Wikimedia Forum/Archives/2021-03

5th Official request for correction of false and libelous information about Michal Matúšov in the Annual report 2018 of WMSVK

Dear Legal team, serving under General Counsel Amanda Keton, as my primary addressee, dear Affiliations Committee (including Community advisers, Board Liaisons and Staff Liaisons: Mehman Ibragimov, Emna Mizouni, Sami Mlouhi, Camelia Boban, Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight, Olaniyan Ishola Olushola, Başak Tosun, Ravan Al-Taie, Jeffrey Keefer, Suyash Dwivedi, Bunty Avieson, Maor Malul, Anthony B. Diaz, Jorid Martinsen, Ilario Valdelli, Shani Evenstein Sigalov, Dr. James Heilman, Jaime Anstee, Dumisani Ndubane, Manavpreet Kaur, Nahid Sultan, Charles Roslof, Stephen LaPorte, Delphine Ménard) as my accountability organ and the organ asked by the Meta administrators, done by Camouflaged Mirage,

I am presenting to you my 5th formal official request for correction of false and libelous information about me in the Annual report 2018 (en, sk) of the Wikimedia User Group Wikimedians of Slovakia.

My previous non-formal requests were:

1. 31 January 2020 (yes, more than 1 year ago) on Meta talk page of Slovak version of the Report
2. 31 January 2020 (yes, more than 1 year ago) on Meta talk page of English version of the Report
3. 18 June 2020 on Commons' Deletion requests (deleted on 30 August 2020)
4. 3 August 2020 on Meta's Requests for deletion (Deferred to Affcom at 15 February 2021)

And between them I have initiated private communication with WMSVK functionaries.

My previous formal official request were:

1. 3 August 2020 addressed to the Board of WMSVK, copy to the Audit Committee of WMSVK
2. 28 August 2020 addressed to the Board of WMSVK, copy to the Audit Committee of WMSVK and Affiliations Committee (I have later explicitly informed AffCom that I asked them nothing about this particular issue and I have messaged them only to serve as an accountability organ)
3. 16 February 2021 to the Wikimedia Foundation Legal Team, copy to the Affiliations Committee
4. 3 March 2021 reminder to the Wikimedia Foundation Legal Team, copy to the Affiliations Committee (ticket number 24608)

As you, the Legal Team, have after 1 month of waiting and 1 reminder 2 weeks after the original request, not responded, I ask you 3th time here (5th official formal request in total, including the ones addressed primarily to WMSVK's board).

Here is the text of my request sent to you 16 February 2021 (non-public parts are censored, as per request of AffCom).

Dear legal team,

dear AffCom as an accountability organ.

After much of private, public and AffCom facilitated discussions and after 2 formal, official requests (1st directly to WMSVK, 2nd send also to AffCom as an accountability organ) lasting for more than 1 full year, I make this formal, official request to you, the Legal Team of Wikimedia Foundation.

Basic background:
The Wikimedia User Group Wikimedians of Slovakia (legal name "Wikimedia Slovensko"), with headquarter at Dom služieb ALFA, Februárová 1478/2, SK-958 01 Partizánske, Slovakia, website wikimedia.sk (later only "WMSVK") has approved and spread its Annual report 2018 (https://wikimedia.sk/dokumenty/ , https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_of_Slovakia/Reports/2018/en , https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_of_Slovakia/Reports/2018/sk , https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WMSK_%E2%80%93_V%C3%BDro%C4%8Dn%C3%A1_spr%C3%A1va_2018.pdf ) which contains false, libelous information about myself (presented below).

The false, libelous information about myself is this:

• sk: "Vtedajší predseda registráciu podmienil finančnou odmenou vo výške 100 eur."
• en: "The then chair asked for a 100 euro reward for such action."

The Slovak and English versions of the report are not 100% identical, there are some differences. Even in these particular sentences are some differences, like the Slovak version explicitly mention the reward to be "financial", while the English version says just "reward" without mentioning the financial aspect explicitly.

My request:
I ask you to:

1. immediately hide ("suppressrevision") the revisions of the Wikimedia project pages that contains the false, libelous information about myself in the form of official report linked above (I definitely do not object to hiding the whole pages instead of only the specific revisions);
2. take action to make WMSVK to temporarily hide the report and the link to it from they official website and prevent them from publishing it in another communication and spreading channels;
   1. if the WMSVK§s Board refuse doing that, I ask you to make the WMSVK's website wikimedia.sk unavailable to public (according to who.is, WMF is still the organisation linked to the domain);
3. take action to make WMSVK to correct the false, libelous information about myself (presented below) in their Annual report 2018 (that is possible only by the General Assembly).

Prove:
In the attachments there are copies of WMSVK's Board email communication about the topic. In that time, the Board consisted of: Michal Matúšov (me) as Chair, Radoslava Semanová as Vice-Chair, Matej Grochal (Board Member).
The core sentences are in the document WMSK 2, when the Board was discussing registration for a national fundraising campaign. The core sentences are:

"Tak mi dajte čím skôr vedieť ako ste sa rozhodli, nech sa viem zariadiť:" (English: "So let me know as soon as possible how you have decided, so I can arrange my things"
(...)
"2. ja mám registrovať, v takom prípade:" (English: "2. I have to register, in that case")
(...)
"3. schvaľujete 60 € na registráciu a 100 € na knihy do môjho dlhodobého držania," (...) (English: "3. you approve € 60 for the registration and € 100 for books to my long-term holding,")

In that thread we were referring to the earlier Board decision about buying books for the organisation for 200 € (attachment WMSK 1). Without that knowledge it would be possible to come to a wrong understanding of the thread from WMSK 2.
The rest of the Board was referring to the books for 100 € (WMSK 2) as a "reward" already in that time. I have sometimes corrected them but sometimes not - in the context of that specific conversation I have considered it to be irrelevant. I have clearly expressed my intentions in WMSK 2: "PS: Nikdy som ani len neočakával nejaký darček pri odchode. Tie roky som slúžil aby sa Slovensko, a s ním aj zvyšok sveta, pozdvihlo - to by bola pre mňa dostatočná odmena (tam rátam s druhotnými dôsledkami, ktoré oceňujem, napr. ochrana prírody, zdravšie jedlo, lepšie zdravotníctvo, väčšie ocenenie vedy apod). Teraz pýtam knihy, lebo verím, že v tejto situácii má moje vzdelanie pre rozvoj Slovenska a sveta väčší význam ako WMSK, tým skôr 2% - to vôbec neskrývam." (English: "PS: I never even expected a gift on my leaving. Those years I served to raise Slovakia, and with it also the rest of the world, - that would be a sufficient reward for me (there I count on the secondary consequences that I appreciate, such as nature protection, healthier food, better health system, greater appreciation of science, etc.). Now I ask the books, because I believe that in this situation, my education is more important for the development of Slovakia and the world than WMSK, even more so 2% - I do not hide it at all.")

The books (for the entirely 300 €) was from my side expected to serve for capacity building of WMSVK's activists. It is a convention to not name such thing as a "reward". (In my opinion it is a sign of a good social movement organisation to support development of its activists, but this is only a sidenote.) Like, the Wikimedia community haven't received a "reward" when there was published a training on using Outreach Dashboard. The community haven't received a "reward" when AffCom published the overview of requirements and rights of different affiliation types. People does not receive a "reward" when they receive a Wikimania scholarship. All of these things are provided to help activists to fulfil the Wikimedia mission. They are a help for service. Semanová and Grochal was naming such help to be a "reward" (and WMSVK is still officially doing so). One can argue, that helping the advancement of Wikimedia mission and so increasing the probability of secondary consequences (mentioned above) in fact is a reward for someone who deeply cares about that. And to some extent I agree with that (at the very least, the feeling after a day of good wikimedia work is very rewarding). But the context of the report suggests that it is not that kind of reward (e.g. recognition of WMSVK as a Wikimedia USer Group is not presented as a "reward" from AffCom, neither are paid ads on Facebook). Even, in that case we could estimate the value of such advancement in billions of euros downstream, not only one hundred.

On the other hand, in basically the same time, Patrik Kunec (another that time WMSVK activist) have asked for a digital camera for about 800 € to be bought for the organisation and he was using it. In the WMSVK's Annual report 2018 is no mention of a "reward" for Kunec despite the similarities (request to buy something for the organisation to help advance the Wikimedia mission which would be harder or impossible without it).

Additionally, I emphases that the Slovak version of the report (I do not know which language version(s) was officially approved by the General Assembly, but in the time when I was a Chair it was only the Slovak version, so only the Slovak version was official while the other versions was only a non-official translations) explicitly mention a "financial" reward. As you can see I have asked for books, so non-financial thing. As I have mentioned above, the books for organisation could be in some twisted way considered as a "reward" but in absolutely no way a "financial" affair.

In a nutshell: I have asked for books for the organisation for capacity development of the organisation's activists. The General Assembly has made it into a "financial reward 100 €".

And the last point, not related to the topic of the request, but to the context of it. Semanová and Grochal have a recent track record of violations of bylaws - one is declared by Grochal himself to be (...), the other one is officially presented as a non-possibility to fulfill the bylaws (I would say, that as the bylaw was possible to be fulfilled, it really shows the lack of capacities of Semanová and Grochal). I mention it here because Semanová and Grochal have showed to have big problems of understanding quite clear things - e.g. as the bylaw clearly states, that General Assembly must be called by announcement on the website in 30 days anticipation, they was declaring that the General assembly have happened even without announcement on the website in 30 days anticipation. It lasted 8 months for Semanová and 17 months for Grochal to understand and acknowledge it. AffCom is well informed about it and is currently dealing with WMSVK about it. Also all the current WMSVK's functionaries (and former Audit Committee member Lukás Mikulec) have expressed that they do not care about bylaw violation (literally they have said "Only KuboF cares"). I write that to provide you the context for understanding the minds of current WMSVK's functionaries.

I am looking for your action and answer
Best regards
Michal Matúšov (User:KuboF Hromoslav)

Notes:

I remind you, Legal Team, that the Wikimedia Foundation is for more than a 1 year hosting content with false, libelous information about myself, supporting website which do the same, for 1 year some parts of community know it and for 1 month also WMF officially knows it. I ask you to act upon that knowledge and fulfill my requests mentioned above. --KuboF Hromoslav (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Dear Michal,

I am reaching out in response to the most recent communications from you on different channels. The flagged issues are- inquiry about the status of AffCom’s engagement with the Wikimedia Slovakia User Group, Group’s progress, and your objection to the statements referring to “reward for UG’s registration” in the User Group’s Annual meeting report. Considering the fact that you have escalated the matter related to “rectification of report” to multiple teams at the Foundation and have also flagged it multiple times, I would consider that as a priority concern.

As per the email on February 4th, 2021, we notified you that AffCom shared your concerns with the WMSK board to understand how they can address your expectations of eliminating the sentence you believe is false and defamatory. The group shared that the issue requires a discussion in the assembly as the approved report cannot be changed without the members’ consent. Not only this, you have missed acknowledging the meeting that we had with you where we discussed all the flagged concerns and shared recommendations where you were advised not to engage with the User Group members on the concerns shared with AffCom.

I can definitely see how this issue is frustrating for you. I am confirming again that the UG members will rectify the statement after discussion with the members in the Annual Meeting which is scheduled for March 20th, 2021. AffCom is observing the UG activities and is following-up on the UG’s commitments. We ask that you are patient while we support you through this.

I understand that you didn’t know the point of contact for reporting your concerns earlier, but on February 20th, 2021, I advised you to route all your concerns and submissions for AffCom's consideration to affcom@wikimedia.org and not to individual members or leads. All the resolutions on any reported concern are discussed by the committee members during our monthly meetings, and email is the only identified route of communications for the ongoing conflicts. Please refrain from engaging the members individually, as they won’t be able to extend any support in their individual capacity.

If you feel the need to discuss these concerns with the group members in presence of an AffCom representative, I can schedule the mediation call.

Regards,

MKaur (WMF) (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Dear MKaur, thanks for your quick respond! I appreciate that AffCom took the responsibility to change current WUG WMSVK into a capable and trustworthy organisation which respects and fulfills Laws, its Bylaws and agreements. That is very necessary to solve the root problems of WMSVK (lack of capacities, understanding of logic and Bylaws, non-commitment to fulfill agreements, to name some of them). This is a very valuable contribution of AffCom for Wikimedia movement, especially in Slovakia. About these things I am going to continue in email communication.

But this formal official request is addressed to the Legal Team to solve one specific symptom, manifestation of these core issues of WMSVK - that WMF is hosting false, defamatory content about me. As you have stated, WMF bodies (AffCom, if I understand well) have already executed the 3rd point from my request ("take action to make WMSVK to correct the false, libelous information about myself (presented below) in their Annual report 2018 (that is possible only by the General Assembly" - (see my correction)). But still, while the Legal Team is officially informed about the affair for a month and is asked to correct it, the content with false, defamatory information about myself is still hosted on WMF site (the reports on Meta are even protected, so I can't protect my reputation by removing the content) and is public on website that WMF have some control about. As the Legal Team haven't responded even a single human word for month, I start to question its existence. Maybe Amanda Keton, the General Counsel under which is the Legal Team operating, could clarify why her team of paid employees for 1 month haven't even responded whether they are going to proceed the request or not (I have received only automated respond from the ticket system). I emphasize that (to my best knowledge) WMF does not need to wait for a decision of some affiliation to remove false, defamatory content about living human from a site that it is legally responsible for.

I think that I have provided enough information in enough quality for the Legal Team to understand that the mentioned information in the WMSVK's Annual report 2018 is false and so the Legal Team can execute the Office action and hide the revision of the linked pages (or whole pages, if it is considered to be better) which contain this false information, and take action to make the report on the website of WMSVK non-public. If the Legal Team would like some additional information or clarification, I highly encourage them to continue in the email thread that I have started. (And in case if this is not the field of the Legal Team, you could at least state it clearly, so I can deal with the right team / committee) --KuboF Hromoslav (talk) 14:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• Re: "Considering the fact that you have escalated the matter related to 'rectification of report' to multiple teams at the Foundation and have also flagged it multiple times, I would consider that as a priority concern", are you sure that this is the message that you want to send? I have some issues (15 years of violating the Americans with Disabilities act by discriminating against blind people, for example) that I think should be priority concerns. Should I escalate them to multiple teams at the Foundation and flag them multiple times? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:41, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

:<small>This section was archived on a request by:  — [[user:billinghurst|billinghurst]] ''<span style="font-size:smaller">[[user talk:billinghurst|sDrewth]]</span>'' 04:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)</small>

Dear billinghurst, as you can see, there are still false, defamatory information about me in Wikimedians of Slovakia/Reports/2018/en, Wikimedians of Slovakia/Reports/2018/sk and wmsk:wp-content/uploads/WMSK_–_Výročná_správa_2018.pdf so this affair is definitely not resolved. WMF is for more than 1 year still hosting false, defamatory information about living person, the Legal team (to which I have addressed my complain) haven't reacted at all for more than a month, the only one from WMF who at least reacted is Manavpreet Kaur who have consider it to be a priority concern but the affair is still not resolved even after that. So please, do not archive this section until WMF will stop spreading false, defamatory information about me! BTW, Manavpreet Kaur, when is WMF going to hide the mentioned false, defamatory information? --KuboF Hromoslav (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@KuboF Hromoslav:

“ The Wikimedia Forum is a central place for questions, announcements and other discussions about the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects. (For discussion about the Meta wiki, see Meta:Babel.) ” — Wikimedia Forum

What resolution are you expecting by users of this page? You have come here and raised the issue, and you have had a response from WMF. What more can be done here in this forum? user:Guy Macon addressed some of the issue from the perspective of the community. If you are after specific guidance from users, or there is help that we can provide about specific components then please reopen the discussion with those specific components. If there is something where you require assistance here at metawiki then please utilise the specific pages that can assist. I see nothing else that can be done in response to your raised issue. You didn't come here with the emphasis on making processes better, you came to express your frustrations. Fair enough, raised, heard, and a response has arrived.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: this forum cannot resolve your issues, issues we can do, have been met. This is not a complaints or issue resolution forum that holds issues open until they are resolved.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Ombuds Commission inactivity

I have started a RFC about the persistent inactivity of several members of the OC. --Rschen7754 02:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikifunctions logo contest

Hello. Please help to choose a design concept for the logo of the new Wikifunctions wiki. Voting starts today and will be open for 2 weeks. If you would like to participate, then please learn more and vote now at Meta-Wiki. Thank you! --Quiddity (WMF)

01:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

New Project Proposal - Global Open Initiative Foundation/Time Project For Twi Community

Hi, I would like to seek your support for a rapid grant proposal for the Twi Community in Ghana. The project among many other objectives seeks to engage existing users and recruit new volunteers. Kindly find a link to the proposal here. Thank you.--Mwintirew (talk) 09:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Video game strategy on Wikibooks

We've finally allowed it, overturning a historical anomaly that dated back to 2006. See here for the discussion and Wikibooks:Strategy_guides for the (newly created) policy on strategy games. Leaderboard (talk) 15:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

GPLv3 Userpage JS and CSS

Currently, the policy don't allow GPLv3 things. But I know some users use GPLv3 JS and CSS. I think the policy should be changed to allow custom-licensed userpage code. --EdwardAlexanderCrowley (talk) 13:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Which policy says so? Ruslik (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Everything is ccbysa, GPLv3 contents can't be converted to GPLv3+ccbysa EdwardAlexanderCrowley (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@EdwardAlexanderCrowley: anything anyone publishes here is CC BY-SY 3.0 and GFDL. If they put any other licenses it will simply also be multi-licenses with those other licenses, and the reuser is welcome to use any single one they want. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

According to [1], I can't copy GPLv3 code written by others. Also, if one GPLv3 material is based on one CCBYSA material, it is always dual-licensed. EdwardAlexanderCrowley (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, you cannot use content that is purely GPLv3 on Wikimedia wikis, you will need to reach out to the author and ask for dual-licensing. Legoktm (talk) 06:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Enterprise API project

As described on wikimedia-l today, I would like to draw your attention to some new documentation published here on Meta about the “enterprise API”, the project is formerly known as “Okapi”. I have just uploaded an Essay which discusses the “why?” and “how?” of this project which a small team at the WMF have been working on for the last few months. See also, the associated FAQ, operating principles, and also the technical documentation on mediawiki.org. Much of this documentation is already available in French, German, Italian, and Spanish.

The Wikimedia Enterprise team is particularly interested in your feedback on how we have designed the checks and balances to this project - to ensure it is as successful as possible at achieving those two relevant goals as described in the Movement Strategy recommendations, while also staying true to Wikimedia’s values and culture. All Enterprise API revenue will unequivocally be used to support the Wikimedia mission and other movement activities—for example, to fund Wikimedia programs or help grow the Wikimedia Endowment. While the general idea for Wikimedia Enterprise predates the current movement strategy process, its recommendations identify an enterprise API as one possible solution to both “Increase the sustainability of our movement” and “Improve User Experience.” That is, to simultaneously create a new revenue stream to protect Wikimedia’s sustainability, and improve the quality and quantity of Wikimedia content available to our many readers who do not visit our websites directly (including more consistent attribution). Moreover, it does so in a way that is true to our movement’s culture: with open source software, financial transparency, non-exclusive contracts or content, no restrictions on existing services, and free access for Wikimedia volunteers who need it.

To talk with the team or provide any comments/feedback, aside from the main talkpage of the project, the team is running two ‘office hours’ this week and others over the next month.

Sincerely, LWyatt (WMF) (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

<link>. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Ha! Sorry. Fixed now. Thanks for spotting 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰. LWyatt (WMF) (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Focus languages for improvements to the lexicographic extension of Wikidata and Abstract Wikipedia

Hallo. We would like to find two or three language communities who would be good matches to help to start and guide some long-term improvements to the lexicographic data part of Wikidata, and the closely related work in the Wikifunctions wiki and the Abstract Wikipedia project, over the next few years.

Participating communities will hopefully find that this project will lead to long-term growth in content in Wikipedia and Wiktionary in and about their language. See d:Wikidata:Lexicographical data/Focus languages for more detailed information. Please help us identify potential good matches. Thank you. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Call for review, comment and discuss my PhD thesis on Wikimedia movement

Hello,

Just a short message to call people interested to review, comment and discuss my PhD thesis on Wikimedia movement. All the best, Lionel Scheepmans ^{✉ Contact} _{French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography} 19:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Survey for donation

Hi, where can I found the translations of the survey which can be compiled after making the donation to Wikimedia in these days? --Superchilum^{(talk to me!)} 12:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

You may want to ask Fundraising: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising#Contact_Us --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Open Letter from Arbcoms to the Board of Trustees

This was linked on the main page a couple of days ago, but perhaps not everyone watches that. There are no other local links and as such thought this board may be an appropropriate place to post it for more widespread coverage. Thank you. Killiondude (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Etiki – Wikipedia for corporate sustainability assessment

Hello people. I have submitted a new project proposal: Etiki – Wikipedia for corporate sustainability assessment.

Project description: etiki aims to create transparency on the ethical and sustainable behavior of companies (or more generally: organisations). Instead of providing continuous text written by editors, the platform will visualize previously published information (news articles, NGO reports, etc.) in a highly structured way. The information can be filtered by the user's own criteria. Further, the entire value chain of a company and its business connections will be visible. Sustainability is regarded in it's an all-encompassing definition: environment, people, animals, politics.

There is already something similar proposed Transparent_Economy. But in my opinion etiki is much better thought through. I am looking forward to the discussion. Thank you! — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hodeld (talk) 15:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• I have posted a notice of this proposal on enwiki at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment, and urge others to create similar posts to alert other interested parties. Best wishes! Jusdafax 18:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Investment strategy

Hello,

I try to understand better how the Wikimedia Foundation works. The Capital of the Wikimedia Foundation was growing over the years and so I ask me how is that money invested. Are there sustainability principles that are needed before money is invested in a company through the Wikimedia Foundation.--Hogü-456 (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

foundation:Investment Guidance rubin16 (talk) 05:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Identities of affiliation functionaries

I have a question for which I haven't found an answer. I have a nebulous memories that functionaries of Wikimedia affiliations should be publicly known. I have found only that 2 primary contacts of an affiliation should reveal their identities to WMF. I am working on a concrete case of Wikimedians of Slovakia. Here I provide copy from the Meta page of the User Group:

Board

• Chair: Matej Grochal (Jetam2)
• Vice-chair: Radoslava Semanová (Akdar)
• Vice-chair: Dávid Štefan (Lišiak)

The page is maintained by functionaries of the organisation, so one can assume, that they are OK about public knowing the pair "their wiki identity - their civil identity".

But when I asked the functionaries about their opinion on violating bylaws (as during the Meeting of General Assembly on 28th September 2019 they all have expressed that do not care about violating bylaws), I was accused by one of them of connecting his wiki username with his civil name. He argued, that he has not his civil name on his user page. The argument that he have his wiki username and civil name connected on pages of Wikimedians of Slovakia (as shown above) wasn't accepted, nor the connections removed.

Is it OK for Wikimedia Affiliation functionary to reveal both his wiki username and civil identity in one place, but requiring to hide it in another place in WMF's wiki? (especially when it is about violating bylaws of the organisation of which he is a functionary) --KuboF Hromoslav (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Different Wikimedia projects may have different policies regarding connecting real names to the account names. Ruslik (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Logos of projects

How would we go about beginning discussions about revising/replacing a project's logo? The process of users participating in the creation of a Wikifunctions logo got me to take a closer look at the logos for other projects, and I have a few concerns with some of them. The biggest is the logo for WikiTech. Since the logo for Wikitech is based upon the logo for MediaWiki, shouldn't there be plans to change the Wikitech logo if the planned new logo for MediaWiki passes legal clearance? I'm not sure such a plan exists yet. SecretName101 (talk) 20:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Updating Wikitech's logo is part of phab:T268230. Once the new MediaWiki logo finishes legal review/approval/etc., I assume people will start working on updating all of the derivatives. Legoktm (talk) 06:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Legoktm: the new MediaWiki logo is now in use. Are they people now working on changing Wikitech logo? SecretName101 (talk) 03:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you can follow the Phabricator task for live updates if you want. Legoktm (talk) 06:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I see we're now officially a BP lookalike. Nemo 07:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikimedia Enterprise timeline

• Wikipedia Is Finally Asking Big Tech to Pay Up --Wired
• Report: Wikimedia Foundation is Announcing the Launch of a Commerical Product, Wikimedia Enterprise --Library Journal
• Wikimedia will launch a paid service for big tech companies --The Verge
• Big tech companies may soon have to pay for Wikipedia content --TechRadar
• Apple might soon pay for Wikipedia content --Apple Insider
• Wikipedia wants to charge Google, Amazon, and Apple for using its content --Mashable
• Wikimedia Enterprise Seeks to Turn Big Tech Into Paying Customers --WebProNews
• Wikipedia will not be free for tech-giants anymore, launches Wikimedia Enterprise --TechStory
• Wikimedia Enterprise Seeks to Turn Big Tech Into Paying Customers --Tech Investor News
• Wikimedia Enterprise on Meta Wiki
• Wikimedia Enterprise on Meta Wiki^{...redirects are so old school. Here at W?F we prefer to have two identical pages that update at different times -- until someone forgets to do the manual update. And BTW, the duplicate page doesn't have a talk page. :(}
• Wikimedia Enterprise on Wikimedia Dfff^{...because the software the W?F makes Wikipedia use isn't good enough for the W?F.}
• Wikimedia Enterprise/FAQ
• Wikimedia Enterprise/Essay
• Wikimedia Enterprise sign up page
• Wikimedia Enterprise API
• Hacker News thread
• Reddit thread

--Guy Macon (talk) 12:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

From the FAQ:

"Will the Enterprise API affect the current Dumps and APIs? No. The system of freely-provided database dumps and APIs remains in place and continues to be supported. They are not being removed or changed as a result of the existence of the new API, and will continue to receive support and development. In fact, independently of the specific Enterprise API, the existing API ecosystem is currently being revamped to provide an improved experience under the "API Gateway" initiative. Part of the reason the Enterprise API is being built separately is in order not to disrupt the existing ecosystems."

...because the W?F is totally going to resist the temptation to not make improvements to the freely-provided database dumps and APIs in favor of improving the enterprise database dumps and APIs that are moneymakers. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I am answering solely in my personal capacity and not for the WMF, but also based on knowing what is proposed/planned. It is envisioned that the enterprise-grade dumps and APIs will be made available for free for users for whom the free API and dumps are not adequate (most researchers, for example don't need or want realtime access but bulk access), whose work is noncommercial, and would support the Wikimedia movement (including volunteer content moderation workflows). The concept here is being carefully designed to create a product that *large* *commercial* re-users will find worth paying for - there's no real incentive to also restrict free access to volunteers and researchers and so on. (Google isn't going to say: oh we aren't going to pay for this service that we would find beneficial, because community members devising interesting moderation tools and researchers studying editing habits are getting it for free.) Your cynicism is noted, but it isn't as if this hasn't already been addressed.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

A comment from the Hacker News thread linked above:

"Devils advocate: Google clearly already has a working pipeline to import and format Wikipedia data for its needs. Why would they stop using it and start paying Wikipedia? Will Wikipedia be able to build an enterprise API that's faster/cheaper/more reliable/more scalable than the internal one build by one of the world’s top engineering companies?

No doubt the enterprise API will add attractive value for smaller companies without the resources to process the raw dumps but I’m skeptical that this will convert Google et al into well-paying customers. Unless they start restricting the free dumps... "

--Guy Macon (talk) 13:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Again answering solely in my personal capacity and not speaking for the WMF. In my experience, having talked to these organizations at the highest level for a very long period of time, I do not believe that they will approach this in a simple "build or buy" framework. And in particular, those organizations (all of the ones who I think are interesting target customers) it is the *realtime* access *at scale* which they will find interesting, as opposed to importing dumps, which they may continue to do for some use cases of course. It is true in a sense that the biggest "competitor" for the new product will be the WMF itself with the existing free offerings. I think that's a good thing, and will always be true. But I think there is a pretty obvious set of value-add (*realtime* access *at scale*) which both would cost the WMF money to provide (which is why we don't do much of it now) and will be an interesting product for a handful of large re-users.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

It is certainly true that these big-tech organisations have infinitely more engineering resources (hardware, money, and people) than us. And therefore they do indeed have current workflows - plural - for how they access and incorporate Wikimedia content into their various products. However, especially for these largest organisations, those workflows are unstable and uncertain (from their business-perspective) because we do not a) build explicitly for their scale needs, nor b) offer a Service Level Agreement that guarantees the standard of access, nor c) offer dedicated customer support to them when things go wrong. These are the things those companies - no matter how big they are - cannot provide for themselves. These big companies want to have a contract that they can legally rely upon which says they can access Wikimedia content in a specific way, with a specific format, at a specific rate/speed/uptime, for at least a specific amount of time. They do not have that and - we expect - will be willing to pay for it. Smaller companies, without those immense engineering resources, will also benefit from a more 'level playing field' because we will now be able to provide an 'enterprise grade' service to them too. As described in the operating principles there is no 'exclusives'. I also said 'we expect' a couple of sentences ago for a reason: that this is a work in progress. This is not fully developed and already in operation. This is the moment before there are actual customers and an actual product that the team working on this project are coming to the community to say 'hello, this is what we're building, come and look at the FAQ, principles, technical documentation, and tell us what you think of the progress and the concepts.' 1 year ago it was just an idea that was appearing in the strategy documents and would have been to early to have any meaningful conversation about practical implementation because it would have just been theory. 1 year into the future it would be too late to have any meaningful conversation because anything would already be built and operational. So now is the time when there is something still in 'beta' development that is able to be shown to the community for informed discussion (both technical, and principles). One final thing, I see that the concern expressed on the HackerNews comment that the WMF would limit the existing services (either intentionally, or by neglect) as a way to force companies onto a paid-access model. That would be completely against the operating principles I linked above, and antithetical to mission in general. LWyatt (WMF) (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I certainly don't think anyone plans on making the paid access better to the detriment of the free access, just that the temptation will be there. A while back I had a discussion with the foundation about us sending a HTTP referer (yes, that's how it is spelled) when someone clicks on a link. I showed them how doing that can in some cases allow third party websites to tell exactly what pages a Wikipedia user is reading (ask me if you want all of the gory technical details; the method isn't obvious but is well known to website designers). The foundation's conclusion was that the privacy of our readers is less important than our fundraisers being able to prove to potential donors how much traffic our links were sending their way. So I am understandably a bit skeptical about the foundation making decisions that reduce revenue. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." --Upton Sinclair --Guy Macon (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Guy Macon "HTTP referer (yes, that's how it is spelled)": Interestingly, your link goes to a nonexistent page called "HTTP HTTP referer" 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Fixed the link. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Re Google, their system is extremely fragile: on OTRS and elsewhere we keep receiving reports of incorrect search results (e.g. vandalism cached by Google, and long gone from WMF caches, persisting in their search result page for days). The real-time data is already out there, but they're evidently unable to use it correctly. I'm not saying it's going to be easy to do better, but there's definitely room for improvement. Sure, Google could throw more money at the problem and solve it themselves, but it's probably easier for WMF to provide a consistent/reliable service: WMF has specific expertise (assuming the "normal" WMF employees are going to work together with the "LLC-focused employees") and economies of scale (assuming more than one customer needs the same or similar service, for instance at least two search engines). Nemo 05:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

If Google is unwilling to throw money at the problem and solve it themselves, do we have any evidence that they will be willing to throw money at a new LLC that promises to solve it for them? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

These large organisations already are "throwing money at the problem" - but they cannot solve problems that are beyond their control. The thing that those organisations, even with their vastly larger resources (technical, staff, financial) cannot control is the stability, format, and speed of the 'flow' of information that we publish. There is nothing 'wrong' with the existing APIs of course - but it is insufficient for their specific needs. By metaphor: the electricity that flows into my house, and the electricity that flows into the factory outside my window, is the same - but the infrastructure needed for me to receive it compared to what that factory needs - is quite different. Only the "electricity company" can build the extreme power-supply that factory needs, and the contractual guarantee that the electricity will arrive at the specific flow rate, and specific high voltage, that they need. THAT is what the Enterprise API's customers will be paying for: because they cannot build it, or guarantee its supply, by themselves. LWyatt (WMF) (talk) 11:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Those are all good points, but they do not address the question asked. If, as you say, "THAT is what the Enterprise API's customers will be [not are] paying for: because they cannot build it, or guarantee its supply, by themselves", why then are they not willing to pay to create it? Has any potential customer signed a contract agreeing that if the foundation creates X the customer will pay Y for it? Even if we have no such financial commitment, has Google, Amazon, or Apple given us a definition of what they might be willing to buy in the future, or are the details of the Enterprise API based upon what some foundation engineers are guessing that the customers might want? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

It was stated on the record in an interview for WIRED that conversations between the the big tech companies and the project team "are already underway" - which is is a simple way of saying that yes, the 'enterprise' team has been in close contact with those companies: finding out what they currently do and how they do it, what they need and can't do themselves, what they'd like instead, and would they be willing to pay for it... This is not being built in a vacuum. LWyatt (WMF) (talk) 04:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Very helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The Enterprise API: a technical analysis

Based upon my decades of managing hardware and software projects and as a consultant specializing in rescuing engineering projects that are in trouble, here is my technical analysis based upon first principles with no insider information about the Wikimedia Foundation, Google, Amazon, or Apple:

• Assumption #1: The software that Wikipedia runs on can be run on someone else's' computer.
• Assumption #2: The content on Wikipedia can be mirrored on someone else's' computer.

See...

Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks,

Wikipedia:FAQ/Forking,

Downloading the Wikimedia software,

Wikipedia:Republishers,

Wikimedia Installation Guide. and

How to mirror Wikipedia

...to examine the above assumptions. Also keep in mind that you can create a mirror of most things that are available on the internet by crawling the website like any ordinary user.

If the above assumptions are true, then Google, Amazon, and Apple can create and maintain complete and frequently updated copies of Wikipedia on their internal servers.

They could also check Wikipedia (we are on the web, after all) to verify that individual pages on their internal server are up to date, with the choice of what pages to update driven by them displaying that content to their users in some form.

At this point, engineers at Google, Amazon, and Apple could reverse engineer the Enterprise API and create an identical API that pulls data from their internal servers. They might even be able to poach some foundation engineers, at least some of whom would welcome a doubling of salary and a promise of better management.

This would give Google, Amazon, and Apple exactly what they would get from the Enterprise API without paying a dime for it.

Engineers at Google, Amazon, and Apple could then attempt to differentiate themselves from each other by making their internal API better in some way than the Enterprise API.

One obvious improvement would be to not update their copy when a new Wikipedia user makes a change unless the edit survives without being reverted for a day or two. This would give them a feed with less vandalism.

My conclusion is that this proposal has a fatal flaw; the potential customer can easily eliminate the middleman. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

NOTE: A matching comment was published on the English Wikipedia village pump. People wishing to read replies can find them there. LWyatt (WMF) (talk) 04:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

That discussion was archived and is now here.

The one question that nobody had a good answer for in that discussion is this:

So why haven't these potential customers made a financial commitment? If, as claimed, they will be willing to pay a substantial amount for such a service sometime in the future, why are they not willing to invest even a small amount towards creating the service? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note, for those following this subheading:
On Friday 16th @1500 UTC - one week from the time the time this message was posted (minus 1 hour) - the Wikimedia Enterprise team will be hosting the April edition of our monthly Office Hours. You are most welcome to join us. Details for how to join are available at our documentation homepages here on meta @ Wikimedia Enterprise.
Equally on Meta are instructions for requesting a separate call for your community group (at a time and technical platform of your choosing); and the videos of the recordings of the two office-hours meetings from March. Relatedly, the team will be presenting at the forthcoming EMWCon Spring 2021 conference later in April. Sincerely, LWyatt (WMF) (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@LWyatt (WMF): could you add the office hours to the Front page of meta - think that will help get the message out. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Done. LWyatt (WMF) (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

This was covered in The Wikipedia Signpost. In that sin post article I was quoted as saying:

"...DGG is very skeptical about the WMF's need to raise more money and fears "commercial entanglement". User Guy Macon has similar views, believing that raising more money only distracts from the needed focus on the volunteer community. When asked if the WMF could do anything to earn his support, he answered.

' Do it without any money from donors or employee time paid for by donors. Every other for-profit LLC has to secure funding somehow; why should this one be different? Make a pitch to Google, Amazon, and Apple. If they are willing to pay for the service in the future they should be willing to invest in completely funding the creation of the service now.' ".

I stand by that statement. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Whoever invests gets to make the decisions and define the operational principles. The startup investment in this project comes from the Wikimedia Foundation, under the direction of the Board of Trustees, and so consequently the operational principles are determined for the good of the movement.

To have outsourced the financing of this [even IF that was actually possible, which is a different question entirely] would have been to also outsource the oversight and design control. Something which would not be appropriate in my opinion. The whole reason we can even have these open conversations about what is appropriate principles etc. is because it is an in-house thing. LWyatt (WMF) (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)