Astinson (WMF)

Want to communicate with me about work with The Wikipedia Library, this is the place to do it! If you are interested in talking to me about other Wikipedia related work, check out User talk:Sadads.

Newspapers.com

Just got your note re being approved for Newspapers access. I am definitely still interested. I'm awaiting eagerly the "forthcoming Wikipedia email." DutchmanInDisguise (talk) 02:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi @DutchmanInDisguise:, sorry for not responding sooner. Did I not leave a message asking for your email address? That was an error on my part. It doesn't seem like your user email has been enabled (check your Special:Preferences). Please send me a user email, and I will send you registration information. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I just enabled user email (I think) and sent you a message. DutchmanInDisguise (talk) 15:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Got it! Thank you very much. It may be some time after Christmas before I can really put it to use. DutchmanInDisguise (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@DutchmanInDisguise: If you fill out the Google form today, I plan on sending our partner a batch of users to be activated before Christmas! Astinson (WMF) (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@Astinson (WMF): I just filled out the registration forms. Merry Christmas, Alex! DutchmanInDisguise (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi @DutchmanInDisguise: make sure to fill out the TWL Google form linked in that email as well, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@Astinson (WMF): Done. DutchmanInDisguise (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@Astinson (WMF): What's happening at Newspapers.com anyway? I tried to find some stuff there today and it said I still don't have access. DutchmanInDisguise (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

@DutchmanInDisguise: Thanks for reminding me/pinging me! I sent in the accounts to be activated, and the email address you supplied should have been upgraded about 2 weeks ago (the update from me, got lost with the holiday break). Just sent out an update email to the account you supplied, if you didn't get the email, that is an indication that you logged the wrong information. I also am sending an inquiry to our contact there to make sure that your email was included, 17:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Alex! I just went to Newspapers.com and was able to log in. Maybe tomorrow when I'm more wide awake, and can remember what I was going to search for, I'll go download some stuff. ;) DutchmanInDisguise (talk) 05:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@DutchmanInDisguise: Brilliant! That's what I like to hear! Glad everything is up and running, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

After a year

I noticed the JSTOR and Elsevier accounts are only good for a year. Are there hopes of renewing them when they expire? I've been editing for years, and given the scope of my personal projects, I'll probably be writing for many years to come. Needless to say, permanent (or long-term) access would be ideal. If renewal is an option, when the time comes, maybe I can send you a list of the articles I've expanded (before and after), including a list of any I've successfully run through GAN and FAC. Think that might help? – Maky ^« talk » 06:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Maky: unfortunately we can't offer extensions of accounts without reapplying: many partners place standard access limits on the accounts they donate to us, and some partners place a year long limit. As for renewal, when the accounts expire, simply reapply: with JStor we expect donation renewal and expansion to happen, they recently expanded from 100 to 500 accounts and have been very supportive of our efforts more generally. Currently, Elsevier is a pilot, so much of their continued goodwill is based on how accounts are used in the short-term. Many of our partners will expand donations after seeing how low risk and high return these partnerships can be, though I can't make any predictions about any of the pilots, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Newspapers

I never received the email about newspapers. I checked my preferences and noticed I listed an outdated email address that I no longer have access to. I fixed it. Please send it again and it should work. Thank you. Smartyllama (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@Smartyllama: Just sent the email. Accidentally sent it from my volunteer account User:Sadads, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Your success in creating partnerships with publishers of high quality content is appreciated. Your work is essential and I hope your contract will be prolonged. Happy Christmas JimRenge (talk) 20:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@JimRenge: Thank you so much! I am only part of a larger team! Make sure to thank Ocaasi_(WMF) as well: he has been the brain and energy behind getting the program off the ground and funded! Astinson (WMF) (talk) 20:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Hm, user account User:Ocaasi_(WMF) is not registered.... Please correct the link. Thanks JimRenge (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@JimRenge: Sorry, wrong link: fixed Ocaasi_(WMF) , Astinson (WMF) (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Newspaperarchive

Hi, do you think that's really a fair verdict on the resource itself? There's 200,000 + members, including many from reputable institutions like Harvard and 140 complaints in 3 years. I don't want to seem like I'm protesting, if you really get a bad feeling about it fair enough, but the resource itself would be extremely valuable overall I think. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Dr. Blofeld and Arb: sorry for not responding sooner, got caught up in several other things at the end of last week. My main concern is the BBB rating and consistent mention of problems; however, after reading a bit closer to comments in other forums, the patterns don't always hold true on their customer service (though there are still a couple of questionable practices at play, but not as bad). I will put in an inquiry, and see if we get any responses. In part, the number of uses of the database on Wikipedia already recommends it to me. In part, my initial though was that many other Newspaper databases cover a similar scope and part of the reason so many organization have the database is because of the sales by Proquest. However, the community's previous interest in newspaper databases and the scale suggest it would be a good idea to add to our collection, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, I do think that the majority are fine with it as you can see with the many different editors using, but you'll always get people complaining. The rating is very poor, true, but I'm not sure it really is a true reflection of the overall resource itself. Errors in dates were reported in a book in 2004, I'd imagine it has improved since then! There are over 200,000 users, many of which are reputable scholars and researchers and only 140 complaints. If it was just a pretty basic resource I'd not have said anything, but it's the fact it is enormously resourceful, and with "foreign" newspapers not in some of the other archives that I think it would be of tremendous value on here. There's a far greater world range than the ones like Newspapers.com I think, with even South African and Tajik newspapers. It's worth a try anyway, if their people are awkward about it then you'll have been proved right! Thanks anyway!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld:: They have been very forthcoming in conversation, and it sounds like we are going to incite them to create some more "public" open access opportunities (more information coming soon). Thank you for being persistent on this, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

JSTOR results

See User talk:Johnuniq#JSTOR results. I couldn't ping you because with an edit that complex, notifications usually don't work. Johnuniq (talk) 09:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Error in citation date from Newspapers.com

Do you know of a way to contact anyone at Newspapers.com to notify them when a clipping contains the wrong date?

Today a search at Newspapers.com led me to a newspaper whose page clearly shows "Monday, August 19, 2002" as the issue's date. The clipping, however, has "27 Feb 1994" as the date. I can't find any way on the Newspapers.com site to contact anyone to report the error. Eddie Blick (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback @Teblick:! @Drinknews: is our contact for the donation, he may be able to file a report. He is not regularly on Wikipedia, so if he doesn't respond here: I would report it following the "Other" instructions at http://www.newspapers.com/help/problems/ . They probably have a team that works on this issue, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in letting us know about the problem. We do have a group that looks into and fixes errors in the metadata. The best way to report a problem is to click the red arrows in the middle right of the viewer page to open the sidebar and then click on the "report a problem" option at the bottom of the sidebar. The nice thing about reporting it this way is that the report will come to us with the URL for the problem page. You could use the general "Contact" page which is linked to in the footer of most pages, but with that option, you'd need to include the path to the page in question. I'll pass this one along. Thanks again.Drinknews (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Intro people like

Was a good edit at Wikipedia:Research help...to reword my edit..your version is clearly better. But your edit summary " research is showing that more people convert and do well with guided tutorials vs. pages of text" ....at the help project we noticed that people dont move on with the tutorials e.g Wikipedia:Tutorial/Editing that is linked from our main help page gets lots of views...but the pages beyond that get less and less views. Do you guys have any data on why people dont move on to other pages of the tutorials....I am asking because there are only a few of us left that work on the overall structure of info and help pages. I created Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia because I though info all on one page is more usefully..as in more will read more if all there...any data as to what is best I would love see an act on. Is this data saying the WPAdventure does well....dont really care the view numbers...care about the fact people learn and retain more info from one form or the other.?--Moxy (talk) 23:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@Moxy: Thank you so much for your feedback There are two sets of data that I am running from:

• First the consensus and experience developed by both GLAM-Wiki outreach coordinators and the Education Program leaders, has been that parsible, stepwise online tutorials do get people to editing more effectively that long-form guidance (its amazing how many people I have met who have read either a) a page like WP:About or b) the tutorial you point to, but don't start editing until you give more of a stepwise tutorial). This is part of the reason WikiEd has been investing so much in tutorials and video tours (when people feel like they need or want to learn about Wikipedia). Thats not to say that everyone who starts will follow through all the way (not
• Second, we have evidence, like the outcomes of the Wikipedia Adventure, which suggest that when you break down the necessary skills for new editors into concrete learnable skills. The tutorial proper has long had the fall-off problem, but Aaron Halfaker's research suggests that this fall off is going to happen any time we insist on exposing newcomers to all the social expectations (recommend watching this to better understand that context).

So, the numbers aren't hard numbers: but there is a wide conversation that suggests that we need to make it easy, by making it manageable. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the reply...I will bring these points up at the help project. Will reply more shortly. Thank you for your time. --Moxy (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Research help

Template:Research help has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi

My comment here was reflecting on this. I am sorry for the trouble with the research project; it must be disappointing and frustrating. Jytdog (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Its frustrating yes, but also very enlightening (and not disappointing). We have learned where a couple major roadblocks are a)WP:IDONTLIKEIT (not solvable), 2) expectations about mainspace (maybe solvable with another test in another feature -- say Reference tooltips, or the sidebar (though that may only solve the problem with ~1/2 or our readers), and 3) expectations about reader prior knowledge and interest. I expected each, but not exactly in the format/version of argument coming out.

We have a long road ahead in educating more of our editors about how our readers actually use the content and how much they don't know. Understanding where policies and community expectations clash with reader experience and knowledge about that experience aquired from outreach, is actually very empowering. The biggest frustration for me, is that Fram and others are stonewalling us collecting data while the discussion happens, so we don't have good data to back up conversation. However, the unexpected is to be expected in our community :P Thanks for diving in! Astinson (WMF) (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome. Thanks for trying to improve things. Jytdog (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey, while I have you.. you are apparently a longtime editor and have been with WMF for about two years. There are some things that I don't understand at all about WMF and its relations with the editing community. May I ask you some questions? Jytdog (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Yep! I am User:Sadads. Ask away! Also, feel free to email me astinsonwikimedia.org if it is a bit more sensitive. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 17:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

oh, not at all! I will pose some questions, and you can answer here or via gmail, or if you would rather talk we can do that, too via gmail or skype.... I don't reckon there are simple answers for this as the WMF is like 300 people... it is more about cultural assumptions or 'envelope' stuff. some historical stuff too, i guess.

1. i don't understand how the WMF understands that the community is even aware of what it is doing. In these staff meeting notes, this bit kind of floored me: "...We have been trying to work with CL to get the message out. Two office hours have not attracted anyone from communities." I thought, "'office hours'? What?" I have been around for a few years now, and had never heard of them. But who ever said that, really thought that the effort was meaningful. I asked about where and when office hours happen and found out they happen via IRC... and again my reaction was, "IRC? really?" So I just don't get the whole thing, of where folks at the WMF are coming from.

   Because the community evolved organically, there is a real lack of knowing who the best audiences are for outreach, unless you have deep community experience -- and even when you understand the environment, there are very few communication channels where you can rely on getting the right respondents -- for example, I pinged Tech Pump about the conversations about the Research help template, and got no responses. User:Ocaasi (WMF) and I generally can find the right place for conversations for our projects (in part because we have built both a mailing list, and a newsletter subscription for TWL). But there is no guarantee that it will reach folks. There is also a concern of "the signal to noise ratio", in that the WMF generates hundreds of small changes to the projects and programs every week -- and you can't expect everyone to notice everything that is relevant to them personally.

   As for the specific concern about IRC: yep, I don't get it either -- its a complete mystery to me. I have commented about this on our internal communication channels, and the typical response is that "its baked into important parts of our community" -- personally, I think it just reinforces a number insider to outsider communication channels -- and I choose to ignore that stream. But for folks who are hired from outside the community, understanding which channels to use when (and which ones to ignore), is very complicated.

   There is also what I have heard people call a "noise filter" that a lot of community members have developed to filter through non-targeted feedback and conversation that takes a lot of learning, and awareness of community processes and communication channels. At the WMF we get a lot of negative feedback from a vocal few, and very little positive or constructive feedback, so unless you have the filter already, its a bit overwhelming -- and engineering staff primarily are hired for their expertise in development, not their expertise in our community (in response to your amazement at Discovery notes). Sometimes we get feedback from a minority of the community, that doesn't reflect the actual opinion of a wider swath, so when decide to run with something, it hits a social roadblock. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

   Thanks that was very helpful. i totally hear you on the "noisy few" especially. it takes some effort to find the channels from the side of the editing community, and only those who are motivated are going to find them, generally... and upsetness is a big motivator. so yes. and i hear you on engineers (my dad was one :) ) Jytdog (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

2. What is the best way to understand what the WMF is up to?

   Personally I would recommend subscribing to mailing lists in your areas of interest (including Wikimedia-l -- which has a combination of political chatter and useful announcements) or newsletters (like Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Library/Newsletter), review the quarterly reports from the Foundation, and attend meta:WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings. Signpost has some good watchdogs right now, noticing things that in the past haven't been transparent. Also recommend Wikipedia Weekly if you are on Facebook. We have a couple teams working on a "hub of hubs" which will help people discover these communication channels more readily. Note most of the existing channels are focused on formal organizations and outreach to communities beyond the wikis. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

   very helpful. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

3. What is the best way for the WMF to understand the needs and wants of "the editing community"? Have there been interactions/consultations in the past that were mutually regarded as successful?

   Yep, there are a number of model consultations, including the Harrasment Survey, the recent Strategy Consultation and the Community Wishlist survey. However, these are massive undertakings and, again, the signal to noise ratio applies to consultations --- too many consultations and you stop getting a wide range of feedback -- and some projects are going to operate outside of just what the community wants in explicit consultations, in response to other data --- like reader surveys, small sample interviews, or feedback from program leaders at major community conferences (like Wikimania, Wikimedia Conference or GLAM-Wiki). Our efforts at TWL respond to a mix of responses from all of those (for example one of the outcomes from the strategy consultation support our exploration of Research literacy (see point one in the draft), and because a number of other reader consultation suggest there is a real need to be clear and transparent about how our knowledge is credible/not credible.) Also TWL is also a specicial fish within WMF-- both Ocaasi (WMF) and I are community members first, are directly supporting new program/project models (and we are trying to develop models for other language communities to improve their research ecosystem), so occasionally need to test something using the network we are familiar with (English Wikipedia). Those conversations don't always work out ideally, but most of them do and we learn from the ones that don't :) Astinson (WMF) (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

   Thanks for this too. I see how TWL is different, in several ways. I am surprised you found the strategy consultation to be helpful. it was truncated in time, and like several of the people noted there, i found it overbaked and awkwardly set up. I didn't bother replying because of the overbaked-ness in particular - it was upsetting to me. Jytdog (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

That's what i wanted to ask, to get the ball rolling... Jytdog (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

1. @Jytdog: Great questions, responded inline with seperate signatures. Do note, all of this is personal opinion/awareness and not representative of the WMF persay -- but I am happy to be transparent and open about what I know and think. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again for all that. i have been reflecting on trying to set up some space within WP for the WMF to reach us, and vice versa, to make it logistially easier for the volunteer community. and maybe some level of ... bureaucracy? ... here to manage WP-WMF relations better. Thinking. But logistically, I am still trying to figure out how to manage the multiple domains (since the whole KE/Lila thing I now am watching three domains, which is awkward - and the WW facebook page, and the main mailing list, which I finally figured out how to post to! ) and also how to even wikilink across them. And while I understand the importance of translation especially for the WMF, the translation tagging markup makes pages there almost impossible/very-difficult to edit, once the tags are there.

But what do you think about some space within WP, and some "bureaucracy" to better manage relations. Has either ever been tried, in your experience? Jytdog (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

There needs to be a lot of effort to reach the English community from the WMF. Part of the problem, is that English Wikipedia's editor community is so disconnected from many of the other editor communities --- its almost a movement, within a movement. Many of our goals and strategies, though partially dependent on English (and its fundraising power), the bulk of our support goes to testing and deploying things with other communities -- because they are much more receptive -- and tend to self-organize better. This is a chicken and the egg problem though: is it the WMF's fault or the English community's fault in how the relationship has developed? And where do you start the repair?

I wouldn't know where to start on a broad reach and feedback from the English community (maybe a "WMF and Affiliates activities" regular bit within the Signpost, which aggregates more of whats happened maybe once a month). We do have Community Liasons and Community Advocates, who liase on specific projects and activities at the WMF -- but there are less than 10 of them, for the whole movement. It might be good if the English community had some type of filter for information going both ways. Some other folks might have thoughts or know better whats already in discussion @Ocaasi (WMF), Whatamidoing (WMF), PEarley (WMF), Gamaliel, Keegan (WMF), Mdennis (WMF), and Quiddity (WMF):, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Going to jump in here in my official capacity, which I think(?) is the right one for this conversation. Like Alex, I come from the community and normally edit as The ed17, and these words in no way represent the WMF as a whole.

1) On most Wikimedia wikis and Wikipedias, the primary to only method of communication is via village pumps and community portals, etc. There's a whole list of them on Meta (don't forget the language subpages!). 2) Alex is spot on with his comments about the signal to noise ratio. I tuned it out for years until I became the editor of the Signpost (2012–15); it was like entering another world. 3) The problem with asking the Signpost for a regular "WMF and Affiliates activities" beat is that they're all volunteers and are chronically short-staffed. There's no way they have enough time for that. The only way I could keep up in the old days was basically by summarizing the Wikimedia-l mailing list. Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

1. IRC has been popular with devs for decades. It was functional for Wikipedians before Facebook, Skype, and Gchat were available, and it is still commonly used by open-source devs around the world. This means that it is functional for reaching the people that the devs themselves usually want to reach (other open-source devs). Also, when you've spent a decade chatting there, and being available to people there, it's hard to change. You either have to support an endlessly growing list of channels, or you have to tell people that, yes, we have talked on IRC for the last ten years, but no, in the future, I'm not going to reply to your messages there, because I want to talk to people who don't use IRC. You can easily see how unpopular and unfriendly that would seem to the people for whom that channel is working well.
2. Looked at from enough distance, the WMF always does basically the same things: support outreach and similar programs that improve educational content or its delivery, develop software and other technical solutions that can be used to improve content or its delivery, and raise money to fund those two things. Looked at up close, it is actually impossible for any human to know what every staff member does each day. In the between the two, there is no good method of getting all the information you want, but only the information you want. It would take something like Facebook's feed or wall (or whatever it's called), merged with all the wiki pages and task tracking systems.
3. There is no such thing as "the community". There are "the communities", in the plural. What works well for one does not work well for the next. It is also important to note that what is popular with a community (e.g., with the tiny percentage of editors who do metapedian work, like me) is not always what is best for the project (i.e., getting educational materials created). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 02:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The WMF is not a political organization.

As follow up from our previous conversation, I checked the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedia, and Wikimedia movement articles for evidence that the Wikimedia Foundation is a political organization as you say. Pursuant to engineering ethics requirements in the State of Kansas, I cannot participate in such an organization (such as a political campaign). As I had argued, though, the WMF is indeed listed as a 501(c)(3) charitable organization. I'm not sure where you were getting the impression to the contrary. While the WMF does do a little lobbying now and then, so do most charitable organizations; that doesn't mean they're primarily political in nature, and it certainly doesn't mean that they're not charitable causes. – voidxor 05:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Voidxor: Thanks for following up and thinking about our conversation. Out of clarification, I was advising and conversing with you off-wiki with my volunteer email -- in my role, hence my response now with my volunteer account (User:Sadads). I also want to apologize for not responding sooner -- I have had a backlog of correspondence since a few weeks ago (Wikimedia Conference).

I agree fully that the Foundation is primarily a charitable organization. But like any charitable organization, the organization has an agenda -- and that agenda is free and open knowledge for the world. Because this is a fairly radical and new idea (remember up until relatively recently most governments suppressed access to information, and with very few give entirely free access -- copyright free knowledge and free access to information were relatively hard to come by in this world), we often find ourselves, in persuing that very simple mission, challenging the work of others, such as the publishing industry, and undermining the authority of others, such as expert researchers or governments which want to hide information. Because of this, we (the movement) constantly are political -- that is trying to shape the minds of others to ensure that our goals maintain viability of our mission and goals.

Its important to distinguish between the Wikimedia Movement (the community of organizations and leaders who organize the resources that make our projects, possible), and the volunteer/contributor community (the people that contribute to our charitable activities).

When we were talking last you were uncomfortable with the description of the Wikimedia community as a movement -- because it implied some kind of political action. In general, that would be true, we don't coalesce our primary work around political action -- but I don't think you quite understand what my contention was in the conversation: the very act of contributing to Wikipedia is a form of (lower case p) political action -- in that it challenges a number of assumptions about how knowledge can be created, distributed and shared -- and that makes us fairly radical political actors in certain circles (around Freedom of Panorama, Open Access publishing, etc, etc.). We are a "movement", in that we pursue those goals and our existence is contingent upon them, and I would argue (and many folks would disagree with me on this) that any contribution as a volunteer to our activities (even a comma on Wikipedia that makes a sentence a little bit more clear), contributes to our politics -- in that you further those goals, by making us a more coherent and useful resource, creating greater public demand for our contingencies, and in turn our political positions.

That being said -- the Wikimedia Movement tries not to be capital P Political (as in a political party), because it would undermine our ultimate goals. It sounds like the ethics/values established by the Kansas Engineering community is a desire to distance themselves from the works of party politics.

As a side note, the Foundation is only an arm of the community -- in that it follows the mandates established by its board and folks who have a certain amount authority/power/interest within the community, and an interest in preserving our values and mission. If anything, its the movement which represents the community of contributors, that decides how the organization (WMF), can or should excersize power on behalf of the movement. You are more than welcome to be involved in setting that agenda -- but note that the agenda is set by the movement, not the other way around (with the WMF dictating the goals).

I hope this better explains my thoughts, and I respect that you might disagree with me, Sadads (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sadads: Thank you for the clarification, but this differs sharply from your position in our conversation a few weeks ago. At that time, you downplayed the distinction you're now describing as lowercase "p" and uppercase "P". I fear that you are either trying to tell me what I want to hear, or toning down your radicalism now that we're on the record. The fact that you were lecturing me on the political nature of Wikipedia and the WMF from an authoritative and seemingly official position, yet are now hiding behind your volunteer account, supports my latter theory. I'm always wary of those who don't own up to their words. With that in mind, perhaps it would be better to address some of your individual claims (paraphrasing slightly):

• I (voidxor) may or may not be invested in The Movement, but almost every editor with which I interact is in alignment with that larger mission. Really?! This is so ridiculous and insulting I don't know how to respond. I guess I need to get with the program, huh? Geese. How arrogant.
• Simply sharing information with those who choose to consume it is, in and of itself, a political agenda. No, but "helping others access the information they want when they want it" in the context of oppressive regimes is. Lobbying to get Wikipedia past the Great Firewall is a political activity; making a contribution to Wikipedia is not. Stop equating the two.
• Wikipedia competes with other sources of knowledge. Not consciously—at least not for most of us. If you guys at the helm think in terms of ousting other encyclopedias and databases, fine, but most of us are here to read and contribute, not to bump up the Alexa rank. This is another agenda of yours that I do not share.
• My contributions have political intent because they increase the visibility of Wikipedia, which fuels the WMF's lobbying against censorship in oppressive regimes. Nice spin, dude. Gotta give you points for creativity on that one.
• I am supporting the authority of the WMF's lobbying efforts (i.e. against censorship) by continuing to contribute after the HTTPS switch. Yup. You caught me. I should have walked away and boycotted the 'Pedia right then and there. (Side note: I had HTTPS set in my preferences, and thus didn't notice the switch until you mentioned it.)
• Wikipedia is political because it is a source of conflict. By that logic, everything controversial would be, by your definition, political.

– voidxor 06:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Awesome work

You're a rockstar for putting all that info into the GLAM Boot camp table! -- Fuzheado | Talk 10:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Research help

Template:Research help has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Pppery 18:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

RfC Announce: Wikimedia referrer policy

In February of 2016 the Wikimedia foundation started sending information to all of the websites we link to that allow the owner of the website (or someone who hacks the website, or law enforcement with a search warrant / subpoena) to figure out what Wikipedia page the user was reading when they clicked on the external link.

The WMF is not bound by Wikipedia RfCs, but we can use an advisory-only RfC to decide what information, if any, we want to send to websites we link to and then put in a request to the WMF. I have posted such an advisory-only RfC, which may be found here:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Wikimedia referrer policy

Please comment so that we can determine the consensus of the Wikipedia community on this matter. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @Guy Macon: for notifying us. I took a look at the places where you have been posting information about: you are missing the groups most directly affected by this, in terms of practical challenges created by changing the policy: the GLAM-Wiki community and users of The Wikipedia Library. Can you please make sure to notify in those relevant venues as well? We are evaluating the conversation right now, and I will talk with our teams here at the foundation, to better understand what we can offer in terms of informing the conversation. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Done. [1][2] --Guy Macon (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Thx -- I also don't think your RFC will solicit feedback from another big swath of stakeholders in this: good faith folks who genuinely benefit from transparency and openness of this data: library staff, other research publishers, etc -- and that is a hard group to represent in these conversations (and we have been historically been very bad at creating conversations that includes them). I will share something in the next few days, about our evaluation, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

No need to answer now, but when you write up your response, please address something that has been puzzling me (probably because of ignorance on my part, but others are sure to have the same questions); what. exactly, will Wikipedia be getting out of sending referrer information, and of course the same question regarding the WMF as opposed to Wikipedia. Make sure to be detailed enough so that anyone can follow the chain of reasoning. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Guy Macon: sure: definitely happy to talk through that in that framework! I think two things are happening from our end (I will make the argument more thoroughly on the RFC):

• First we at WMF are assuming that Wikimedia is central to a much larger knowledge ecosystem, rather than just Wikipedia community/reader needs, per an assumption closer to what is being discussed around themes #4 and #5: in the movement strategy process. To participate in that ecosystem, and benefit aligned knowledge organizations: we have to acknowledge that their motivations are different than ours. WMF and Wikimedia might be largely self-funding and open/free/privacy purists, but those institutions that we work with are not: and need some way to justify either funders or sponsors (rarely commercial) the impact of their work, and most orgs operate with two metrics: citations and referrals/pageviews on their own websites. As good citizens in that ecosystem, we need to provide at least some signal that helps folks evaluate their impact through us -- total silence (Dark traffic), then they assume its from Google or some commercial or not-aligned-with-Wikimedia's-values source and invest money and time in SEO rather than free-knowledge infrastructure or they never get found by the public-- either way, this is bad for the free and open internet's reliable content.
• Second, I personally, in volunteer capacity, have experience working with a GLAM, that only wanted to support my Wikimedia contributions, because they increased the visibility of their resources, see: WP:Blake. I hear that story from a lot of long-time Wikimedians who are working with GLAMs, and we also meet a lot of librarians who choose to join the community because of realizing referral stats, but end up staying as valuable allies and contributors in the community well beyond that initial metric (a few published case studies: here, or for example, or example, or example). Our theory of change around this in my team (Community Programs) and Dario's team (Wikimedia Research), is that without first realizing the value of Wikimedia projects through the internal metrics, they never have a motivation to join us, or at least recognize we are allies. Without that first layer of discovering our impact, the rest of our arguments for being allies die (including ones dependent on the values of free, open, secure and private).

When WMF Security and Legal describe full silence as a referrer as having marginal impact on end-user security or privacy compared to our current situation: to me it doesn't make sense to sacrifice the above, high-impact and scale opportunities ( movement orgs allying with aligned digital-knowledge-sectors, and recruiting experts to participate and invest in Wikimedia projects). I hope that helps, and if you have more questions, I can help clarify now, before I post more on the RFC. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: I actually published a tweaked version of this on the discussion. Feel free to keep this back channel open though, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 22:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I am glad to see the the RfC is becoming less one-sided. We all want what is best for Wikipedia, and to my way of thinking a vigorous debate about what, exactly is best for Wikipedia is much more helpful than a bunch of editors who agree with me. Too many times in my life I have had that happen and later realized that groupthink kept us from making the best decision. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Request for clarification

Hi! I have a few questions about a statement you posted. While I found it to be quite helpful, there are still a few questions in my mind. Perhaps you can clarify?

At Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/RfC: Wikimedia referrer policy#WMF Statement on this RFC You posted a statement with the header WMF Statement on this RFC.[3] I would like to clarify; were you speaking as an individual, posting an official statement from the Library Projects team, or posting an official statement from the WMF as a whole?

If the latter, do you think that it is appropriate for the WMF to give an official response on 19 June 2017 to an RfC that closed on 1 August 2017‎?

Also, are you the person at the WMF who is authorized to make the final decision on this?

If not, do you know who is?

A note for anyone reading this who may not be up to speed on this issue: The RfC is advisory only, and is not binding on the WMF or on any Wikipedia. I am currently composing a request to be sent to the WMF, but no request has been sent. Also, we have plenty of time to discuss this and get it right; it is not in any sense an emergency situation with a deadline. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Guy, I was responding officially as the principle community-focused staff member supporting this particular technical change, when it was initiated in 2016. The statement that was written by myself, Dario Tabarelli (as the initiator of the change in 2016) from Research and Darian Patrick of WMF Security (as the principal responsible for security at WMF), with review from other members of the security team, other technology teams, legal and several departmental leads -- its an official statement about the RFC's content as it was initiated and discussed by the community at the time -- its not the response to the closure.

We are reviewing the closure, and Victoria Coleman, the Chief Technology Officer, who is the final decision maker on technological policy decisions, plans on responding to the decision or any requests that derive from it. Please let us know if a specific request is pending, then she can respond to that specific request. I saw the closure on Friday as I was closing out of a long week -- I will update everyone involved today. We have been monitoring and continuing to analyze the issues described by the RFC. I also have a mostly finished draft of the promised technical recommendations for folks who identify this particular decision on our part as effecting their personal risk-profile -- which hopefully will be posted later today or tomorrow.

However, Wikmania starts on Wednesday (9-13 August), and many of the WMF staff involved in this RFC will be attending. I wouldn't expect a response from User:VColeman (WMF) until at least a week after the conference ends -- we would like to be on hand to answer questions, and provide continued responsiveness, and the week (14-18 August) after the conference has a number of us either on vacation or at other working meetings. As you say, there is not a urgently short timeline for this: so lets get the conversation right, and be transparent about why the conversation takes time. Thanks, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 13:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: As promised: Wikipedia_talk:Village_pump_(policy)/RfC:_Wikimedia_referrer_policy. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Off Wiki workshops related to Gender Gap issues

Hi Astinson. Regarding the topic above and the information provided below on my talk page, An administrator MelanieN recommended that I read This page on edit-a-thons, to which you contributed. Thank you for this resource. I'll take the time to read through this and would appreciate it very much if you'd have a look at the outline of my proposal in the thread below.

• A threaded discussion which has now been centralized on my talk page
• A list of resources currently gathered on my user page

I've not attempted something like this before, but I have worn the "gender gap" user box on my user page for some time now, without actually doing anything about it and would like very much to give it a reason to be there . I'm sure there are lots of common mistakes in organizing off-wiki events and workshops. I'd like to avoid as many of them as possible, while getting all the information I can to make my project a success. Many thanks! have a great day Edaham (talk) 01:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey @Edaham: Glad that you are getting started on workhing on these projects. I hope the training at the outreach dashboard proves useful! I would welcome any feedback you have on the training! Its relatively new, so probably has room for improvement. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 14:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

1Lib1Ref 2019

Hello Astinson (WMF) , I would like to know when the 1lib1ref 2019 campaign will start if possible?.Modjou (talk) 14:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Questionnaire invitation (a new tool to be developed, to verify media data)

Hi there, I'm developing a tool to assist users in verifying (structured) data of media on commons.

To understand the community's needs, I would like to invite you to participate in this questionnaire: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScbNdJdQYN1yBvEeKne48eWDU6SBsdlUfNBAmZyvUEBkCR1Gg/viewform?usp=sf_link. It should take ~2 minutes.

Thanks a lot. :D

(You received this message as you seems to have experience with structured data on Wikimedia projects.)

-- Gabrielchl (talk) 23:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Citation Hunt Tool Leaderboard

Hey Alex. Not sure if this is the best place to ask, but is there any way the CH Leaderboard can be customised so it only shows the results of people from a specific organisation / event? E.g. only showing the results of people who have added a specific tag in the edit summary? Would be great for running events in-house. Thanks Gweduni (talk) 10:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gweduni: Unfortunately no, that is in part why some folks use programs and events dashboard pages for their cohort of people (i.e. here is the listAstinson (WMF) (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

No worries, thought it worth asking! Will look into the dashboard for January Gweduni (talk) 07:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Hi Alex, I just want to say thanks again for responding to the ANI thread I started about 1lib1ref #1AfLibWk. I am trying to be very cautious because a couple years ago there was an enormous negative response to the edit-a-thon and the ANI discussion was, well...not good. Like I said, I did not want it to be about a specific editor but who to go to if there were concerns and participants are not communicating. You may have figured this out already, but the editor I am currently communicating with is User:Anyaegbumercy. Unfortunately according to Anyaegbumercy, some editors have already been blocked but hopefully I am sharing meaningful advice/guidance that will be helpful to organizers and participants going forward. I am sure I will learn along the way as well. You are of course welcome to join the discussion. S0091 (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @S0091 -- unfortunately there are so many campaigns, I can't always be there to intervene: the international organizers for the campaign saw our discussion though! And we are constantly in a process of explaining campaign and event design to folks -- part of the problem, is that its not very transparent who has registered for what events, and who the organizers are supporting that conversation. This is something we are trying to solve with this new tool. Also, as a movement local organizers are frequently inexperienced, so learning through the blocks and other feedback from the onwiki community is just part of the process, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 17:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)