hi,
could wmf please extend the mediawiki software in the following way: 1. it should knows "groups" 2. allow users to store an arbitrary number of groups with their profile 3. allow to select one of the "group"s joined to an edit when saving 4. add a checkbox "COI" to an edit, meaning "potential conflict of interest" 5. display and filter edits marked with COI in a different color in history views 6. display and filter edits done for a group in a different color in history views 7. allow members of a group to receive notifications done on the group page, or when a group is mentioned in an edit/comment/talk page.
reason: currently it is quite cumbersome to participate as an organisation. it is quite cumbersome for people as well to detect COI edits. the most prominent examples are employees of the wikimedia foundation, and GLAMs. users tend to create multiple accounts, and try to create "company accounts". the main reason for this behaviour are (examples, but of course valid general): * have a feedback page / notification page for the swiss federal archive for other users * make clear that an edit is done private or as wmf employee
this then would allow the community to create new policies, e.g. the german community might cease using company accounts, and switch over to this system. this proposal is purely technical. current policies can still be applied if people do not need something else, e.g. wmf employees may continue to use "sue gardner (wmf)" accounts.
what you think?
best regards, rupert ------------------- swissGLAMour, http://wikimedia.ch
I do mind 5 and 6, since their submissions would be deleted aggressively. I feel that you may introduce a marker if you want, but not a separate queue.
On Sun, 23 Feb 2014, at 2:25, rupert THURNER wrote:
hi,
could wmf please extend the mediawiki software in the following way:
- it should knows "groups"
- allow users to store an arbitrary number of groups with their profile
- allow to select one of the "group"s joined to an edit when saving
- add a checkbox "COI" to an edit, meaning "potential conflict of interest"
- display and filter edits marked with COI in a different color in history
views 6. display and filter edits done for a group in a different color in history views 7. allow members of a group to receive notifications done on the group page, or when a group is mentioned in an edit/comment/talk page.
reason: currently it is quite cumbersome to participate as an organisation. it is quite cumbersome for people as well to detect COI edits. the most prominent examples are employees of the wikimedia foundation, and GLAMs. users tend to create multiple accounts, and try to create "company accounts". the main reason for this behaviour are (examples, but of course valid general):
- have a feedback page / notification page for the swiss federal archive
for other users
- make clear that an edit is done private or as wmf employee
this then would allow the community to create new policies, e.g. the german community might cease using company accounts, and switch over to this system. this proposal is purely technical. current policies can still be applied if people do not need something else, e.g. wmf employees may continue to use "sue gardner (wmf)" accounts.
what you think?
best regards, rupert
swissGLAMour, http://wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, Why ? Thanks. GerardM
On 22 February 2014 21:13, Gryllida [email protected] wrote:
I do mind 5 and 6, since their submissions would be deleted aggressively. I feel that you may introduce a marker if you want, but not a separate queue.
On Sun, 23 Feb 2014, at 2:25, rupert THURNER wrote:
hi,
could wmf please extend the mediawiki software in the following way:
- it should knows "groups"
- allow users to store an arbitrary number of groups with their profile
- allow to select one of the "group"s joined to an edit when saving
- add a checkbox "COI" to an edit, meaning "potential conflict of
interest"
- display and filter edits marked with COI in a different color in
history
views 6. display and filter edits done for a group in a different color in history views 7. allow members of a group to receive notifications done on the group
page,
or when a group is mentioned in an edit/comment/talk page.
reason: currently it is quite cumbersome to participate as an organisation. it is quite cumbersome for people as well to detect COI edits. the most
prominent
examples are employees of the wikimedia foundation, and GLAMs. users tend to create multiple accounts, and try to create "company accounts". the
main
reason for this behaviour are (examples, but of course valid general):
- have a feedback page / notification page for the swiss federal archive
for other users
- make clear that an edit is done private or as wmf employee
this then would allow the community to create new policies, e.g. the
german
community might cease using company accounts, and switch over to this system. this proposal is purely technical. current policies can still be applied if people do not need something else, e.g. wmf employees may continue to use "sue gardner (wmf)" accounts.
what you think?
best regards, rupert
swissGLAMour, http://wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
I think this doesn't really address the core issues that surround this hotly debated topic of paid editing. No further comment.
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Gerard Meijssen [email protected]wrote:
Hoi, Why ? Thanks. GerardM
On 22 February 2014 21:13, Gryllida [email protected] wrote:
I do mind 5 and 6, since their submissions would be deleted aggressively. I feel that you may introduce a marker if you want, but not a separate queue.
On Sun, 23 Feb 2014, at 2:25, rupert THURNER wrote:
hi,
could wmf please extend the mediawiki software in the following way:
- it should knows "groups"
- allow users to store an arbitrary number of groups with their
profile
- allow to select one of the "group"s joined to an edit when saving
- add a checkbox "COI" to an edit, meaning "potential conflict of
interest"
- display and filter edits marked with COI in a different color in
history
views 6. display and filter edits done for a group in a different color in history views 7. allow members of a group to receive notifications done on the group
page,
or when a group is mentioned in an edit/comment/talk page.
reason: currently it is quite cumbersome to participate as an organisation. it
is
quite cumbersome for people as well to detect COI edits. the most
prominent
examples are employees of the wikimedia foundation, and GLAMs. users
tend
to create multiple accounts, and try to create "company accounts". the
main
reason for this behaviour are (examples, but of course valid general):
- have a feedback page / notification page for the swiss federal
archive
for other users
- make clear that an edit is done private or as wmf employee
this then would allow the community to create new policies, e.g. the
german
community might cease using company accounts, and switch over to this system. this proposal is purely technical. current policies can still
be
applied if people do not need something else, e.g. wmf employees may continue to use "sue gardner (wmf)" accounts.
what you think?
best regards, rupert
swissGLAMour, http://wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
No, I mean, that's what article talk page is for.
It's close to useless to get a contributor admit COI by ticking a box. 1) He won't do it. 2) It's much better to add a box to ?action=edit, when a page is created, asking the contributor to type something in manually ("what motivated you to create article? please disclose conflict of interest and affiliations to help us help you.").
Stop adding complexity, bureaucracy and terms. The learning curve is full enough of paperwork, terms, badges, and reviewing as is.
On Sun, 23 Feb 2014, at 16:47, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, Why ? Thanks. GerardM
On 22 February 2014 21:13, Gryllida [email protected] wrote:
I do mind 5 and 6, since their submissions would be deleted aggressively. I feel that you may introduce a marker if you want, but not a separate queue.
On Sun, 23 Feb 2014, at 2:25, rupert THURNER wrote:
hi,
could wmf please extend the mediawiki software in the following way:
- it should knows "groups"
- allow users to store an arbitrary number of groups with their profile
- allow to select one of the "group"s joined to an edit when saving
- add a checkbox "COI" to an edit, meaning "potential conflict of
interest"
- display and filter edits marked with COI in a different color in
history
views 6. display and filter edits done for a group in a different color in history views 7. allow members of a group to receive notifications done on the group
page,
or when a group is mentioned in an edit/comment/talk page.
reason: currently it is quite cumbersome to participate as an organisation. it is quite cumbersome for people as well to detect COI edits. the most
prominent
examples are employees of the wikimedia foundation, and GLAMs. users tend to create multiple accounts, and try to create "company accounts". the
main
reason for this behaviour are (examples, but of course valid general):
- have a feedback page / notification page for the swiss federal archive
for other users
- make clear that an edit is done private or as wmf employee
this then would allow the community to create new policies, e.g. the
german
community might cease using company accounts, and switch over to this system. this proposal is purely technical. current policies can still be applied if people do not need something else, e.g. wmf employees may continue to use "sue gardner (wmf)" accounts.
what you think?
best regards, rupert
swissGLAMour, http://wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
Hi rupert,
I think this requester feature has merit, as it provides a tool for communities to use for this purpose (COI) and others.
One possible implementation is the tag system already part of the Abuse Filter extension. Bug 18670 requests the tag system be more flexible, allowing false positives to be addessed, and would also allow self-tagging of edits.
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18670 On Feb 22, 2014 10:26 PM, "rupert THURNER" [email protected] wrote:
hi,
could wmf please extend the mediawiki software in the following way:
- it should knows "groups"
- allow users to store an arbitrary number of groups with their profile
- allow to select one of the "group"s joined to an edit when saving
- add a checkbox "COI" to an edit, meaning "potential conflict of
interest" 5. display and filter edits marked with COI in a different color in history views 6. display and filter edits done for a group in a different color in history views 7. allow members of a group to receive notifications done on the group page, or when a group is mentioned in an edit/comment/talk page.
reason: currently it is quite cumbersome to participate as an organisation. it is quite cumbersome for people as well to detect COI edits. the most prominent examples are employees of the wikimedia foundation, and GLAMs. users tend to create multiple accounts, and try to create "company accounts". the main reason for this behaviour are (examples, but of course valid general):
- have a feedback page / notification page for the swiss federal archive
for other users
- make clear that an edit is done private or as wmf employee
this then would allow the community to create new policies, e.g. the german community might cease using company accounts, and switch over to this system. this proposal is purely technical. current policies can still be applied if people do not need something else, e.g. wmf employees may continue to use "sue gardner (wmf)" accounts.
what you think?
best regards, rupert
swissGLAMour, http://wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
I don't know if this is a broadly shared opinion, but like Rupert, I think this is too difficult to step-in as an organisation. This is in particular true if you want to do it on an international/multi-language level.
GLAMs, which are the organisations we want to treasure, are impacted among others. Read this report from Switzerland for example: https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/January_2014/Contents/Sw...
This is of course the duty of each language community to decide how to deal with this thematic. However, Mediawiki can play a role by helping to achieve as much as possible transparency. That the reason why I think these concrete propositions are discussion worth.
I strongly believe that if the tool allows us to better take in consideration and track "Corporate personhood" contributions then the whole debate will be far less passionate, easier to conduct, and at the end better solutions will emerge.
Emmanuel
Le 22/02/2014 16:25, rupert THURNER a écrit :
could wmf please extend the mediawiki software in the following way:
- it should knows "groups"
- allow users to store an arbitrary number of groups with their profile
- allow to select one of the "group"s joined to an edit when saving
- add a checkbox "COI" to an edit, meaning "potential conflict of interest"
- display and filter edits marked with COI in a different color in history
views 6. display and filter edits done for a group in a different color in history views 7. allow members of a group to receive notifications done on the group page, or when a group is mentioned in an edit/comment/talk page.
reason: currently it is quite cumbersome to participate as an organisation. it is quite cumbersome for people as well to detect COI edits. the most prominent examples are employees of the wikimedia foundation, and GLAMs. users tend to create multiple accounts, and try to create "company accounts". the main reason for this behaviour are (examples, but of course valid general):
- have a feedback page / notification page for the swiss federal archive
for other users
- make clear that an edit is done private or as wmf employee
this then would allow the community to create new policies, e.g. the german community might cease using company accounts, and switch over to this system. this proposal is purely technical. current policies can still be applied if people do not need something else, e.g. wmf employees may continue to use "sue gardner (wmf)" accounts.
what you think?
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 7:25 AM, rupert THURNER [email protected]wrote:
could wmf please extend the mediawiki software in the following way:
- it should knows "groups"
- allow users to store an arbitrary number of groups with their profile
- allow to select one of the "group"s joined to an edit when saving
- add a checkbox "COI" to an edit, meaning "potential conflict of
interest" 5. display and filter edits marked with COI in a different color in history views 6. display and filter edits done for a group in a different color in history views 7. allow members of a group to receive notifications done on the group page, or when a group is mentioned in an edit/comment/talk page.
[With my WMF product manager hat on...]
This a big request with many moving parts. We should probably try to separate them out and simplify where we can. I'd recommend filing bugs for structured information about groups, profiles, the ability to join/leave groups, activity feeds per group, and more. This is something that is of general interest, and is not specific to COI-related issues at all.
Gryllida's comment was a bit abrasive but is a correct understanding of the challenge here I think, in terms of creating richer kinds of information about types of edits/editors without making a user do unnecessary extra work. Imagine if there is essentially as many group types as there are categories, for instance. It probably makes more sense to have collections of pages associated with a group, so that we can generate a feed of group activity not by making the user select a group when saving, but automatically. So for example: I'm in "Group:Beer" and I edit the article on "Pilsner", so my edits show in a feed of edits by Group:Beer members to articles in that subject.
In the long run, we should start creating structured information about topical groups, and let people access it both through a group page as well as some kind of editor profile. However, it's not going to happen in the next calendar year, so I'm not sure it's a good interim solution to the problem of how to make COI disclosures easier. AbuseFilter also is honestly probably not the right solution, even if self-tagging existed.
Steven
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 2:32 AM, Steven Walling [email protected]wrote:
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 7:25 AM, rupert THURNER <[email protected]
wrote:
could wmf please extend the mediawiki software in the following way:
- it should knows "groups"
- allow users to store an arbitrary number of groups with their profile
- allow to select one of the "group"s joined to an edit when saving
- add a checkbox "COI" to an edit, meaning "potential conflict of
interest" 5. display and filter edits marked with COI in a different color in
history
views 6. display and filter edits done for a group in a different color in history views 7. allow members of a group to receive notifications done on the group page, or when a group is mentioned in an edit/comment/talk page.
[With my WMF product manager hat on...]
the request is about _exactly this_, for wikipedia edits. you mark your
contribution _when you write it_. you can do this by not changing your user account, using your gmail address as sender. this use case is quite common, and it is optional.
rupert.
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 7:25 AM, rupert THURNER <
wrote:
could wmf please extend the mediawiki software in the following way:
- it should knows "groups"
- allow users to store an arbitrary number of groups with their
profile
- allow to select one of the "group"s joined to an edit when saving
- add a checkbox "COI" to an edit, meaning "potential conflict of
interest" 5. display and filter edits marked with COI in a different color in
history
views 6. display and filter edits done for a group in a different color in history views 7. allow members of a group to receive notifications done on the group page, or when a group is mentioned in an edit/comment/talk page.
I think Rupert's proposal does not go far enough in terms of addressing the potential conflict of interests by contributors because it focuses exclusively on paid edits while failing to address other conflict of interests problems that lead to neutrality issues. While anyone should be free to edit, the edit box should contain a dynamic box at the bottom that includes a potential list of conflicts that create bias problems based on the conflict. The user, before submitting their edit, should click each box verifying what their (potential) advocacy problems are so that their edits may be vetted. This includes gender, religion, nationality, ethnicity, political alignment, Political party membership, academic discipline, level of education, yearly earnings, city you live in, and employer.
So if you are editing an article about Serbian politics, you would be asked if you are a Serb nationalist, a Croatian nationalist, a right wing political party member, a left wing political party member, male, Christian, Muslim, have a PhD, work for the government, work for for a non-profit, if you live in Belgrade, etc. This would increase Wikipedia's transparency and accountability of editors for their actions. It would actively discourage advocacy of all types, including the paid type.
Sincerely, Laura Hale
2014-02-25 21:20 GMT+05:30 Laura Hale [email protected]:
So if you are editing an article about Serbian politics, you would be asked if you are a Serb nationalist, a Croatian nationalist, a right wing political party member, a left wing political party member, male, Christian, Muslim, have a PhD, work for the government, work for for a non-profit, if you live in Belgrade, etc.
Hopefully, this is a (bad) joke.
(...) Sincerely, Laura Hale
Regards,
Yann
-- twitter: purplepopple _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
Laura Hale wrote:
I think Rupert's proposal does not go far enough in terms of addressing the potential conflict of interests by contributors because it focuses exclusively on paid edits while failing to address other conflict of interests problems that lead to neutrality issues. While anyone should be free to edit, the edit box should contain a dynamic box at the bottom that includes a potential list of conflicts that create bias problems based on the conflict. The user, before submitting their edit, should click each box verifying what their (potential) advocacy problems are so that their edits may be vetted. This includes gender, religion, nationality, ethnicity, political alignment, Political party membership, academic discipline, level of education, yearly earnings, city you live in, and employer.
So if you are editing an article about Serbian politics, you would be asked if you are a Serb nationalist, a Croatian nationalist, a right wing political party member, a left wing political party member, male, Christian, Muslim, have a PhD, work for the government, work for for a non-profit, if you live in Belgrade, etc. This would increase Wikipedia's transparency and accountability of editors for their actions. It would actively discourage advocacy of all types, including the paid type.
Hmmm, I'm running into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law with this post. I honestly can't tell if you're being serious here.
MZMcBride
On a second thought, do we want to add an optional "affiliation" field to the signup form, so the affiliation goes at the end of username in braces?
- DGarry (WMF) - Fred (DesignSolutionsInc) - David (MIT) - ...
So the signup form would look like this:
------------------------------------------------------------- | | | [ Username preview in large green font ] | | | | Username: | | ___________________ | | Password: | | ___________________ | | Password 2: | | ___________________ | | Email (optional): | | ___________________ | | Affiliation (optional; if your editing is related to work): | | ___________________ | | | -------------------------------------------------------------
I.e.
------------------------------------------------------------- | | | [ "Gryllida (FOO)" in large green font ] | | | | Username: | | _Gryllida__________ | | Password: | | ___________________ | | Password 2: | | ___________________ | | Email (optional): | | ___________________ | | Affiliation (optional; if your editing is related to work): | | _FOO_______________ | | | -------------------------------------------------------------
Gryllida.
On Sun, 23 Feb 2014, at 1:25, rupert THURNER wrote:
hi,
could wmf please extend the mediawiki software in the following way:
- it should knows "groups"
- allow users to store an arbitrary number of groups with their profile
- allow to select one of the "group"s joined to an edit when saving
- add a checkbox "COI" to an edit, meaning "potential conflict of interest"
- display and filter edits marked with COI in a different color in history
views 6. display and filter edits done for a group in a different color in history views 7. allow members of a group to receive notifications done on the group page, or when a group is mentioned in an edit/comment/talk page.
reason: currently it is quite cumbersome to participate as an organisation. it is quite cumbersome for people as well to detect COI edits. the most prominent examples are employees of the wikimedia foundation, and GLAMs. users tend to create multiple accounts, and try to create "company accounts". the main reason for this behaviour are (examples, but of course valid general):
- have a feedback page / notification page for the swiss federal archive
for other users
- make clear that an edit is done private or as wmf employee
this then would allow the community to create new policies, e.g. the german community might cease using company accounts, and switch over to this system. this proposal is purely technical. current policies can still be applied if people do not need something else, e.g. wmf employees may continue to use "sue gardner (wmf)" accounts.
what you think?
best regards, rupert
swissGLAMour, http://wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
I hear where you're coming from, Gryllida. This only works if there is some mechanism by which the affiliation can be confirmed. The (WMF) affiliation is easily confirmed, and in fact anyone adding that affiliation to their account name who isn't a WMF staffer gets blocked pretty quickly.
However, there's no easy mechanism to verify an affiliation external to the WMF family. I understand our colleagues at the German Wikipedia have a process for verifying authorized accounts for specific entities, but their community considers them role accounts and restricts them in particular ways. Other projects, including English Wikipedia, have essentially "banned" role accounts. What would happen if David (MIT) accepts a position at Stanford? Does he have to change his username to David (Stanford) - oh, that won't work since the original edits would be related to MIT...so he'd have to start a new account David (Stanford), and somehow link them. What issues would arise if the user doesn't want to change usernames once he's no longer affiliated with an organization?
I admit I'm partial to what German Wikipedia is doing with role accounts for organizations, but given the harshness toward "commerce" accounts on some other projects, I'm not sure it would work universally.
Best,
Risker/Anne
On 19 April 2014 19:17, Gryllida [email protected] wrote:
On a second thought, do we want to add an optional "affiliation" field to the signup form, so the affiliation goes at the end of username in braces?
- DGarry (WMF)
- Fred (DesignSolutionsInc)
- David (MIT)
- ...
So the signup form would look like this:
| | | [ Username preview in large green font ] | | | | Username: | | ___________________ | | Password: | | ___________________ | | Password 2: | | ___________________ | | Email (optional): | | ___________________ | | Affiliation (optional; if your editing is related to work): | | ___________________ | | |
I.e.
| | | [ "Gryllida (FOO)" in large green font ] | | | | Username: | | _Gryllida__________ | | Password: | | ___________________ | | Password 2: | | ___________________ | | Email (optional): | | ___________________ | | Affiliation (optional; if your editing is related to work): | | _FOO_______________ | | |
Gryllida.
On Sun, 23 Feb 2014, at 1:25, rupert THURNER wrote:
hi,
could wmf please extend the mediawiki software in the following way:
- it should knows "groups"
- allow users to store an arbitrary number of groups with their profile
- allow to select one of the "group"s joined to an edit when saving
- add a checkbox "COI" to an edit, meaning "potential conflict of
interest"
- display and filter edits marked with COI in a different color in
history
views 6. display and filter edits done for a group in a different color in history views 7. allow members of a group to receive notifications done on the group
page,
or when a group is mentioned in an edit/comment/talk page.
reason: currently it is quite cumbersome to participate as an organisation. it is quite cumbersome for people as well to detect COI edits. the most
prominent
examples are employees of the wikimedia foundation, and GLAMs. users tend to create multiple accounts, and try to create "company accounts". the
main
reason for this behaviour are (examples, but of course valid general):
- have a feedback page / notification page for the swiss federal archive
for other users
- make clear that an edit is done private or as wmf employee
this then would allow the community to create new policies, e.g. the
german
community might cease using company accounts, and switch over to this system. this proposal is purely technical. current policies can still be applied if people do not need something else, e.g. wmf employees may continue to use "sue gardner (wmf)" accounts.
what you think?
best regards, rupert
swissGLAMour, http://wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
Silly technical remark: Everybody, please stop doing this with parentheses. It breaks in right to left languages. Gary-WMF is just as readable, and doesn't have this problem. Thanks for the attention. בתאריך 20 באפר 2014 02:17, מאת "Gryllida" [email protected]:
On a second thought, do we want to add an optional "affiliation" field to the signup form, so the affiliation goes at the end of username in braces?
- DGarry (WMF)
- Fred (DesignSolutionsInc)
- David (MIT)
- ...
So the signup form would look like this:
| | | [ Username preview in large green font ] | | | | Username: | | ___________________ | | Password: | | ___________________ | | Password 2: | | ___________________ | | Email (optional): | | ___________________ | | Affiliation (optional; if your editing is related to work): | | ___________________ | | |
I.e.
| | | [ "Gryllida (FOO)" in large green font ] | | | | Username: | | _Gryllida__________ | | Password: | | ___________________ | | Password 2: | | ___________________ | | Email (optional): | | ___________________ | | Affiliation (optional; if your editing is related to work): | | _FOO_______________ | | |
Gryllida.
On Sun, 23 Feb 2014, at 1:25, rupert THURNER wrote:
hi,
could wmf please extend the mediawiki software in the following way:
- it should knows "groups"
- allow users to store an arbitrary number of groups with their profile
- allow to select one of the "group"s joined to an edit when saving
- add a checkbox "COI" to an edit, meaning "potential conflict of
interest"
- display and filter edits marked with COI in a different color in
history
views 6. display and filter edits done for a group in a different color in history views 7. allow members of a group to receive notifications done on the group
page,
or when a group is mentioned in an edit/comment/talk page.
reason: currently it is quite cumbersome to participate as an organisation. it is quite cumbersome for people as well to detect COI edits. the most
prominent
examples are employees of the wikimedia foundation, and GLAMs. users tend to create multiple accounts, and try to create "company accounts". the
main
reason for this behaviour are (examples, but of course valid general):
- have a feedback page / notification page for the swiss federal archive
for other users
- make clear that an edit is done private or as wmf employee
this then would allow the community to create new policies, e.g. the
german
community might cease using company accounts, and switch over to this system. this proposal is purely technical. current policies can still be applied if people do not need something else, e.g. wmf employees may continue to use "sue gardner (wmf)" accounts.
what you think?
best regards, rupert
swissGLAMour, http://wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
Amir, this is the first time that one's been brought up. I'll chat with OIT about potentially changing moving forward.
pb
*Philippe Beaudette * \ Director, Community Advocacy \ Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 | [email protected] | : @Philippewikihttps://twitter.com/Philippewiki
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 11:39 PM, Amir E. Aharoni < [email protected]> wrote:
Silly technical remark: Everybody, please stop doing this with parentheses. It breaks in right to left languages. Gary-WMF is just as readable, and doesn't have this problem. Thanks for the attention. בתאריך 20 באפר 2014 02:17, מאת "Gryllida" [email protected]:
On a second thought, do we want to add an optional "affiliation" field to the signup form, so the affiliation goes at the end of username in
braces?
- DGarry (WMF)
- Fred (DesignSolutionsInc)
- David (MIT)
- ...
So the signup form would look like this:
| | | [ Username preview in large green font ] | | | | Username: | | ___________________ | | Password: | | ___________________ | | Password 2: | | ___________________ | | Email (optional): | | ___________________ | | Affiliation (optional; if your editing is related to work): | | ___________________ | | |
I.e.
| | | [ "Gryllida (FOO)" in large green font ] | | | | Username: | | _Gryllida__________ | | Password: | | ___________________ | | Password 2: | | ___________________ | | Email (optional): | | ___________________ | | Affiliation (optional; if your editing is related to work): | | _FOO_______________ | | |
Gryllida.
On Sun, 23 Feb 2014, at 1:25, rupert THURNER wrote:
hi,
could wmf please extend the mediawiki software in the following way:
- it should knows "groups"
- allow users to store an arbitrary number of groups with their
profile
- allow to select one of the "group"s joined to an edit when saving
- add a checkbox "COI" to an edit, meaning "potential conflict of
interest"
- display and filter edits marked with COI in a different color in
history
views 6. display and filter edits done for a group in a different color in history views 7. allow members of a group to receive notifications done on the group
page,
or when a group is mentioned in an edit/comment/talk page.
reason: currently it is quite cumbersome to participate as an organisation. it
is
quite cumbersome for people as well to detect COI edits. the most
prominent
examples are employees of the wikimedia foundation, and GLAMs. users
tend
to create multiple accounts, and try to create "company accounts". the
main
reason for this behaviour are (examples, but of course valid general):
- have a feedback page / notification page for the swiss federal
archive
for other users
- make clear that an edit is done private or as wmf employee
this then would allow the community to create new policies, e.g. the
german
community might cease using company accounts, and switch over to this system. this proposal is purely technical. current policies can still
be
applied if people do not need something else, e.g. wmf employees may continue to use "sue gardner (wmf)" accounts.
what you think?
best regards, rupert
swissGLAMour, http://wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
Amir E. Aharoni, 20/04/2014 08:39:
Silly technical remark: Everybody, please stop doing this with parentheses. It breaks in right to left languages. Gary-WMF is just as readable, and doesn't have this problem. Thanks for the attention.
Your suggestion works against the built-in assumptions of MediaWiki for disambiguations. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Pipe_trick
Nemo
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) [email protected]wrote:
Amir E. Aharoni, 20/04/2014 08:39:
Silly technical remark: Everybody, please stop doing this with
parentheses. It breaks in right to left languages. Gary-WMF is just as readable, and doesn't have this problem. Thanks for the attention.
Your suggestion works against the built-in assumptions of MediaWiki for disambiguations. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Pipe_trick
Then "Gary, WMF"?
Nemo
Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
On 20/04/14 11:50, Liangent wrote:
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) [email protected]wrote:
Amir E. Aharoni, 20/04/2014 08:39:
Silly technical remark: Everybody, please stop doing this with
parentheses. It breaks in right to left languages. Gary-WMF is just as readable, and doesn't have this problem. Thanks for the attention.
Your suggestion works against the built-in assumptions of MediaWiki for disambiguations. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Pipe_trick
Then "Gary, WMF"?
Nemo
Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
Removing the affiliation from the name itself and adding it as a group would allow the mediawiki to format the name and group in a way that makes sense for the given language. Keep to the parentheses for english and such, do other things for ones where that doesn't work or wouldn't be the norm.
-I
On Sun, 20 Apr 2014, Isarra Yos wrote:
Removing the affiliation from the name itself and adding it as a group would allow the mediawiki to format the name and group in a way that makes sense for the given language. Keep to the parentheses for english and such, do other things for ones where that doesn't work or wouldn't be the norm.
That sounds like a good plan, although would need to be a plan to cope with duplicates, e.g. user:Whatamidoing and user:Whatamidoing (WMF) both exist.
Chris
---- Chris McKenna
[email protected] www.sucs.org/~cmckenna
The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes, but with the heart
Antoine de Saint Exupery
Preferable for the affiliation to be a variable linked to the username. It can then be changed if/when applicable. Is should be possible to link a string of affiliations to a username. User should be able to add affiliations at will but probably should have to request to have them removed Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris McKenna" [email protected] To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" [email protected] Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2014 6:23 PM Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Affiliation in username
On Sun, 20 Apr 2014, Isarra Yos wrote:
Removing the affiliation from the name itself and adding it as a group would allow the mediawiki to format the name and group in a way that makes sense for the given language. Keep to the parentheses for english and such, do other things for ones where that doesn't work or wouldn't be the norm.
That sounds like a good plan, although would need to be a plan to cope with duplicates, e.g. user:Whatamidoing and user:Whatamidoing (WMF) both exist.
Chris
Chris McKenna
[email protected] www.sucs.org/~cmckenna
The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes, but with the heart
Antoine de Saint Exupery
Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Peter Southwood < [email protected]> wrote:
Preferable for the affiliation to be a variable linked to the username. It can then be changed if/when applicable. Is should be possible to link a string of affiliations to a username. User should be able to add affiliations at will but probably should have to request to have them removed Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris McKenna" [email protected] To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" [email protected] Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2014 6:23 PM Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Affiliation in username
Do WMF accounts still get the staff usergroup? If so, then the "affiliation variable" already exists. Building the (WMF) into the username makes the affiliation close to indelible; if it is confined to a usergroup, then the removal of the usergroup hides the previously obvious connection between edit and affiliation.
Hence the suggestion that the user has to request removal. Cheers, Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nathan" [email protected] To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" [email protected] Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 3:16 PM Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Affiliation in username
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Peter Southwood < [email protected]> wrote:
Preferable for the affiliation to be a variable linked to the username. It can then be changed if/when applicable. Is should be possible to link a string of affiliations to a username. User should be able to add affiliations at will but probably should have to request to have them removed Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris McKenna" [email protected] To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" [email protected] Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2014 6:23 PM Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Affiliation in username
Do WMF accounts still get the staff usergroup? If so, then the "affiliation variable" already exists. Building the (WMF) into the username makes the affiliation close to indelible; if it is confined to a usergroup, then the removal of the usergroup hides the previously obvious connection between edit and affiliation. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
On 04/21/2014 09:16 AM, Nathan wrote:
Do WMF accounts still get the staff usergroup?
Most accounts of staff and contractors do not get that usergroup: it is a very highly privileged group that includes pretty much every permission on every wiki, and access to it is on a strictly-needed basis.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:GlobalUsers/Staff lists some 40 accounts with the right - out of >160 staff - mostly of accounts held by people in LCA.
So the presence of the group is not a usable discriminant.
-- Marc
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Marc A. Pelletier [email protected]wrote:
On 04/21/2014 09:16 AM, Nathan wrote:
Do WMF accounts still get the staff usergroup?
Most accounts of staff and contractors do not get that usergroup: it is a very highly privileged group that includes pretty much every permission on every wiki, and access to it is on a strictly-needed basis.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:GlobalUsers/Staff lists some 40 accounts with the right - out of >160 staff - mostly of accounts held by people in LCA.
So the presence of the group is not a usable discriminant.
-- Marc
Of the 120 staffers that don't have a "staff account", how many have accounts with (WMF) in the username - or accounts at all? I'd think that unless employees had a predictable reason for editing qua staff, they wouldn't need the (WMF) indicator or a staff flag, right? In any case, a little off track with the initial proposal, which sounds like it doesn't have a ton of support.
On 04/21/2014 12:07 PM, Nathan wrote:
Of the 120 staffers that don't have a "staff account", how many have accounts with (WMF) in the username - or accounts at all?
I honestly do not know the numbers, though I'd wager "most" is close to reality - certainly any recent addition to the teams.
I think the confusion stems from the user right being /named/ "staff": accounts aren't staff acounts by virtue of having the bit or not but simply by having been created for the purpose of communicating with the community in an 'official' function (all staffers are encouraged to create such an account to discriminate their role from volunteer involvement unrelated to the job). My understanding is that you do not keep the staff account when you leave the Foundation.
The staff userright, on the other hand, is granted and removed as needed by the requirements of one's job at the time.
-- Marc
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Marc A. Pelletier [email protected] wrote:
On 04/21/2014 12:07 PM, Nathan wrote:
Of the 120 staffers that don't have a "staff account", how many have accounts with (WMF) in the username - or accounts at all?
I honestly do not know the numbers, though I'd wager "most" is close to reality - certainly any recent addition to the teams.
Ah, interesting. I wonder why its necessary for most or all WMF staffers to have accounts with an explicit WMF affiliation.
It is so that there is (theoretically) no question when we are operating as a staff versus operating as volunteers.
On Apr 21, 2014, at 11:08 AM, Nathan [email protected] wrote:
Ah, interesting. I wonder why its necessary for most or all WMF staffers to have accounts with an explicit WMF affiliation.
--- Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Nathan [email protected] wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Marc A. Pelletier [email protected] wrote:
On 04/21/2014 12:07 PM, Nathan wrote:
Of the 120 staffers that don't have a "staff account", how many have accounts with (WMF) in the username - or accounts at all?
I honestly do not know the numbers, though I'd wager "most" is close to reality - certainly any recent addition to the teams.
Ah, interesting. I wonder why its necessary for most or all WMF staffers to have accounts with an explicit WMF affiliation.
Aye, given the nature of our work the vast majority of staff have a staff account of some sort (not everyone uses separate accounts though we strongly encourage them to). In the end almost everyone on staff has a reason, at some point, to edit on a public wiki whether they are HR/Finance ( discussions or postings about FDC proposals/budget publications etc) or technical/community/grant focused. For many that need actually tends to lean towards meta and/or mediawiki only though a fair bit stretch elsewhere on the projects ( engineering and community people especially ).
Philippe and I have worked hard to try and make the 'staff' user group as it traditionally stands a very 'as needed' right and so the default is now to give out no rights or "smaller", more focused, rights (meta admin, central notice admin, global interface editor etc) that fit their need. ( we ask for a use case for every rights request, you can see most of them here https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AvhjkTJIpW2zdDl1bVBuOU1jQUJwOHd... rights aren't on there because they are generally handled by engineering).
Overall we don't actually require separate accounts at the moment but I strongly encourage them, I think it behooves everyone to have a clear distinction between 'personal' and 'work' actions and the separate accounts help that significantly. I also think it helps in locking down access if they depart the foundation at some point.
James
James Alexander Legal and Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
Hi James,
On 21 Apr 2014, at 19:16, James Alexander [email protected] wrote:
Philippe and I have worked hard to try and make the 'staff' user group as it traditionally stands a very 'as needed' right and so the default is now to give out no rights or "smaller", more focused, rights (meta admin, central notice admin, global interface editor etc) that fit their need. ( we ask for a use case for every rights request, you can see most of them here https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AvhjkTJIpW2zdDl1bVBuOU1jQUJwOHd... rights aren't on there because they are generally handled by engineering).
Thanks for sharing that link. It didn't work for me the first time, but removing the output= parameter fixes that, so the working URL is: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AvhjkTJIpW2zdDl1bVBuOU1jQUJwOHd... Please can this be turned onto an on-wiki document, rather than being a google doc, as it's quite an important one that should be transparent to the community as a whole! I'd be happy to help with the wikification if that would be useful.
Thanks, Mike
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Michael Peel [email protected] wrote:
Hi James,
On 21 Apr 2014, at 19:16, James Alexander [email protected] wrote:
Philippe and I have worked hard to try and make the 'staff' user group as it traditionally stands a very 'as needed' right and so the default is
now
to give out no rights or "smaller", more focused, rights (meta admin, central notice admin, global interface editor etc) that fit their need. ( we ask for a use case for every rights request, you can see most of them here
rights aren't on there because they are generally handled by engineering).
Thanks for sharing that link. It didn't work for me the first time, but removing the output= parameter fixes that, so the working URL is:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AvhjkTJIpW2zdDl1bVBuOU1jQUJwOHd... Please can this be turned onto an on-wiki document, rather than being a google doc, as it's quite an important one that should be transparent to the community as a whole! I'd be happy to help with the wikification if that would be useful.
Thanks, Mike
Nemo was nice enough to add it to the the user groups page on meta so that it's linked from there as well.
Right now it's on a google doc because it is a public view of the tracking spreadsheet Philippe and I use (which includes staff whose rights requests were denied or removed as well as some contact info and additional tracking (for example for the formal "staff rights" themselves we give training on what kind of approvals are needed for certain actions and record when that was done) and so gets automatically updated as I update that. I originally did it on a private wiki (I have a strong preference for wiki of some sort vs google docs personally) but the spreadsheet has just tended to be a significantly easier tool for tracking and updating. I wouldn't want to duplicate it on wiki unless we put my whole process there (otherwise it is significantly more likely to get out of date) and to do that would require some additional discussion and thinking.
James
On 21 Apr 2014, at 19:35, James Alexander [email protected] wrote:
Right now it's on a google doc because it is a public view of the tracking spreadsheet Philippe and I use (which includes staff whose rights requests were denied or removed as well as some contact info and additional tracking (for example for the formal "staff rights" themselves we give training on what kind of approvals are needed for certain actions and record when that was done) and so gets automatically updated as I update that. I originally did it on a private wiki (I have a strong preference for wiki of some sort vs google docs personally) but the spreadsheet has just tended to be a significantly easier tool for tracking and updating. I wouldn't want to duplicate it on wiki unless we put my whole process there (otherwise it is significantly more likely to get out of date) and to do that would require some additional discussion and thinking.
OK, fair enough. It would be nice to see the entire process take place transparently on meta, if possible.
Thanks, Mike
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 2:16 PM, James Alexander [email protected]wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Nathan [email protected] wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Marc A. Pelletier [email protected] wrote:
On 04/21/2014 12:07 PM, Nathan wrote:
Of the 120 staffers that don't have a "staff account", how many have accounts with (WMF) in the username - or accounts at all?
I honestly do not know the numbers, though I'd wager "most" is close to reality - certainly any recent addition to the teams.
Ah, interesting. I wonder why its necessary for most or all WMF staffers
to
have accounts with an explicit WMF affiliation.
Aye, given the nature of our work the vast majority of staff have a staff account of some sort (not everyone uses separate accounts though we strongly encourage them to). In the end almost everyone on staff has a reason, at some point, to edit on a public wiki whether they are HR/Finance ( discussions or postings about FDC proposals/budget publications etc) or technical/community/grant focused. For many that need actually tends to lean towards meta and/or mediawiki only though a fair bit stretch elsewhere on the projects ( engineering and community people especially ).
Philippe and I have worked hard to try and make the 'staff' user group as it traditionally stands a very 'as needed' right and so the default is now to give out no rights or "smaller", more focused, rights (meta admin, central notice admin, global interface editor etc) that fit their need. ( we ask for a use case for every rights request, you can see most of them here
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AvhjkTJIpW2zdDl1bVBuOU1jQUJwOHd... rights aren't on there because they are generally handled by engineering).
Overall we don't actually require separate accounts at the moment but I strongly encourage them, I think it behooves everyone to have a clear distinction between 'personal' and 'work' actions and the separate accounts help that significantly. I also think it helps in locking down access if they depart the foundation at some point.
James
Thanks, that makes sense. After I asked I thought about project specific wikis, meta, wikimediafoundation.org, etc. I do see that any staffer may need access to one or more of these wikis, and with SUL that accounts get propagated across all projects anyway.
On 21/04/2014, James Alexander [email protected] wrote: ...
we ask for a use case for every rights request, you can see most of them here https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AvhjkTJIpW2zdDl1bVBuOU1jQUJwOHd...
James, if you open this spreadsheet and switch on publishing (go to File / Publish to the web...) then I'll take a look at Faebot keeping a table regularly synchronized on meta using the Google spreadsheets API.
Fae
On 10 May 2014 19:02, Fæ [email protected] wrote:
On 21/04/2014, James Alexander [email protected] wrote: ...
we ask for a use case for every rights request, you can see most of them here https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AvhjkTJIpW2zdDl1bVBuOU1jQUJwOHd...
James, if you open this spreadsheet and switch on publishing (go to File / Publish to the web...) then I'll take a look at Faebot keeping a table regularly synchronized on meta using the Google spreadsheets API.
Ping.
I would like to repeat my offer to add this extra level of openness to this information, my email might have been lost in the long thread. Is there a reason for not switching on publishing to the public spreadsheet so that the community can refer to a maintained wiki-table of the same data on meta rather than relying entirely on Google's excellent but closed-source collaboration tools?
Thanks, Fae
I'm heading to bed but will follow up with you tomorrow from the office. Publishing is on for that sheet at the moment (that's what I'm using to show it through the link I gave) so not exactly sure what else you need but I'd love if faebot was able to help keep it synced up on wiki.
Actually, others may have figured it out (I know the one on wiki works), but I just noticed that particular link was broken somehow in my email (sysadmin got added to the end). The correct, working, link is https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AvhjkTJIpW2zdDl1bVBuOU1jQUJwOHd...
James Alexander Legal and Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 2:58 AM, Fæ [email protected] wrote:
On 10 May 2014 19:02, Fæ [email protected] wrote:
On 21/04/2014, James Alexander [email protected] wrote: ...
we ask for a use case for every rights request, you can see most of them here
James, if you open this spreadsheet and switch on publishing (go to File / Publish to the web...) then I'll take a look at Faebot keeping a table regularly synchronized on meta using the Google spreadsheets API.
Ping.
I would like to repeat my offer to add this extra level of openness to this information, my email might have been lost in the long thread. Is there a reason for not switching on publishing to the public spreadsheet so that the community can refer to a maintained wiki-table of the same data on meta rather than relying entirely on Google's excellent but closed-source collaboration tools?
Thanks, Fae -- [email protected] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
On 10 May 2014 19:02, Fæ [email protected] wrote:
... I'll take a look at Faebot keeping a table regularly synchronized on meta using the Google spreadsheets API.
For anyone that may be interested in seeing which WMF employees have what advanced permissions, there is now a wikitable on meta automatically generated from the Google spreadsheet that the WMF maintains.
The table is at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Advanced_Permissions
I don't want to encourage folks to start relying on Google spreadsheets(!), however keeping spreadsheets like this in-sync with on-wiki tables is not a new issue. Anyone interested in how I did it can find a copy of the Python script at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Faebot/code/advanced_permissions
I have also asked for a meta bot flag, as I'm planning for Faebot to check/update the table once a week: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Requests_for_bot_status#Faebot
Fae
Thanks so much for the help with this Fæ!
James Alexander Legal and Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Fæ [email protected] wrote:
On 10 May 2014 19:02, Fæ [email protected] wrote:
... I'll take a look at Faebot keeping a table regularly synchronized on meta using the Google spreadsheets API.
For anyone that may be interested in seeing which WMF employees have what advanced permissions, there is now a wikitable on meta automatically generated from the Google spreadsheet that the WMF maintains.
The table is at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Advanced_Permissions
I don't want to encourage folks to start relying on Google spreadsheets(!), however keeping spreadsheets like this in-sync with on-wiki tables is not a new issue. Anyone interested in how I did it can find a copy of the Python script at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Faebot/code/advanced_permissions
I have also asked for a meta bot flag, as I'm planning for Faebot to check/update the table once a week: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Requests_for_bot_status#Faebot
Fae
[email protected] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014, at 0:58, Isarra Yos wrote:
On 20/04/14 11:50, Liangent wrote:
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) [email protected]wrote:
Amir E. Aharoni, 20/04/2014 08:39:
Silly technical remark: Everybody, please stop doing this with
parentheses. It breaks in right to left languages. Gary-WMF is just as readable, and doesn't have this problem. Thanks for the attention.
Your suggestion works against the built-in assumptions of MediaWiki for disambiguations. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Pipe_trick
Then "Gary, WMF"?
Nemo
Removing the affiliation from the name itself and adding it as a group would allow the mediawiki to format the name and group in a way that makes sense for the given language. Keep to the parentheses for english and such, do other things for ones where that doesn't work or wouldn't be the norm.
-I
Removing the affiliation from the name itself could also help to keep a history of past affiliations and address issues raised by Risker earlier.
Gryllida.