend the U.S. Constitution in the Occupy movement's "99 Percent Declaration"? That seems like a better plan at the moment than trying to get Obama to do something he can't do as long as he can be filibustered by blue dog Democrats. I would love to know your thoughts, and think you and Jimmy would be great spokespeople for amending the Constitution. (Proposed working title: More difficult than just clicking edit.)
Concerning the implications of Wikimedia UK tax exempt status on the Foundation, please review this edit. Thanks again for all your help and using the Community Department statistics for deciding how to award your barnstar. Best regards, James Salsman 20:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Image filter proposals

Dear Sue, Neitram from de:WP has formulated two image filter proposals that both look interesting to me:

Thoughts? Best, --JN466 15:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Fundraising and Funds Dissemination pages

Hiya Sue, I noticed you created the Fundraising and funds dissemination page as a sub-page of the Main page of Meta [15]. I think it should be under its own heading? since its not a translation or a template used on the Main page, not under there. I am assuming that the other related pages go under it like this one -[16]. I can move all the pages to its own heading, unless there is any objection. There would be automatic redirects left in case others click the older links. Thanks. Theo10011 03:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey Theo -- yes, please feel free to move them; I'd appreciate it. Sue Gardner 03:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Done, I moved all the sub-pages and left a redirect for any old links. All pages and sub-pages should be there under Fundraising and Funds Dissemination. Regards. Theo10011 04:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Erik Möller in the Filter discussion on de:WP

Dear Ms. Gardner,

I would like to make you aware of the discussion Erik Möller is having with some editors on de:WP, including me. We are assuming that Erik has your tacit approval to speak on behalf of the WMF, to test the waters and seek some compromise with the unruly Germans. Please clarify whether that is indeed the case, i.e. whether Erik speaks for anyone but himself. Because frankly, his statements do not help your case, but rather add fuel to the fire of dissent. If you need more details, I would rather take this discussion to e-Mail. Thank you for your time. PS: I just had a look at the Google Translated English version of the discussion, which really mangles it. But do not rely on Erik's summarizing, despite him being a native speaker. As he has trouble understanding and responding to the salient points of the argument in German, how could he be qualified to translate? --Minderbinder 11:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mindbinder. Erik's the Deputy Director of the Wikimedia Foundation, and so he should always be assumed to be speaking with my full delegated authority. In my experience observing him, Erik will tend to say it explicitly when he is expressing a personal opinion, rather than speaking as a representative of the Wikimedia Foundation. So if he hasn't done that, I think it's safe to assume he's speaking in his professional capacity. If you're not sure, I think you should just ask him. Thanks. Sue Gardner 18:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
(By the way, a couple of times on talk pages German speakers have addressed me as Ms. Gardner. That's completely fine with me, but I am also completely comfortable just being called Sue. I know that the German culture is somewhat more formal than North American culture, so if "Sue" feels wrong to you, do whatever feels right to you. I am okay with either.) Sue Gardner 18:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Sue, thank you for your answer. Maybe I'll get a chance to make it to the Hannover meeting, though I am not a member of the German chapter. I do spend too much time on WP though, both as an author and as a sysop. Should I be unable to speak at the meeting, here is my view of this conflict with de:WP in a nutshell:
  • 20% stems from planned actions perceived as censorship and driven either by prudishness simply not applicable in DACH or by preemptive obedience to large donors, and
  • 80% is resistance to a process seen as an attempt at top-down management, perceived as being unfair process-wise and a potential threat to editorial freedom to boot.
The WMF hardly figures in everyday life on de:WP. I would bet there are long time contributors unaware of it's very existence. Now when this unknown beast suddenly rears its organizational head and starts meddling with content and freedom, you get pushback. As authors we are all free to contribute, argue and agree, or we are free to leave. We don't get paid, it's not a job. If it it were a job, I would quit. If in our freedom to contribute we get hemmed in by outside forces connected to us by only by one-sided financial gain, the whole ethos of voluntary contribution starts to break down. (See here) This is what is at stake here, and that is why emotions bubble to the surface. You guys should acknowledge that without being condescending. Each and every one of the Wikipedians giving you a hard time (Julius1990, Carbidfischer, Catfisheye, jkb, Millbart, ...) has spent hours, days, months of their precious lifetime on this project, driven by intrinsic motivation alone. Only a fool would endanger that kind of commitment. OK, enough editorializing; let's just leave it at that. PS: You mentioned on your en:WP talk page that you were looking to meet de:WP editorial leaders beyond the chapter. A good place to start would be with past jurors of the Schreibwettbewerb, a semi-annual contest for authoring high-quality articles. Jurors are selected by election. PPS: Point taken on the form of address, it's more to do with talking to people under their real name using an alias handle. Mine is Minderbinder by the way, I don't bind minds; at least not intentionally. Have a nice day! --Minderbinder 10:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh bah, Minderbinder, embarrassing! -- I am sorry I got your name wrong. When I was a journalism student that was an automatic fail: spelling people's names correctly is a pretty basic demonstration of respect/caring. Sorry :-(
And thanks for your comment: I hear you, and it's helpful. I have to say I am more-or-less neutral about German Wikipedians being unaware of the existence of the Wikimedia Foundation. I think in general that editors should be able to engage deeply with the Wikimedia Foundation if they choose to, but I also believe it should be possible to work successfully on the projects without ever needing to know much about the Wikimedia Foundation and its activities. (In other words, I don't consider 'knowledge of the WMF' to be a desirable/necessary precondition to being active and useful in the projects, and I don't measure the success of the WMF based on how many editors are aware of its work.) But I take your main point: that people felt interfered with from outside, and that was the source of much of their anger.
I'm not sure I totally understand your point about Dan Ariely. I'm familiar with his work (which is wonderful, as is Dan Pink's on similar topics). But do you mean that German Wikipedians may have believed there is a financial motive for the image filter proposal? Have people suggested they thought it was motivated by a desire to placate or please donors? If they thought that, I am happy to say here that it's not the case. The conversation about controversial content is reader-centric not donor-centric. The goal would be to make it possible for people to read Wikipedia, who might otherwise choose not to, if it were to offend their sensibilities. Obviously a reasonable person could critique whether it would successfully do that, or how to do it, or whether doing that is worth the cost. But that's the motivation: it's not about money.
Thanks for pointing me towards the Schreibwettbewerb; I see you're a juror this year, and I recognize some of the other names as well. (I had heard about it from Frank, years ago.) I do hope you come to Hannover, and we can meet there :-) Thanks Sue Gardner 23:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
My point about Ariely is this: Mixing paid work with unpaid voluntary work may destroy the intrinsic motivation of the volunteers. WMF employees get paid. Wikipedians do not. If WMF employees are perceived to get involved in editorial decisions, which even the infastructure for dicriminatory image filtering would be, they enter the same space as the volunteers. Maybe not in the true Ariely sense of some getting paid, while others are supposed to volunteer for the same work. But management methods and corporate speak have a way of eroding the volunteer ethos as well. A culture clash, if you will. To add insult to injury, the pay of those WMF employees comes out of donations for content produced by the unpaid volunteers. This irks some. And yes, some people on de:WP have speculated that there is a financial motive for the image filter proposal in placating potential large donors. You may take this as a sign of mistrust, or simply a failure to see any problem which needs fixing. Hence the speculation on a hidden agenda. PS: My remark about the Schreibwettbewerb jury was not meant to be self-congratulatory. After all, you are already communicating with me. PPS: Out of the WMF staff, Frank Schulenburg is the only person whom I would consider connected and current on the de:WP. --Minderbinder 15:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Sue, unfortunately I had not perceived Minderbinder's statement from 28. October, so that my response is a little bit late. I disagree partially to his arguments. My criticism of the planned image filtering is not based on speculation about possible financial considerations.

Personally I am disturbed at the way in which board and WMF have acted in this case so far. Furthermore, I consider the introduction of an image filter in a project, that was committed to my mind by the ideas of Enlightenment, to be wrong. (As far as I brought to your German discussion page thoughts about to take care of underaged users, I must emphasize that these are for me two layouts on different issues.) My impression is that many other critics of the planned image filter have similiar reasons. And I also think that they overwhelmingly do not want to leave, but would prefer (under acceptable conditions) to continue in this project!

Also I like to note, that there is a number of dedicated and good authors in the German community, which for various reasons are not engaged in the writing competition. I can’t unfortunately for personal reasons come to Hanover. For any questions I will be happy on my talk pages here or on de-wp or by mail. Yours sincerly --Alupus 11:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I hope you realize that during the "Enlightenment" hundreds of thousands of people were slaughtered in Europe for their political beliefs. It also spawned the Reign of Terror. There was also no libertine approach to content of printed materials. There was never a time in which a culture allowed for the unbridled printing of sexual material, especially where children are a primary audience. Germany, for instance, has very strict laws regarding pornographic content (which is clearly defined) and access to children (which is strictly forbidden) regardless of what some users attempt to say. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Und ich hoffe, Ottava Rima, dass du nicht hoffst, ich würde auf deine im Beitrag von 14:36 enthaltene Argumentation eine Erwiderung schreiben. --Alupus 17:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Follow-on to Erik Möller in de:WP

Hello Sue, Eric Möller wrote in the above linked Diskussion on de-wp: "Mir geht es hier darum, klar zu sagen, dass es einen generischen kategoriebasierten Bildfilter wie bisher diskutiert nicht geben wird, und dass ich mich 100% dafuer einsetze, nur Software zu entwickeln, welche die Autonomie der Autoren respektiert". I my intelligence this statement can not be interpreted, that the foundation has given up her plans of installating an software solution for contreversial contents in the wikimedia-projects. Is this interpretation correct? Regards, --Alupus 22:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi. In other words: we would appreciate a clear answer i.e. the clear today's position of the board (either if it is identical with the edit of Eric or if it is not). Thanks and regards, -jkb- 22:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Alupus and jkb. Thank you for raising this issue. I am going to try to be as clear as I can: if what I say here doesn't answer your question, please just tell me.
I'm not a Board member, and I can't speak on behalf of the Board. What I can do though, is tell you how I am interpreting what the Board has said, and how I plan to have the staff handle this issue.
The Wikimedia Foundation is continuing to discuss the issue of controversial content, from both a technical and social perspective. The Board has not changed its original resolution to me, and so I am still intending to execute on what it asked me to do in its resolution.
However, I am not planning to create a category-based image filtering system, as was referred to in the image filter referendum. It became clear in the referendum results and the discussion afterwards that a category-based filter system would be unworkable and unacceptable to many of Wikimedia's communities. Therefore, I will not be asking the staff to create a category-based filtering system: that idea is off the table. This is only reasonable. I conducted the referendum because I wanted to know what people thought; they told me, and I am listening to what they said. That's appropriate, and it's how we should work together.
I know there has been a lot of rage and pain on this issue. Everybody at the Wikimedia Foundation has been doing their best to engage honestly and openly and constructively, but I am also aware that we have been clumsy in a variety of ways, and we have made mistakes. I am sorry for that. And so I want to be clear here in case it has been unclear so far: the Wikimedia Foundation is not going to impose something on the German Wikipedia, against the will of the German community. Doing that would be foolish. You and people like yourself create the projects. The Wikimedia Foundation respects and values your work. If you signal to us that you vehemently oppose something that we're doing, then we need to stop and rethink. That's what we're doing.
And so we have entered a discussion phase. Some ideas, such as a general images on/off switch, seem to have broad general support. Some other ideas seem to be more controversial than that, but not as controversial as a category-based image filter system. There are other ideas that are new, and only now beginning to be discussed. The Wikimedia Foundation will work in partnership with the Wikimedia community, engaging in discussion, until we figure out a solution that makes sense to everyone. That is what the Board has asked me to do – to work in partnership with you.
My hope is that we can have a good, rich, open conversation about acceptability and usefulness of different ideas, and figure this out in a way that works for everyone. I hope you'll participate on pages like Controversial content/Brainstorming and talk through some of the options there.
Let me know if there's anything in your question I didn't answer. Thanks. Sue Gardner 02:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Many outside people have verified that the poll results have shown that the vast majority of the projects are vehemently against the pornographic content and are at odds with the German community. Why favor one tiny minority against the whole, especially when there were many legal and ethical matters brought up that go against our mission (i.e. children aren't allowed to view pornography even in Germany)? Solutions don't have to make sense to everyone. Otherwise, we would have no policies at all, especially when there are plenty of people who think that copyright infringement, vandalism, etc., is okay. Remember, you said before that a ban on pedophiles is common sense yet there are many people who dominate sites like who argue that they shouldn't be banned. We have to think about the overall numbers and we shouldn't sacrifice the vast majority because we want to appease a vocal minority that ultimately means nothing. And if you want to talk about building projects, you can find very few people who have done even 1/10th of the work I have done yet you haven't done anything to make sure that I am allowed to edit. So why should we bend over backwards for people who don't contribute yet threaten not to unless the porn is kept? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Sue, thanks (also for the answer on dewiki). A short remark to Otava Rima: I'm sorry to oppose. If you think a majority of the projects voted against pornographic photos, so please arrange a filter for them. But the huge majority of the German community, namely 86 %, voted against the filter. So please do not arrange a filter for the German project. That is the topic of this thread. Simple. -jkb- 07:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Filters should be for readers. Only a poorly arranged poll in which the community bullied others into opposing the WMF in a political stunt opposed. If the WMF truly cared about the readers, it should have instantly banned across the Wiki all of those who supported the reaction in my opinion. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Ottava Rima: Could you please point me to the discussions about pornography and where it shows that the vast majority of projects who "are vehemently against the pornographic content" are "at odds with the German community"? I would also like to know where I can find the discussions with the "many people who dominate sites like who argue that [pedophiles] shouldn't be banned." I appreciate your help, because so far I have trouble following you. Thanks. --Millbart 08:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
The poll results were available for everyone. Less than one third of responders were opposed to a filter. The highest majorities (i.e. less than 10% opposed) were found in the many Muslim countries that use WMF wikis. There are also many users who are cultural Muslim, Chinese, Indian, etc., who oppose who live in countries like Germany. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Brilliant, you didn't answer my question. After reading this and other discussions you have had on Wikimedia projects I am sorry to have wasted your time. I mistook you for someone willing to engage in reasoned argument. My mistake. In other words: Plonk! --Millbart 14:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
You do realize that a Board Member thought my work was so good that he proxy placed it onto Wikipedia, right? And that is what brought about ArbCom being forced to accept my work even after my ban? Ms. Gardner knows that I was one of the best contributors of high quality content and most people on the WMF respect my contributions. However, the pornography means that millions of people wont have access to my work and to others work. And the pornography isn't needed. We can get rid of -all- pictures and still have an encyclopedia. There is no legitimate reason to keep the pornography when it prohibits even one person from being able to read the site. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Sue, thanks for your answer. Besides: well, Ottava Rima, what is your amount of participation on the de-wp? How many contribs did you make? Do you want to loose an significant part of the german contributors, imo an part of the good, productive users? By the way, in my opinion you are going argumentally wrong. Nudity isn't equal to pornography! Please have an look on §§ 184 ff. german StGB, and i think, this is in many other countries similiar. Pictures like that beside - took by an US-photographer before the first world war - for example are no porno according to german law. Even an close up picture of an vulva like it was on the Hauptside of de-wp isn't porno , when it's claim is scientific or educational, and not the erase of sexual desires. In Germany such pictures can even be found in school books for underages. It would be fine, when in this project of free knowledge the opinions of "old europe" would be accepted. Regards, --Alupus 08:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Participation to the It is participation to the WMF. We are not one project. I was one of the top content contributors across all of the WMF. Many of my articles have also been translated into German. And German law does not allow you to randomly claim things as scientific or educational. It has a really strict standard and this was pointed out many times. The pictures of people being ejaculated on, hard core sex, etc., that can be found at Commons easily falls into that definition and would never be in a schoolbook. In Germany, there is a dying culture of nudism/exhibition, and it makes sense to see that they turn to the internet to keep it alive. We shouldn't be host to such things. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

If Sue would be like to make EOD here so it would be OK for me. It is her talk page. Thanks. -jkb- 14:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

@ Sue Gardner: Thank you for your statement once again. I'm glad to hear, that the Foundation issue is to work partnershiply together with the contributors of the projects.
@ Ottava Rima: Wenn du hier ohne Begründung Diskussionsbeiträge - sprich die Entfernung eines erläuternden Aktes, eines anerkannten Fotokunstwerkes - veränderst, sehe ich nicht mehr ein, mir die Mühe zu machen, mich der englischen Sprache zu bedienen. Ich antworte dir hier daher in Deutsch. Die Entfernung ist in meinen Augen ein Zeichen dafür, dass es dir nicht nur um Pornografie im Sinne des Gesetzes, sondern um Nacktheit als solche gehe. Lese bitte nochmal meinen Beitrag: Ich schrieb, es gäbe zwischen harter Pornografie und schulbuchmäßiger Abbildung biologischer Fakten, etwa dem Bild eines Penis oder einer Vulva, durchaus einen (auch juristischen) Unterschied. Soll ich dich mit Auszügen aus diesbezüglicher deutscher juristischer Fachliteratur versorgen? Auf deine übrigen Argumente erspare ich es mir einzugehen. Bezeichnend finde ich es allerdings, dass du von Beiträgen zu WMF schreibst, womit doch die Foundation, also die Wikimedia Stiftung, und nicht die Projekte gemeint sind. Oder bin ich da aus meiner juristisch geprägten Sicht zu spitzfindig? --Alupus 17:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Alpus, you may have a point if the people didn't impose their cultural libertine views that may or may not be "educational" under German law upon Commons, a project that affects every other language. If kept their views in, then there wouldn't be so many problems. Encyclopedias do not need 1000 white penises. There is a reason why all of the porn is coming from a handful of white males who are mostly European. Actually Encyclopedias use objective, drawn images that focus on anatomy. Commons is instead filled with thousands of unused images that are there only because an individual tried to argue that there needs to be over 100 images of his penis from different angles. That is absurd. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Nun, über den enzyklopädischen Sinn oder Unsinn des auf Commons liegenden pornografischen Materials kann und sollte man durchaus streiten, ja. Und die unverkennbare Neigung mancher User auf Commons, die Menge des Materials auszubauen, wird man auch nicht wegdiskutieren können. Die Zahl der Penise ist aber insoweit nicht das Entscheidende. Der Datenbank tuts doch nicht weh, ob es 10 oder 50 Bilder eines Sujets sind, dafür ist Speicherplatz zu billig geworden. Als aktiver Fotograf und überzeugter Artikelbebilderer finde ich daher, dass eine auch größere Auswahl unter qualtitativ hochwertigen Aufnahmen, z. B. unter unterschiedlichen Blickwinkeln oder Beleuchtungsverhältnissen, nicht schaden kann. Ob Bilder oder Zeichnungen verwendet werden - auch Zeichnungen können pornografisdh sein - ist eine Frage, die die Autoren im jeweiligen Wiki klären sollten. In manchen Kategorien findet sich auf Commons trotz einer Masse von Aufnahmen nur ein Meer nahezu gleichartiger Bilder. Dies ist aber nicht nur im Bereich Nudity so, sondern auch z. B. in meinem Arbeitsfeld agriculture, wo Detailaufnahmen z. B. der Arbeitswerkzeuge einer Mähmaschine Mangelware sind. Im übrigen wirst du von mir keinen Upload irgendwelcher Bilder pornografischer oder gewaltverherrlichender Art sehen, ich gehöre nicht zu der von dir angesprochenen Gruppe. Siehe hierzu auch meinen ersten Beitrag auf der Diskussionsseite von Sue in der de-wp. --Alupus 17:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Alupus - we do not need pictures of actual people performing any sexual action. 1. Drawings can be more clinical and precise without having any cultural or ethnic bias. 2. Drawings do not have rights nor could there be a picture taken without a drawing's permission. 3. Medical text books focus on drawings. 4. Not everyone wants to see an image of a topic, so we should give people the ability to turn off such things. 5. We are supposed to be accessible to all - that includes at work, in public, etc., and some images are too shocking or would be illegal to view in public.
All language Wikis except for 3 support a filter.'s votes amounted to a 4.22, which is not a large percentage of users who were actually against the filter. The largest percentages come from Japan (7.76), Russia (6.46), China (7.69), Arabic (8.17), Vietnam (7.11), Korea (7.81), Indoneisa (8.04), etc. This is exactly the opposite of "The West" that served as the argument on The arguments there were completely misleading, especially when they claimed that the filter was promoting a US bias. The arguments on in the public poll were misleading, based on lack of factual statements, and show a result that differs from the private result. It was orchestrated as an attack and manipulated a lot of users. The only reason why the WMF will not implement the filter is because they never wanted to implement it and were hoping that the poll would go horribly against it. Two of the Board Members on IRC were absolutely shocked by result, as were many of the others. This includes a large amount of sock puppetry that was happening and was majority against the filter. I hope you recognize this. It is in the readers interest and the vast majority of other projects interest to have a filter. If Wikipedia wants to expand into the non US non European world, a filter is absolutely necessary. The people who are absolutely obsessed with the pornography on contribute nothing now and will not be a loss. A filter will bring millions more to Wikipedia as a whole, and I would prefer to see 10,000 users who are trying to stop that be banned or leave than to lose millions of potential future users. I believe many people agree with me on this issue. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

@Ottava Rima: We already know, that you would like to ban a lot of images, which insult you from the commons. But thats not the point. We are talking about the actual usage of images in articles. And thats far away from you allegations about porn everywhere. Many images (all across the board) in commons are not used at all and perhaps many will never be used, because we have better ones on the subjects in question. I will not comment on your allegations about the german poll - its not worth it. And not a single wiki supported the filter, because that question was not asked, some expressed a certain degree of "importance". I would say it is important to ban filters as they lead to censorship. --Eingangskontrolle 19:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

After editconflict: Nur noch ein paar kurze Anmmerkungen, da ich keinen rechten Sinn mehr in einer weiteren Diskussion sehe, werde ich mich hier nicht mehr zu Wort melden: a) Wo ist denn pornografisches Material im Sinne des StGB in der de-wp verwendet? Jedenfalls nicht unter Vulva, um dieses prominente Beispiel zu bringen. Und auch nicht bei Suicide-Girls, ein anderer umstrittener AdT. Ich habe bislang noch keines gesehen, wohl hingegen auf en-wp. Falls doch, wäre ich für einen Hinweis dankbar, ich würde mich nach Überprüfung um eine Entfernung bemühen. b) Wenn man es nicht wollte - wozu eine Abstimmung? c) Der Wunsch nach Expansion sollte in meinen Augen nicht zu Lasten der eigenen Grundüberzeugung - für mich gemäß Immanuel Kant, Zitat: "Aufklärung ist der Ausgang des Menschen aus seiner selbst verschuldeten Unmündigkeit." - gehen. Ich möchte weder die Menschheit missionieren noch habe ich das Bedürfnis, um in Teilen der Menschheit Zutimmung zu erlangen, meine eigenen Überzeugungen aufzugeben ("etiam si omnes, ego non"). Daher bin ich der Überzeugung, dass eine Nonprofit-Organisation - das ist WMF doch - nicht um jeden Preis zu expandieren versuchen muß. --Alupus 19:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
"in commons are not used at all and perhaps many will never be used" Yet the same people against the filter are those who turn out and abuse the system to keep those images. It isn't a coincidence. Those are the people who shouldn't be allowed on Wikipedia in any fashion. It isn't a coincidence that only protested as they are the strong hold of those users. I would estimate that the trouble makers amount to less than 300 people. "And not a single wiki supported the filter" which is actually wrong. Every Wiki but 4 had a majority in support of the filter. Did you not read the poll results? The people spoke. The dissenters should be banned or shown that they can go elsewhere if they feel so strongly about them. The Wiki would be far better without them. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
The de-wp would collapse without these users, because the users who participated at the poll are the most active ones. --Paramecium 00:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
You assume that there aren't others who don't edit because of the porn. By the way, I have looked at those who spend all of their time defending the porn - they don't edit legitimate articles. My edits include biographies on some of the most famous philosophers and literary people in the world, world famous poems, etc. All extremely well sourced from legitimate academic sources. Most academics refuse to participate on Wikipedia because of issues like the porn. Others who do come here end up getting into disputes with non-academics who honestly don't know what they are talking about and are banned. Either way, the WMF needs to do a complete 180 if they want a legitimate encyclopedia. They wont get one by tolerating these political games. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry Otava, but aren't you the person beeing blocked indefinitely on the English Wikipedia by ArbCom? I don't think you are in a position to label other editors - no matter if they are administrators, stewards, regular users or whatever - as bad and destructive people. Kind regards, --Kellerkind 09:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. -jkb- 09:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Did you not pay attention and see that not only did one Arbitrator transfer over one of my high quality pages (w:Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard) but a Board Member transferred over two (w:Kubla Khan and w:Ode: Intimations of Immortality)? That was after my "ban" decided by 1/3 of a sitting ArbCom on a case I filed myself because an administrator was passing around my information, phone number, address, social security number, etc. What punishment did he get? A warning, even though he outed me on the Arbitration page. If you want to some how claim that the community agreed with it (they didn't, you only need to look at my talk page) or that anyone objective looking at it didn't think it was an utter joke, then you are surely mistaken. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

@ Ottava Rima: Du erhebst oben schwere Vorwürfe. Kannst Du Beweise dafür anbringen, oder hoffst Du auf den Effekt, dessen Beschreibung sich bei Francis Bacon: („Audacter calumniare, semper aliquid haeret!“) und Plutarch findet? („Ἐκέλευεν οὖν θαρροῦντας ἅπτεσθαι καὶ δάκνειν ταῖς διαβολαῖς, διδάσκων ὅτι, κἂν θεραπεύσῃ τὸ ἕλκος ὁ δεδηγμένος, ἡ οὐλὴ μενεῖ τῆς διαβολῆς.“) --Soccus cubitalis 08:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The proof is already part of the polls and already linked. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I beg your pardon I cannot find any of these statements being proven by the poll in any way:
„... the vast majority of the projects are vehemently against the pornographic content and are at odds with the German community.“
„... a ban on pedophiles is common sense yet there are many people who dominate sites like who argue that they shouldn't be banned.“
„... people who don't contribute yet threaten not to unless the porn is kept“
„... a poorly arranged poll in which the community bullied others into opposing the WMF in a political stunt ...“
„... pornography ...“
„... pornography ...“
„... pornography ...“
„In Germany, there is a dying culture of nudism/exhibition, and it makes sense to see that they turn to the internet to keep it alive. We shouldn't be host to such things.“
„... all of the porn is coming from a handful of white males who are mostly European.“
„The arguments on in the public poll were misleading, based on lack of factual statements, and show a result that differs from the private result. It was orchestrated as an attack and manipulated a lot of users.“
„This includes a large amount of sock puppetry that was happening and was majority against the filter.“
„The people who are absolutely obsessed with the pornography on ...“
„... the same people against the filter are those who turn out and abuse the system ... It isn't a coincidence that only protested as they are the strong hold of those users.“
„... the trouble makers ...“
„The dissenters ... The Wiki would be far better without them.“
„... the porn.“
„... those who spend all of their time defending the porn - they don't edit legitimate articles.“
„Most academics refuse to participate on Wikipedia because of issues like the porn. Others who do come here end up getting into disputes with non-academics who honestly don't know what they are talking about and are banned.“
„... these political games.“
--Soccus cubitalis 19:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Then I doubt you read the poll if you think the poll doesn't say what it clearly says. It isn't coincidence that a bunch of people with no background are the ones who form the main objectors here. Someone like this is normally banned as a sock master. You don't just magically appear one day, jump into a controversial topic, and start denying reality like that. Your own user page admits that you are a sock puppet, so why do you think you have the right to disrupt like you are doing? It isn't a coincidence that so many people who made oppositional statements to the filter on the talk page are sock puppets. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Forget it, arguing with you is obviously pointless. *plonk* --Soccus cubitalis 05:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Plonk? Thank you for revealing that you are Millbart and that you are, indeed, abusively socking. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
There's nobody discussing with you, Ottava Rima. Let us hier a link to your talk page and we shall visit you by a chance. Regards -jkb- 13:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sue, in case you do not regularly watch your talkpage on the english wikipedia, and as it also applies to this thread's topic: you (or anyone interested) might like to check this note. Regards, Ca$e 11:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Locker rooms

Hi Sue,

Based on your Imperial College presentation I have raised a question at Commons:Village_pump#Locker_room_policy. If I'm off-track then I'd appreciate any correction to the context you would like to add. I do think that Commons:COM:USER is probably not clear enough, and the particular issue could do with better guidance to help our admins do a better job. Cheers -- 10:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Personal filter lists

Hi Sue. We are currently discussing an image filter proposal here that would give users the option of creating personal filter lists (PFL). The structure and interactivity of these personal filter lists would be comparable to that of editors' personal watchlists.

Any image in the PFL would appear greyed whenever it is encountered on any Wikimedia project, including Commons itself. But the user would still always have the option of clicking a "Show" icon that would reveal the picture to them again and simultaneously remove it from their PFL. (Of course, if they change their mind, they can add it right back again, by clicking on "Hide" again.) It would work like adding/removing pages in one's watchlist.

Apart from enabling users to hide images and add them to the PFL as they encounter them in surfing our projects, users would also be able to edit the PFL manually, just as it is possible to edit one's watchlist manually. In this way, they could add any image file or category they want to their PFL. They could also add filter lists precompiled for them by a third party. Such lists could be crowdsourced by people interested in filtering, according to whatever cultural criteria they choose.

It became very clear during the discussions over the past few months that tagging files for the image filter, or creating image filter categories, was not something the community as a whole wanted to become involved in – partly because of the work involved, partly because of the arguments it would cause, and partly because it would not be possible to do this truly neutrally, given different cultural standards of offensiveness. Various people suggested that the Foundation do nothing, and leave the creation of image filters to third parties altogether.

This proposal occupies a middle ground. The Foundation provides the software capability to create and maintain personal filter lists, just like it enables users to maintain watchlists, but it is then up to a separate crowdsourcing effort by those who want to have a filter to find ways of populating such lists. This is consistent with the overall Wikimedia crowdsourcing approach, and really a natural extension of it. Even if this crowdsourcing effort should unexpectedly fail to take off, readers will still gain the possibility of hiding images or media as they come across them with a single click, with the assurance that they won't ever see them again anywhere on our projects unless they really want to. That in itself would be net gain. Users who don't want to have anything to do with filtering at all could switch any related screen furniture off in their preferences, to retain the same surfing experience they have now.

So under this proposal, the entire informational infrastructure for filtering would reside in readers' personal filter lists. The data structure of the wiki itself does not change at all, just like adding pages to a personal watchlist affects no one apart from the user whose watchlist it is. There are no filter tags, no specially created filter categories, and no one has to worry about defining, creating or maintaining them. The filter users do that for themselves.

A question has been raised if such a system would have a significant impact on performance. Would it be possible for a developer to give the proposal a quick look over?

I'll also float this idea on the Foundation list. Best, --JN466 03:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


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

I *think* I know who you are, but maybe I am wrong? Madrid and Berlin, right? /nervous!
Our world is so funny. Dozens of times, I'll be having a long conversation with somebody at Wikimania or a meet-up, and it slowly dawns on me that I know them really really well from the wikis or lists. It's such a strange feeling, because normally if you do not recognize someone, it's because you do not know them. But not for us :-)
My Ann Bannon interview is not online, which is such a shame. (I don't own the copyright and nor did the CBC; I think it was owned by the union I belonged to back then.) I interviewed her after seeing the Canadian documentary Forbidden Love which is also sadly not online. But worth viewing if you ever get the chance: it was really well made. Thanks Sue Gardner 13:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that's me, exactly. xD And the same thing has happened to me a few times, most recently with Theo. xDD Sorry about the late reply, it just dawned on me maybe you replied on your talkpage. Pity about the interviews, it's so hard to get good sources/material on some topics. :/ At least I know they exist, if I ever come across them I'll be sure to check them out. Thanks! Raystorm 17:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


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

Hi, Blackcat. :) Knowing how much I appreciate it when people correct translation errors in my document, I'm sure Sue will be grateful. :D --Maggie Dennis (WMF) 22:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I am! Thanks Blackcat:-) Sue Gardner 00:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


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

Hi, Ottava Rima. I'll look into this and see if it's feasible. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) 22:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Just to update, I don't think there's any movement afoot to create a page of this sort at the moment (everybody's pretty busy with other work, particularly in the mid-holiday backlog), but Geoff has just posted a little more about our work with government affairs consultants, here. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) 19:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Maggie, and hi Ottava. I believe hiring the DC firm to advise us on SOPA is the first time the Wikimedia Foundation has ever done anything remotely close to lobbying. (I don't want to say for sure, just because i) I haven't been with the Wikimedia Foundation since inception, ii) the definition of 'lobbying' is slightly grey, and it's possible we've done something that somebody else might see as lobbying, which doesn't register as such for me, and iii) chapters may have engaged in a small amount of lobbying, and it's possible they had expenses for it that were funded by the Wikimedia Foundation.) But I can say confidently that SOPA is the first time we've done it in any even semi-serious way. We're planning on tracking it going forward, so I'm sure there'll be a page created sometime within a month or so. I'll post the URL here once there is. Sue Gardner 00:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


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

He claims I am an AIDS denialist. [17] I am not. [18] How do I address this harassment? -- 17:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC) (KBlott)

You may wish to review the guideline to appealing blocks on English Wikipedia. If you are not able to convince the community that the blocks have been imposed in error, you are able to appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Directions for doing so can be found on that page. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) 22:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
WP has specific rules against outing. As long as WMF cannot see to it that WP follows its own rules I would not be interested in convincing “the community” of anything and WMF will certainly continue to lose market share to its competitors. Regards, KBlott.
WP’s antisocial CU still seems to be outing his victims. Ignoring this behaviour is probably not a good idea. Regards, KBlott -- 13:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I misunderstood your question. When you asked how to address the harassment, I'm afraid I mistook that as indicating concern with the block. Issues with checkuser privacy violations are addressed to the Ombudsman commission. If you send them the particulars, they should look into the matter and direct it as appropriate. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) 14:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
WP’s antisocial CU has outed another user here in violation of outing policy. He is also currently editing under a different user name in violation of WP hypocrisy policy. Regards, KBlott. -- 06:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
This diff outs Chrissymacc.
If you send the details to the Ombudsman commission, I'm sure they'll be able to evaluate the matter. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) 19:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Maggie is correct. The appropriate venue for this is the Ombudsmen. Philippe (WMF) 19:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank-you for your assistance. --KBlott



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

Thanks for your attention,

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

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

Fundraising and Funds Dissemination/Recommendations

Madam Gardner,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

I'm not sure that what you're saying naturally follows from what Sue wrote. She wrote "The development and translation of messaging that's suited to the local context should continue in partnership..." That's quite a long way from "secretaries and translators". In fact, one of the great areas in which chapters can make a huge impact is to partner (note that word) with the Foundation in messaging development. That's not being a secretary - that's a partnership. Philippe (WMF) 20:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Of course, all that I said follows from what Sue wrote. Probably I'm the best person to know from where come from my sentences. No ?
The development and translation of messaging, it is already a job that volunteers make. At this time, volunteers make contributions for contents projects and for meta-job (translation, etc). Here we talk about the wish to summarize the job of volunteers at simply lackeys job. Using partnership, it's just a joke. But I don't find it very funny.
The new draft of Sue Gardner shows that there is a real wish to kill Wikimedia's chapters. It's a fact.
Finally, you're probably a nice person, but my post aimed at Sue Gardner, not you. If she don't want answer, she don't answer. I've not need the answers of other people.
Ludovic Péron 21:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Ludovic. Thanks for commenting here, and thanks for writing in English: I appreciate it. I'm really sorry you're disappointed. And I think I mostly agree with you about the discussions we're all having about fundraising and funds dissemination. What's important is the work of the projects: the discussions about money are important only insofar as they make it possible for the projects to continue to flourish. Personally I find the discussions about money fairly exhausting, and I agree that they are often a distraction, for everyone, from other work that is more important. Having said that, there are some very basic tensions that need to get resolved, otherwise things will get worse, not better.
I do also think, though, that some of the conclusions you're drawing from what I wrote aren't supported by what I said. I've written some more on the talk page Friday, and I'll be writing more today. If you're interested, please keep reading those pages. I'll also say -- I appreciate that the discussions are particularly tiring for people for whom English isn't their first language: because of that, I try to be as succinct as I can. Regardless, thanks for your comment here. Sue Gardner 01:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer.
I'm totally agree with you about loosing our time in these questions. However it's you that launch...
I asked you a clear question. It's not very complicated to make a clear answer. I don't need to spend my time to read your answers, if you don't answer.
Do you want to kill the chapters ?
Ludovic Péron 09:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Ludovic. The answer to your question is no. I want to see the chapters flourish. I would like to see them well-funded, and I would be happy to see them hiring staff and opening offices if that's what they want to do. I believe the chapters are an important part of the Wikimedia movement: I think they currently play an important role in helping the entire movement fulfil its mission, and I would love to see them do even more. Again: I am really sorry that my recommendations page is so long --- I know it's exhausting to read, and I wish I could have made it shorter. The talk page must be even worse. But if you are interested in my general thoughts about chapters at a more detailed level than I've written here, I'd point you towards this section of the Recommendations page, entitled Future of Wikimedia movement entities and tie-in with Movement Roles. Thanks Sue Gardner 18:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


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

Hi. You might want to ask him. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) 00:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Done. The response is posted here. Where does WMF get its funding? May I see a copy of the auditor's report?
The audited financial statements (and other reports and plans) are all located here on the Wikimedia Foundation site. Thanks. Sue Gardner 01:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
This report states that WMF received $15M in revenues but does not state the source of the income. How much of this income was from government entities?
None of the Wikimedia Foundation's funding comes from governmental sources. Sue Gardner 16:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Two more socks detected

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

I don't understand why you are complaining to Sue about a CheckUser doing his duty. --Bsadowski1 22:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Your own outing policy states that "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, …. Personal information includes legal name, … whether any such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Wikipedia. …Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly,". If you honestly want to prevent WMF from biting the dust, you should start by following your own rules.

2. mZm has outed CB here.

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

More office hour topics

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

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

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

Italian translation of your statement

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

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

Failed implementation of en. consensus: blackout

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

Hi Fifelfoo. I actually think the current situation is fine. The primary purpose of the blackout is to raise awareness about the problems with SOPA, not to create an impregnable barrier. This is not a security or privacy issue --- if the barrier is a bit leaky, that's okay. We are not trying to harm or punish readers: the goal is simply to get their attention. Thanks Sue Gardner 13:07, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Dear Sue. I reread the closing statement of the RFC on en. The closing statement refers to emergency access. While I am quite willing to accept that technical limitations may prevent the coherent implementation of community will (Philippe's answers have emphasised the limited development time available), the community expressed a clear wish for the blackout to be predominant, and for access to be emergency based. "Leaks," from the objective, are acceptable as part of the "not-done-yet" model of developing content and infrastructure we use—but still remain undesirable when the consensus expressed was around emergency access. (Much like we prefer an article with general sources to exist, even while it is cluttered with requests for particular claims to be cited).
There was extensive discussion about the "harm" of boycotting within the community leading up to the result. The closing statement of emergency access being a necessary part of implementation was clear. But the closing statement's indication that we wish to generate public interest in these bills was coupled with a request for an action that would generate interest by highly and considerably limiting public access to the encyclopaedia (with the exception of emergency situations). I have to agree with Philippe that hitting the escape key while loading was a surprising discovery in the implementation. For me, this means that conformance to the limitation to emergency access only hasn't worked. The degree of "hassle and restriction" involved in shutting off Java requires a far more conscious attention to the SOPA issue than repeatedly hitting escape. If the community hadn't wanted such hassle and restriction, the closers would have noted in favour of a click-through or other soft blackout. I would not describe this as a consensus to harm or punish; but, it is a decision to restrict access to our output and this diminishes our readers (if only for a day).
The decision to leave en.m. going was and is similarly problematic in relation to the community's expressed consensus. For example, National Library Australia was still pulling clear text from mobile yesterday. The community's discussion through December and January over the potential diminishment of reader and downstream consumer reading experience in the context of a full blackout was fairly aware of these flow-on effects. Restricting these output, restricting the entire suite of non-emergency uses of the encyclopaedia, was part of the point of putting and closing consensus as a full blackout (other than emergency uses). Technical or time-limit reasons not to implement (that covered en.m.'s banner only implementation, for example) are reasonable—but the diminishment of reading experience was clearly envisaged, recognised, and incorporated as a key driver generating public attention to the bills.
This leaky implementation means that en. probably needs to request the development of a suite of potential "off-switches" to suit the varying community needs and expectations. We may not need them often, but, we need them to be sufficiently well developed that we don't discover a single key-stroke defeats the requested purpose of implementation. While I was pleasantly surprised that development was this successful given the time limits; the developed and implemented solution did not conform particularly well to the restriction against non-emergency use of the encyclopaedia. Fifelfoo 22:34, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Fifelfoo. I appreciate your thoughts here: they're helpful. There will likely be a postmortem on meta within the next week -- if you don't restate this there, I will try to ensure it gets captured. I think we did fine this time, but I also believe, in general, it's always worth looking at how we could do better in future. Thanks Sue Gardner 22:54, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
I think we've done fine too. For the post-mortem you may be interested in the (currently incomplete during to the ongoing action) analysis of inappropriate steward edits of en. here: on my talk. I will be taking these to the Administrators' Noticeboard on en. to note the resolution of such edits by counselling; and to note any outstanding undiscussed edits. I actually see the rate of mistaken inappropriate edits by Stewards to be particularly low given the addictiveness of editing a free encyclopaedia. Many thanks for your work in this difficult week, and the work of all WMF volunteers and staff. en.wikipedians appreciate it. Fifelfoo 00:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Learn more

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

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


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

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

Just read

about Steve Jobs here: [19] and elsewere. He knew how to share a vision. Thats quite interesting. --Angel54 5 00:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC) done ur job long enough to moderate the discussion. Have to work tomorrow again. Invited some people to contribute. Now ur turn again, ok?--Angel54 5 01:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC) This is ur task, not mine. Dont take my arguments for granted. Ur risking a general upheaval from Chapters at the moment - I will not comment anymore. Ur the one, not me.--Angel54 5 17:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Conference of Wikipedia

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

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

Broken diff pointing to this page

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

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

:::Thank you for raising this issue. I am going to try to be as clear as I can: if what I say here doesn't answer your question, please just tell me.
I'm not a Board member, and I can't speak on behalf of the Board. What I can do though, is tell you how I am interpreting what the Board has said, and how I plan to have the staff handle this issue.
The Wikimedia Foundation is continuing to discuss the issue of controversial content, from both a technical and social perspective. The Board has not changed its original resolution to me, and so I am still intending to execute on what it asked me to do in its resolution.
However, I am not planning to create a category-based image filtering system, as was referred to in the image filter referendum. It became clear in the referendum results and the discussion afterwards that a category-based filter system would be unworkable and unacceptable to many of Wikimedia's communities. Therefore, I will not be asking the staff to create a category-based filtering system: that idea is off the table. This is only reasonable. I conducted the referendum because I wanted to know what people thought; they told me, and I am listening to what they said. That's appropriate, and it's how we should work together.
I know there has been a lot of rage and pain on this issue. Everybody at the Wikimedia Foundation has been doing their best to engage honestly and openly and constructively, but I am also aware that we have been clumsy in a variety of ways, and we have made mistakes. I am sorry for that. And so I want to be clear here in case it has been unclear so far: the Wikimedia Foundation is not going to impose something on the German Wikipedia, against the will of the German community. Doing that would be foolish. You and people like yourself create the projects. The Wikimedia Foundation respects and values your work. If you signal to us that you vehemently oppose something that we're doing, then we need to stop and rethink. That's what we're doing.
And so we have entered a discussion phase. Some ideas, such as a general images on/off switch, seem to have broad general support. Some other ideas seem to be more controversial than that, but not as controversial as a category-based image filter system. There are other ideas that are new, and only now beginning to be discussed. The Wikimedia Foundation will work in partnership with the Wikimedia community, engaging in discussion, until we figure out a solution that makes sense to everyone. That is what the Board has asked me to do – to work in partnership with you.
My hope is that we can have a good, rich, open conversation about acceptability and usefulness of different ideas, and figure this out in a way that works for everyone. I hope you'll participate on pages like Controversial content/Brainstorming and talk through some of the options there.
Let me know if there's anything in your question I didn't answer. Thanks. Sue Gardner 02:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Rd232 (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

In the context of (G+) "Dissent ... new ideas"

Dear Ms Gardner ...
Preliminaries/stage setting
  • Note: I have previously donated $1,000 ($700+300) to the Wikimedia foundation.
    • (To this message, I'll add an additional $100 "stamp" to sweeten diversion of attention to this message :-)
  • Quickly scan barnstars in collapsed green box on my meta user page
  • Briefly ponder recent quote by designer for w:OLPC XO-1 project (below)
Requisite rhetorical sonnet (as per 'the legend'   of Proofreader77)
rhetorical sonnet (in the context of 11-23 Feb 2012 events)

{MSG.001.01} ____ ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS and as many hours
{MSG.001.02} ____ have I invested in this project's span.
{MSG.001.03} ____ Undoing vandals, and observing powers
{MSG.001.04} ____ at play in social patterns few can plan.

{MSG.001.05} ____ BUT STILL I write today to recommend
{MSG.001.06} ____ strategic conversations to address
{MSG.001.07} ____ some social patterns which must reach an end —
{MSG.001.08} ____ or else, for the Foundation, cause a mess.

{MSG.001.09} ____ FOR "MEAN", Swift won two Grammys 'leventh's week.
{MSG.001.10} ____ Those gathered stood to cheer her victory.
{MSG.001.11} ____ (Because it rhymes, I'll whisper: ArbCom leak. ;-)
{MSG.001.12} ____ Poetic win in BULLIES vs SHE.

{MSG.001.13} ____ EIGHT-HUNDRED-POUND-gorilla projects think
{MSG.001.14} ____ they can do as they will. Can't smell the stink.


  • 12+ days in February 2012 (w perhaps a dozen major actors)
  • COMMENT: Deleting diffs doesn't help address systemic issues,
    so let this "event" be a seed to strategic (design) explorations,
    before they become public issues much harder to sweep away.
  • DISCLOSURE: I am indef blocked on en.wikipedia. (No request implied.)
  • EFFECT ON CONTENT: Bullying behavior changes the content
    of Wikipedia. I.E., The information at the top of (e.g. Google)
    search results is impacted by who is bullied to not participate.

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

3-haiku coda
Haiku (meanwhile at ArbCom/21 Feb 2012)

Civility case
concludes excluding someone
from RfA speech.

Haiku (re meta: 11-23 Feb 2012 events)

re an en sysop
swept under the rug.

Recommendation (by sustaining donor) haiku

DESIGN can fix things.
(But not if signals erased.
And dissent silenced.)

prose close :-)

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

Kindest regards,

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks, Angel54, for sending me back to that video to ponder again. (See my full reply in the history) -- Proofreader77 (talk) 00:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
sry for that numbering, but in that video there were shown four steps. I meant the last one. Its made quite funny but it has a kernel thats very honestly to understand - and it reminded me of such things like karma (call it fate if ur luckier with that). Design of social media is like that, what I discribed, what u didnt understand? If u want to have a broad acceptance u have to lower the hurdles to participate, thats my opinion. As I see it in some communities there are approx. 300 to 400 members active (I can only see my range, dont know what u see - and they are getting older, but newbies are thrown out by reflexes I dont know). --Angel54 5 (talk) 03:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Agree, 300-400 is what I see. And as you perhaps suggest, the ease of (newbies) being "thrown out" is a hurdle to participation — although long-established members may also meet the same fate if throwing out is a significant element of the culture of the online environment.
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 04:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I dont want to spam her talk page, dear proofreader. But it was ur recommended vid making me spin those thoughts.--Angel54 5 (talk) 13:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Profoundly resist the phrase "spam her talk page" re your insights :-), but concur we should not expand further here. Thank you very much for your insights — pleasure discussing with you. -- Proofreader77 (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


Talk:Pedophilia#Update, [20] – The WMF doesn't appear to have a clear policy on how to handle pedophilia. Stefan2 is also asking for pedophilia to be defined. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, Ill try to answer here at a very delicate subject. U should know Im a teacher at first, and Im trying to face hurdles many young adults have. There was a broad discussion at mid70ths of the last century, what is sex education and what is not. There has to be openness to such questions and there has to be a shut up if someone tries to misuse those questions for unappropriated reasons. In fact there are many many different laws in different countries (look within the US, then u have a very broad pic, what is allowed in California isnt allowed in Virginia). But I think child pornographic is a huge hurdle in internet now - cause there is as much available: means - to be restrictive would be good, to avoid questions young adults have, wouldnt. If u try to cut that off, it would give the opposite side more room to manage.--Angel54 5 (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC). Besides: out of my experience, some girls with eleven yrs old have the same questions some other boys or girls arrive at fourteen? - there isnt any clear cut u can make. In some cultures the same questions might occur at the age of seventeen or even eighteen. U cannot really define what makes sense. What now is pedophilia? Its showing kids naked or sexually reprobate. I think noone wants that.--Angel54 5 (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm seeking an official response from Sue and the WMF. They need to clarify their policies and principles. The WMF needs to state plainly and clearly what they stand for and what they stand against. These issues can't be left unresolved. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
sry, didnt grasp that - excuse my interference.--Angel54 5 (talk) 20:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
It's alright. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Michaeldsuarez, I'm sorry I've taken so long to get back to you. I've been caught up in the office on a variety of things, and haven't been checking this userpage or my watchlist. I got pointed here today by Philippe.
I'm assuming you're asking because of the current community discussions around pedophilia and a global policy on child protection, that are happening on I believe enWP, Commons, at the meta link you posted, and a few other places. Am I right? I had a meeting a few hours ago about this issue, with Geoff, Philippe, Maggie and a few other people. Essentially as I understand it, the open questions are these: i) on what grounds might or would a user be globally banned or blocked, for purposes of child protection, and ii) who has authority to enact such a global ban or block. Is that basically what's being asked, or are there other open questions I'm missing?
To the general issue, I would say: the Wikimedia Foundation takes child protection seriously, and the Wikimedia community has always been vigilant on these issues. However, the projects do currently do not have a community body with decision-making authority to enact global blocks and bans. I wish we did have such a body, and if the community wants to develop one, the Wikimedia Foundation would be very pleased to provide support for it. In the absence of that, though, I believe that in some very rare circumstances the Wikimedia Foundation will need to be prepared to enact global blocks/bans itself, on grounds of child safety. That shouldn't be a normal every-day occurrence, but it needs to be something the Wikimedia Foundation is willing to do, if necessary.
Does that help? I can also tell you we're actively discussing this at the staff level: I expect I'll have another meeting about it tomorrow. We're talking informally with community members as well, and I'd be very happy to hear people's thoughts here (or elsewhere) on what I've just posted. Please point me to any links you think we should be reading, as well. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 08:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Sue Gardner/Archive 1".