https://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=Sue+GardnerWikimedia Foundation Governance Wiki - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T15:00:45ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.42.0-wmf.24https://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resolution_talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles/Archive_1&diff=328124Resolution talk:Wikimedia Foundation Guiding Principles/Archive 12013-04-12T16:30:43Z<p>Sue Gardner: /* "Regardless of their title or position" */ replying to Tom</p>
<hr />
<div>== Freedom and open source ==<br />
"As an organization, we strive to use open source tools over proprietary ones, although we use proprietary or closed tools (such as software, operating systems, etc.) where there is currently no open-source tool that will effectively meet our needs." - Is there a requirement and process in place which forces people to publish an evaluation which open-source tools were considered and tested for a task in order to identify which specific functionality was only provided by closed-source tools? --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 18:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:<br />
:Well, maybe that is my impression because I work remotely, but I've seen some proprietary files been shared and proprietary softwares being used when we could have free software. For instance, microsoft documents or apple softwares. And I've heard the wifi network in SF office works better with apple stuff, which is kind of weird - I've visited SF office only once and I checked that, but I've heard the same from other online meetings. For pragmatical reasons, sometimes I know using some closed softwares can deliver things faster tho. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Ezalvarenga]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 19:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:I agree we could use a little more discipline on this. e.g. I'm not ''convinced'' all Mac users in the office would truly be significantly less effective at their work on Ubuntu machines. I do acknowledge some may be. I think it warrants some nudging/pushing, though. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 20:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::I think there's a huge distinction between closed source tools for personal productivity, and closed source tools for supporting the projects. This should be clarified in the text of the principles, because the current state of affairs is that we require FOSS when it comes to what is actually necessary for the projects to run, and we obviously don't when it comes to the office IT. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 22:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Thanks. In my initial posting I had shared tools in production (servers, webservices, etc.) in mind, but did not mean to refer to personal computers of individuals - that would be under the "personal freedom" category, and a published evaluation feels like overkill for such private cases. --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::Hi, Aklapper, I don't have time today to make a longer comment, but for the personal freedom, if everybody begin to use closed formats, people who wants to use open formats will be forced to use also closed ones. If a person doesn't want to buy an apple computer, but the wifi network forces people to do so or make their lifes with other hardwares difficult, sorry, a serious policy about that should change. Yes, people can choose whatever they want on their personal computers, but if the majority is using what is fashion, a conscious minitority will not have freedom to choose what they want. As an example, I do use sometimes closed softwares, like skype, but only when really necessary, like a partner or co-worker that prefers to use it. And I know the pain it is sometimes to use only Linux since 1998. :) In Brazil, at least, in the government level, we are trying to [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/thackday/WCmyz2jltF8/sKDd0xCPQaQJ BURN ALL THE DOCS]! There are also [https://groups.google.com/group/thackday/browse_thread/thread/4f94fbf09e4b6f54 bills] under way. ;D P. S. I could not even imagine close softwares on the server side. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Ezalvarenga]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 12:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Responding to a couple of you here. No, AKlapper, AFAIK there is no formal documented requirement/process for evaluation of when the Wikimedia Foundation uses a proprietary tool instead of an open source one. To date we've been small enough, and had a sufficient proportion of the staff who're personally dedicated to open source values, such that evaluation has tended to happen informally on a case-by-case basis, and it's worked reasonably well. Like, we made an organizational commitment to use CiviCRM early and we've stuck with that, and similarly I know that Finance & Admin uses proprietary accounting tools because early on some research was done that determined there was no acceptable open-source tool. I think those were both reasonable outcomes. Over the years we've toyed with the idea of developing a formal evaluation policy, but we have not done it. If you're suggesting we should, I would generally agree, but I also wouldn't say it's the thing Office IT should prioritize as most important and most urgent.<br />
<br />
More generally, in response to Ezalvarenga and Ijon, yes, I'd agree that our actual practices are likely imperfect -- there are probably some people at the Wikimedia Foundation using proprietary tools for individual use that could be replaced by open source tools. For example, I know that Legal has at some times used Microsoft Word for documents shared with external firms, when they probably could've insisted on using OpenOffice or LibreOffice without too much of a productivity hit.<br />
<br />
Frankly, individuals using proprietary tools has been a pretty big pain point for the Wikimedia Foundation. It's understandable: individual staff have widely varying levels of personal commitment to FLOSS, people want to be effective at work and so they want to use the tools that support them best, and people's work, and their needs, vary. No-one wants to be told they have no choice but to use X, whether X is Ubuntu/Thunderbird/LibreOffice or IE/Outlook/Word. That's utterly reasonable. So it's complex, and we're not going to capture a lot of complexity in a short statement. <br />
<br />
StevenW had proposed we modify the language here to distinguish between site production tools and personal/individual tools. Can somebody propose language for that, and for anything else here that might need clarification or finetuning? Feel free to make a change and I'll revert it or finetune it if I feel I need to. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Related reading: [[FLOSS-Exchange]]. I think focusing on the ideal (and its rationale, which Erik sort of touched on with his "right to fork" [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5334873&oldid=5334652 addition]), instead of what individuals might do, is a reasonable compromise. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 07:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think the line should be what's shared by the organization (or teams within the organization) and personal. For anything shared, we should make it free software/open source unless it's really unworkable (and even then, we should always keep an eye out for moving to free software as it improves). But if you want to use MS Word on your personal machine to write PHP that fully meets our coding conventions, more power to you ;). This basically [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&oldid=5335910#Freedom_and_open_source matches] the current text. But there are some cases where free software is workable for shared tools but we're not currently using them; as I said, we should try to change that. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Agreed with SteveW and others above that there's some distinction between what we share, what we use personally, and what we require others to use. Apple users in the office? Who cares, they're mostly running FOSS on top of Apple -- most of our ops folks and engineers live in a terminal and use standard Unix tools. Adobe Photoshop and proprietary-format files for graphics work? Maybe we do care, because you can't always use the PSD files without it. (I always advocate for SVG format for graphics, especially anything we intend to use in software or on sites that may need to be revisioned in the future.) Google Apps for email? Who cares, email is interoperable. Google Hangouts for video conferencing internally? Who cares? Google Hangouts for video conferencing including open community participation? Runs on Linux, but requires a proprietary plugin; not ideal but we accept it as the best compromise of several options for now. Maybe we care but we can live with it. etc. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::So the text now reads like this: <br />
<br />
::''The Wikimedia Foundation is deeply rooted in the values of the free culture and free software movements. With the exception of "fair use" material, all information in Wikimedia projects can be freely shared, freely distributed, freely modified and freely used for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, in perpetuity.''<br />
::''All code written by the Wikimedia Foundation is licensed under an applicable open source license. We realize our obligations not just to share code, but to cultivate a healthy community of contributors around the source code, and to work with upstream projects and contribute back improvements to their code.''<br />
::''All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software.''<br />
::''Consistent with the above principles, we support the right of third parties to make and maintain licensing-compliant copies and forks of Wikimedia content and Wikimedia-developed code, regardless of motivation or purpose. While we are generally not able to directly assist such efforts, we enable them by making available copies of Wikimedia content in bulk, and avoiding critical dependencies on proprietary code or services for maintaining a largely functionally equivalent fork.''<br />
::''As an organization, we strive to use open source tools over proprietary ones, although we use proprietary or closed tools (such as software, operating systems, etc.) where there is currently no open-source tool that will effectively meet our needs.''<br />
<br />
::Does this work for everybody? I could add some language specifically around personal tool use, but I feel like "where there's no open-source tool that would effectively meet our needs" covers it. Like, you use Illustrator if Gimp isn't good enough for what you need. Let me know if anyone feels like this language isn't clear/accurate: otherwise I'll consider this thread resolved. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 21:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: As a very minor piece of word-smithing, I'd change "not able to directly assist such efforts" to "not able to individually assist such efforts" - we do directly help such efforts with data dumps and tools, we just don't have the resources to give human attention individually to such efforts. But yes, looks good to go otherwise. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 22:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::: Done -- thanks James :-) [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 17:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Quick suggestion... ==<br />
<br />
[https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASue_Gardner%2FWikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5332950&oldid=5331958 ], which I made before seeing the request to comment first. Anyway, "serving every human being" seems a bit disingenuous, since we really aim to serve every literate human being with access to data and a digital device. ;-) The goal of providing equal access to all seems fairer, and more in line the the section's comments about well, accessibility. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 00:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:"equal access to all" is, er, equally disingenuous, as, by your own phrase, we're providing equal access only to "every literate human being with access to data and a digital device".<br />
:Furthermore, I actually do think we ''strive'' to serve every human being. Remember the free knowledge the Wikimedia community creates and shares is consumed offline too, not to mention the huge value of secondary use -- the knowledge worked into presentations, newspapers, books, radio and TV programs -- all consumed by hundreds of millions ''more'' than the group consuming it directly from our Web sites. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 00:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Yeah, I agree with Ijon. The language is "aims to" and "endeavours to," so I think it's appropriately framed as aspirational. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Actually, it's not quite that limited. We do generally serve literate people, but there are actually readings of many articles (e.g. see [[:w:Template:Spoken Wikipedia|Template:Spoken Wikipedia]], I'm sure among others). There are also various mechanisms for printing Wikipedia (some in-house, some just people trying to make money by selling Wikipedia books), so you don't need a digital device. The fact that we've consistently used fully free licenses for our content (except fair use extracts) has facilitated all of that. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Commons serves non-literate people indirectly. {{Smiley}} —[[User:Tom Morris|Tom Morris]] ([[User talk:Tom Morris|talk]]) 19:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Getting rich ==<br />
<br />
On «nobody is getting rich by working at the Wikimedia Foundation»: define "rich". For instance, I'm a student but I'm very rich compared to most world population and richer than millions of Italians (so, when serving in my university board I raised tuition fees for myself/my income range). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Yeah obviously "getting rich" is relative. It's only when you compare [[:wiktionary:apples and oranges|apples to apples]] and look at other tech and nonprofit compensation schemes that you see what is meant. In any case, it's pretty awesome that we want to put that among our guiding principles, right? <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Edit conflict with StevenW! And yeah, Steven, I agree. I think the key word here is "getting." Nemo is correct of course that by world population standards, everybody who works at the Wikimedia Foundation is rich. But we were born rich, we did not "get" rich through our work at the Wikimedia Foundation. The point here is that working at the Wikimedia Foundation is not a path to dramatically improving one's personal wealth. Thanks. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::I tend to see those negative statements ("'''not''' getting rich") as putting things in people's head that you don't want there in the first place. You say "not getting rich" (and I am on par with both Steven's and your interpretation on this) and all people seem to read/hear is "rich". Maybe we should try to find a positive statement for this? I'm kind of stuck though for a good one. "If you want to get rich, go work somewhere else"? -- ok, that one is stupid, but maybe you get my point? [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 21:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::I suspected that the point was in ''getting'', however this is tricky. One may get "richer" by going to work in the WMF for career reasons, compared to the previous work (or country?), comparatively getting "poorer" than possible in some other place, however the latter is mostly impossible to prove. "Nobody is getting richer" would be clearer but is technically wrong.<br />
:::Maybe: "we aim at level of income not being an important [the most important? one of the most important?] motivation[s] for someone to stay at the WMF", which implies there are different/contrasting motivations (presumably honest ;) ) without getting lost in defining which, and that income may be sacrificed. This is probably what is meant hear; no idea if it is positive enough as per notafish. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC) <small>P.s.: Steven, personally I don't care that much if someone gets rich at the WMF, as long as it's not by fleeing with the cash. :) I just like clarity.</small><br />
::::Seems a bit "off" for Sue Gardner to be commenting on "not getting rich" when her salary exceeds that of about 99% of American wage earners. -- [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A|2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A]] 18:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
I've just removed the phrase about getting rich. I think "fair but not lavish" covers it :-) Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 22:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Reasonable travel costs==<br />
«We aim to incur only reasonable travel costs: the general policy is to travel economy class and stay in moderately-priced hotels»: were $225K for staff (and board) at Wikimania reasonable? [[Talk:Wikimedia budget#Wikimania travel question]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:How much is that per person sent to Wikimania that year? I think looking at the total for shock value is unfair. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Nemo we're not making a commitment here to reduce travel costs, or to minimize travel. (I wouldn't want to do that: with a growing staff that operates as part of a global community that stages many international events such as Wikimania, the chapters' meeting and various hackathons, it strikes me that a focus on reducing travel costs would be a net negative not a net plus. I expect travel costs to be a not-insubstantial chunk of the Wikimedia Foundation budget: that seems eminently reasonable to me given the nature of our work.) The point here is simply that when we travel, we aim to do it moderately not luxuriously. The nuts-and-bolts of how we do that are captured in [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Travel_policy the travel policy], but the purpose of this statement is simply to summarize the overall intent. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::So in short yes, you think it's reasonable. :) <small>I don't know if it was: while you do or can know all the details on the alternatives and other considerations, I can't judge — no opinion at all.</small> Given that "reasonable" conveys little, you may consider removing «to incur only reasonable travel costs: the general policy is » and leaving only the straightforward part of the statement.<br />
:::Ideally (IMHO), we'd include some other criteria, like the impact:cost ratio (which you hinted to), usage of cheapest means of transportation, miscellaneous synergies (dumb example: double rooms instead of single where possible? and other more impactful stuff), with the disclaimer that all this must be applied fairly (see other section on benefits/reimbursements). I have no idea what are the current practices on all this so I don't know where to start, but I'm confident a compact form is possible. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::Hey Nemo, please see my comment in Title and Position (the next section down). Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 17:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Title or position==<br />
«People at the Wikimedia Foundation get the same benefits regardless of their title or position». <br />
*Who's "people"? Are you including all managers, trustees and employees?<br />
*What's "benefits" and how do you measure if "salaries" are "fair"? Are you considering only accessories or also the actual wage, before or after taxes, pension contributions etc.?<br />
*What are you including in "title or position" (or other comparison for "fair")? For instance, remote worker vs. office worker, full time vs. part time, staff vs. contractor.<br />
--[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:*Well, people does include at least all staff if you read further "regardless of their title or position". This should include everyone. As for Trustees, you've got a point, "people" is not clear and should probably be changed to "Staff" when it comes to benefits. I do not believe Trustees get benefits, even though they might benefit from insurance and related stuff when it comes to their work for the Foundation. It might make sense here to differentiate between staff/volunteers or something along those lines. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 14:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::To be clear: yes, the statement's intended to refer to all staff, and I can change the word "people" to "staff." There is detail available in the document [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/2a/Wikimedia_Foundation_Compensation_Practices.pdf Wikimedia Foundation Compensation Practices]. And for Notafish, yes, the trustees don't get any benefits. Expenses they incur on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation are reimbursed as per the policies, but they receive no compensation in the form of salary or other benefits. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::I think Staff makes sense in that context, thanks for clarifying. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 21:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC) <small>(Sue, it's '''n'''otafish, with a small '''n''', and I'm stupidly particular about it. If you want a capital, go with Delphine ;)</small><br />
:::::Thank you, Sue, this clarifies the first point: only two left in this section. :)<br />
:::::On "benefits", the exact meaning of the word (or lexical equivalent) varies quite a lot across jurisdictions and fiscal systems, as far as I know, so it's not safe to assume everyone will get what you mean. I understand that reimbursements are a different matter, but it would be nice if they were fair and independent from title etc., too. (I suppose they already mostly are?) --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::: Yeah, in the U.S. "benefits" is generally understood not to include salary (people talk about "salary plus benefits") (it's basically everything ''but'' salary). However, that might not be true in other countries/languages. Also, the 401(k) maximum match is a fixed percentage of salary. While the percentage is the same across position, the amount (n% × salary) technically is not. However, it's true this is a fine distinction. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
*'Staff' is normally understood to mean Employees + Contractors, where contractors are afforded fewer benefits (if any at all). I'd suggest amending to specify 'Employees at...'. [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 23:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
**I'd kind of like us to provide fair benefits to all staff including international contractors, but of course jurisdictions make things.... difficult. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 19:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::: As per Oliver and others, I changed "staff" to "employees" for clarity. I do wish the WMF could provide equivalent benefits to everyone regardless of their official status (i.e., staff versus contractor) but Brion is right, it's very complex. Having said that, I'm pleased we do provide additional benefits to all U.S. employees beyond what's provided by the state. In many/most countries, the state provides the basics: in the United States it does not, and so employer-provided health insurance is critical. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 17:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::: Okay I just rewrote this section. <br />
<br />
::::''We aim to be careful with donors' money. We pay salaries that are fair but not lavish, and provide reasonable benefits (e.g., health and dental insurance) that are the same for all employees regardless of their title or position. We aim to incur only reasonable travel costs, and to keep work-related entertainment costs moderate.'' <br />
<br />
::::Purpose of the rewrite is just clarity/simplicity. Nemo, rather than expanding the travel-related part with more detail I made it higher-level. [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Travel_policy The full travel policy is here], and it's an official Board policy, so if it changes it would be updated on that page. Folks, let me know if aiming "to keep work-related entertainment costs moderate" is clear enough. Again, there is a [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Duty_entertainment_guidelines_policy more detailed policy on this]. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 17:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::: It's clearer now, although of course it requires some knowledge to understand what "employee" and "benefit" mean exactly in USA.<br />
::::: As for travel costs, fine to "redirect" to the policy; what about replacing "reasonable travel costs" with "consistent and fair travel costs", quoting the very first paragraph of the policy itself? It's still high level but more specific. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 14:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Accountable==<br />
«The Wikimedia Foundation wants to be accountable to [...]». Please clarify how the concept of accountability applies here: «responsible for your decisions or actions and expected to explain them when you are asked»[http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/accountable] (are there processes to be responsible of your actions in front of the readers, receive their questions and explain? etc.). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Sure, of course there are processes to be responsible to the readers of the projects. Reader surveys. User testing. OTRS. The blogs. The annual reports. The regular publication of activity reports, performance reports, financial statements. Social media. Engagement with charity watchdog groups. Public mailing lists. Bugzilla. Office hours on IRC. Events for donors. This page, and many other on-wiki consultations related to feature development, policy development, and so forth. There are probably lots I am forgetting :-) Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Most of what you mention is communication ''by'' the WMF (or discussion among colleagues), not something that falls under "expected to explain [your decisions or actions] when you are asked": specifically, everything except OTRS, mailing lists, social media and office hours; in fact, I've never heard of watchdog groups and events for donors in WMF (links?), but again are they really people you're held accountable to, who can ask questions independently and to whom you're expected to answer?<br />
::Social media are obviously not the place for serious discussions and office hours are only for affectionate wikimedians willing to use IRC, so we're left with OTRS and mailing lists. Would you say that WMF is ''expected'' to explain its decisions and actions when asked on mailing lists and OTRS? Who specifically at the WMF, what lists and OTRS queues, and questions by whom (are readers expected to write on mailing lists?)? For instance, [[wmf:Contact us]] doesn't offer any such option, nor [[wmf:Staff and contractors]] says anything on the topic. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 14:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Shared power==<br />
This section seems entirely useless, in that it lists a lot of minor ephemeral details from the ''here and now'' and no actual "principles" that may "guide" any action. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:The purpose of this section is to explicitly acknowledge that the Wikimedia Foundation works in partnership with a global community of volunteers -- that the Wikimedia Foundation is not the sole or even primary actor in fulfilling the Wikimedia mission, and that it needs to conduct itself accordingly, by creating mechanisms and processes enabling the community to have influence on its actions. Because we are interdependent partners. I think this is a pretty fundamental and important point to make, because in this regard we are different from practically everybody else. (What I mean by that: eBay and Facebook and Yelp may also have a social purpose or utility, but their primary purpose is to make money, and "community members" are a resource to be managed by the company to that end. In our case, the primary purpose of the movement is to make knowledge freely available to everyone around the world, and the Wikimedia Foundation and the global community of volunteers play different and complementary roles in achieving that shared goal.) So I wonder if that's not clear -- if my wording is just mucky. If so, can someone help propose better, more useful language? Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]])<br />
:The shared power section does mention volunteer "developers". However, I would like to see more emphasis on this. Something like "The Wikimedia Foundation strives to continually increase its partnership with outside developers, project managers, and system adminstrators so we can technically improve the sites together". This is an area where we've had some success, but more can definitely be done. The reason I said "outside" not "volunteer" is that they may be paid to work on something like MediaWiki, just not paid ''by'' WMF. The Apache Software Foundation is an example of an organization where many (not all) developers are paid (by various companies organizations), but they partner together to get things done. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Hi Matt,<br />
<br />
:: Sue asked me to help her add to the section, and I've made an effort to do so [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5361354&oldid=5361335 here]. I think the "aligned with our interests" piece is an important qualifier.--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 21:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==United States==<br />
On «support successful job candidates in attaining the legal right to work in the United States»: why only USA? What if they want to move elsewhere? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Maybe this should become "...to work from a WMF office in the United States", in case that's what's meant here. --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Or rather: Support succesful job candidates in attaining the legal right to work in the US should the need arise". Or something along those lines. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 14:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Yeah -- you're correct, we also support remote workers when people don't want to relocate and the job doesn't require it. I will reword :-) [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Here's what I changed it too -- let me know if this is clearer. "We aim to recruit talented people regardless of where they live, and depending on their preferences and the needs of the job, we support them in working remotely or relocating to the United States." Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::Does the trick, as far as I'm concerned. :) [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 21:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::::Yes, much clearer, thanks. <br />
::::::Ideally you'd be completely nation-neutral and support them in relocating to another country of their choice too, if suitable for them, and you could remove the "to the United States" bit. However, I understand this is an edge case. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::::Relocations are done because the WMF feels the employee should be in-office. Up until we open an office somewhere else I can't imagine that spending donor funds moving people to a country 'because they want to live there' would be optimal. [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 23:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::::::Yeah, Oliver is right. We have once or twice had staff who wanted to relocate for personal reasons. We are okay with them doing it when it doesn't interfere with their work (like, if they are moving from one non-SF location to another non-SF location, or if they used to work from SF, want to move elsewhere, and working remotely wouldn't hurt their ability to do their work). But in those cases, when they are moving for personal reasons, the WMF wouldn't pay for the move, and wouldn't arrange or pay for any services related to the move, such as immigration-related legal fees. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 20:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::::::I understand this, but I'm convinced that "the employee should be in-office" is only one of the many possible requirements to achieve the max productivity for an employee. Assuming that the only possible relocation one may be forced to in order to work efficiently for the WMF is a relocation to SF sounds bad to my ears in principle. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 14:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Just out of curiosity, does the WMF pay for the repatriation of employees once their employment ends? --[[User:Bdamokos|Bence]] ([[User talk:Bdamokos|talk]]) 11:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Nemo yeah, that is definitely true. Not everyone needs to be in the office, and the people who're in the office don't need to be there all the time. It's definitely true that sometimes productivity is higher if people are out of the office (all the time or some of the time), and that's why the WMF is pretty flexible on this issue. For example, lots of people who work in the San Francisco office normally will work from home if they have a dense session of writing to get through, or if they want to slam through a bunch of code without being interrupted.<br />
::Bence, no, generally we don't pay to repatriate employees. There might be circumstances in which we would do that, for example if someone was coming in for a chunk of work with a defined duration -- like, a one-year-contract. In that case we might be open to exploring whether we'd move them here and then move them back afterwards. But I don't think we have ever done that to date. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 16:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Serving every human being==<br />
This section looks weird being 7 sections away from «Freedom and open source» with «All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software» etc. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The emphasis on the development of new features is undue and likely to grate on both engineering staff and community, in my opinion. It is out of step with the custodian role which many individuals in both groups identify with. We should express a stronger commitment to high availability and site performance. --[[User:Ori.livneh|Ori.livneh]] ([[User talk:Ori.livneh|talk]]) 10:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Oh ha, Ori.livneh I think that's just clumsy wording on my part. I can see how it's easy to misread, but what you think I said is not what I meant to be saying. I'll revise. I'll also move this chunk up to be nearer to Freedom and Open Source. Thanks to you both [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Also, it talks about these being directed at "readers", and hoping to support them in starting to contribute - but we should probably also talk about supporting existing contributors. :-) [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 20:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: On Sue's request, I've tried to address these points with [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5334886&oldid=5334873 this edit].--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 23:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: It's better (thanks, Sue, Erik, and James) but it's still not quite right, in my opinion: rather than rank engineering priorities (features, performance, availability) and then work backwards to explain the values that motivate them (access, participation), I think the section ought to lead with a statement of values, and then explain how our engineering priorities reflect our effort to realize these values maximally. --[[User:Ori.livneh|Ori.livneh]] ([[User talk:Ori.livneh|talk]]) 11:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::: Want to take a crack at drafting something on talk?--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 20:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::: How about:<br />
:::::: <div style="border:1px solid silver; background:#eee; margin:0.5em; padding:1em 2em;">The Wikimedia Foundation aims to make <span style="background: #d8ecff;">the</span> material in the Wikimedia projects broadly accessible to all. <span style="background: #d8ecff;">We work to enable for the world education from, entertainment by, and engagement with our projects' content, and participation in the communities and processes that create them.</span> Ensuring <span style="background: #d8ecff;">the</span> continued reliability, availability and responsiveness of all Wikimedia sites and services is our first priority. In prioritizing new products and features, our goal is to impact the largest-possible number of readers and contributors, and to eliminate barriers that could preclude people from accessing or contributing to our projects, such as poor usability, lack of language support, and limited access to technology. We endeavour to create the structural support and the necessary preconditions for bottom-up innovation by others. We do not form agreements in which one organization is given access to material or functionality that others are denied. Where possible, we aim to preserve and support frictionless use of the material in the projects, so that people can share it widely and easily.</div><br />
:::::: Thoughts? Please forgive the "power of threes" and running alliterations. :-) I worry that this section is now trying to say too much; possibly split after "technology"? I'm not particularly attached to my wording, so don't worry about offending. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 05:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Communication==<br />
Do you think https://xkcd.com/802/ [https://xkcd.com/802_large/] applies to the WMF? (In particular, the proportions in the two maps on the top <s>right</s> left being zoomed.) --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Nemo, could you clarify which proportions you refer to by naming them? Top right is "Unread Updates". --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Ouch. I meant left, of course. :) Thanks, [[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Right to fork==<br />
Again nothing. [[Talk:Terms of use/Archives/2011-12-06#Right to Fork]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
* Probably more of a Wikimedia principle than a Wikimedia Foundation principle. Perhaps we need a separate list? :-) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 09:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
*: I doubt it: «principles intended to guide the work of the Wikimedia Foundation». Who else do you suggest to task with ensuring the right to fork? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: Sue asked me to explore some language around this, so I've taken a first crack at it with [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5334873&oldid=5334652 this edit].--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 23:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::: Thanks! Much better. I'll let the experts comment on the specific wording and if it covers all the essential (people would like to have something more than page history dumps, but what exactly is tricky). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 23:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::: If this idea is developed any further could someone ping me? I'm interested for obvious reasons. Thanks. -- [[User:ArielGlenn|ArielGlenn]] ([[User talk:ArielGlenn|talk]]) 09:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think this is covered now by Erik's language, right? <br />
<br />
''Consistent with the above principles, we support the right of third parties to make and maintain licensing-compliant copies and forks of Wikimedia content and Wikimedia-developed code, regardless of motivation or purpose. While we are generally not able to individually assist such efforts, we enable them by making available copies of Wikimedia content in bulk, and avoiding critical dependencies on proprietary code or services for maintaining a largely functionally equivalent fork.''<br />
<br />
Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 20:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Not necessarily. For instance, a list of users is not "content" nor software dependency. This is probably a stupid example, again I'm not an expert of forking. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 14:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Internationalism ==<br />
<br />
«''When we consider the community'' as a whole, we aim to consider all its languages and geographies and to avoid global initiatives that favor communities speaking only our languages» (emphasis added).<br />
I note that you're only talking of how you consider the community; what about «initiatives that favor communities speaking only our languages» in general? For instance, roughly how much of the WMF spending goes on initiatives that favor only English-language people (projects, users etc., readers) or only the USA? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Right to influence ==<br />
<br />
«Their work has earned [...] financial support sustaining the Wikimedia Foundation [...] and the global community has therefore earned the right to influence the work of the organizations»: it ''seems'' that you're stating that the only reason why someone has the "right to influence" the work is that they bring in dollars. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Mm, Nemo, this is a good point. I was meaning to specifically talk about the financial aspect, but I realize from your comment that it reads wrong --- it *does* read like that's the only reason the community members matter, which is of course not true. I've taken a crack at rewording below, let me know what you think.<br />
<br />
''These are the people who build the projects, and they have earned the right to influence the development of the platform, and the work of organizations that receive funding from the movement.''<br />
<br />
Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 20:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Better, but again the emphasis on funding is IMHO misleading. Also, what is "funding from the movement"?<br />
:I think it would be better to build upon that "influence the development of the platform", generalising to any work around the [[Wikimedia projects]] (whether software development or other kind of activity); and to replace the second part with "anyone willing to work with or within the [[Wikimedia movement]], of which they are the most important part". <br />
:For instance, lettera27 works on WikiAfrica with external funds, and is working with the Wikimedia movement (or is already part of it because it furthers its aims): does this mean that the rest of the Wikimedia movement should have nothing to say about what they do? Of course not, lettera27 should and does listen carefully to what editors and other wikimedians have to say, because they are among those who can advise them best on the work they wish to do on Wikimedia projects (apart from having some "right" to do so). <br />
:Which brings me to the final observation: the "right to influence" makes it sound something those "organizations that receive funding" have to live with against their will ("hey, you must listen to me because it's my right, whether you like it or not!"), rather than a cooperation in which they learn and gain something. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 15:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::All good comments Nemo, thank you. I've made some pretty substantial edits to the text to reflect what you've said here. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 16:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Transparency ==<br />
<br />
This section says "including employee guidelines". What happened to the public sharing of the [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Employee_Handbook Employee Handbook]? -- [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A|2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A]] 18:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
: I asked about this recently. It doesn't really seem relevant to this kind of document, though. There's a thread on wikimedia-l, I think, if you want to follow up. :-) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 21:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:: It explicitly says "As a matter of general practice, unless there’s a particular reason not to, we aim to publish internal organizational policies and procedures, including employee guidelines, financial policies, etc." I think it does belong here, because what the employees do is relevant, particularly to the donors who are essentially paying us. I agree the current reality around such employee procedures, etc. is not quite consistent with the document. There is some stuff on Office Wiki (a private WMF wiki for employees) that does not need to be confidential. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 23:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::: If only there were someone with access to both wikis with the technical know-how to move the pages. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 03:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::I'm pretty sure the staff handbook contains (amongst other things) access info to our healthcare providers, and other non-public information which should be stripped. I think that if someone did have the access and technical know-how to move the pages and acted on it, they'd swiftly find themselves losing the access ;p. As a general statement, the document ''should'' be moved over - but I imagine they want to get it finished and stable before combing through it to identify elements inappropriate for public consumption (otherwise you end up having to do multiple sweeps). [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 03:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::There are also sections which have been vetted by Legal and should not be open for editing by the public. This is one of the problems.--[[User:Jorm (WMF)|Jorm (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jorm (WMF)|talk]]) 23:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::: The legal team has no issue creating redacted PDFs. They just did for the [[NDA]]s. But they shouldn't be releasing documents in this way, of course. I've started some notes at [[legal docs]] for anyone interested. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 06:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Independence ==<br />
<br />
"Skillsets" is not a proper word. -- [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A|2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A]] 18:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
: Context, "Similarly, our Board of Trustees selection process is designed to encourage representation of different voices and skillsets, rather than recognizing donors or celebrities."<br />
: What would you recommend instead? "skill sets"? Something else? (This level of minor word tweaking you can really just do yourself, but I'm happy to proxy the edit for you from the talk page, if you'd like.) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 20:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: "Skillsets" is a reasonable word, but if the IP objects strenuously, we could use "sets of skills", which is rather po-faced. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 05:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::"Skillsets" is a perfectly cromulent word, even if my spell checker doesn't like it. If you're picky, write it as "skill sets". :) --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Frictionless and copyleft ==<br />
<br />
You might want to clarify this does not mean abandoning copyleft. Though not all WMF wikis use copyleft, many do, and there is general understanding of its benefits. I want to ensure people don't come later and start arguing that e.g. all new wikis should be non-copyleft to avoid "friction". [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 23:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Surely by definition, 'avoiding friction in reuse' would be 'copyleft' - it's talking about freedom for others to reuse our work, not freedom for us to reuse the work of others. Which WMF wikis are non-copyleft? [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 04:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:: Wikinews and Wikidata, for two. Copyleft licences are overly restrictive for wider re-use in some contexts. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 05:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Aha, we're talking less- rather than more-restrictive; my mistake :). [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 05:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Duplicate of [[wmf:Values]]? ==<br />
<br />
Hi. I wonder if these guiding principles aren't in some ways a duplicate of (or perhaps an update to) [[wmf:Values]]. What's the purpose of this document? Is it going to live alongside the [[wmf:mission|mission statement]], [[wmf:vision|vision statement]], etc.? Or will it end up being a Board resolution? Or something else? --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 04:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:It is similar, but more detailed than the values statement. I think the guiding principles are pretty well done, and cover some additional ground. It is worth considering if they could supersede the values statement, but there is some value in having a shorter document too. The guiding principles draft says, "It is likely that these principles will be presented to the Board of Trustees for their approval, at a future Board meeting." [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 16:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Yeah, Superm401 is correct. This document isn't intended to supersede the Values document. It's actually intended to flesh out the values a little bit further, so it's more explicit how we live them on a day-to-day basis at the staff level. A word like "independence," for example, is very subject to interpretation, and so the purpose here is to lay out how (e.g.,) the value "independence" manifests on a day-to-day basis, in practice, e.g., in the realm of fundraising, our commitment to open source, etc. Thanks. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 21:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Free formats ==<br />
<br />
In re: ''All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software,'' can you clarify whether or not this is meant to mean that we will provide every file in free formats and thus not ''require'' the use of non-free software to view the file or does this mean that we will not provide the file in non-free formats at all? There seems to be some contention both internally and externally surrounding the possibility of providing non-free formats. I, personally, full appreciate having available to me free-formats, but when all of my devices have hardware-accelerated H.264 decoding, I would prefer to save cpu cycles and my battery when watching videos from commons. Similarly, there are some mobile devices that only support non-free formats and thus we currently do not support those users. -[[User:Pgehres (WMF)|Peter Gehres (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Pgehres (WMF)|talk]]) 05:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:We're working on that issue with legal internally... I'm certainly trying to push advocacy for explicit support of multi-format stack as officially acceptable, and would prefer clearer language on this as well. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Quality ==<br />
<br />
It strikes me that there is a glaring omission here. The current list of principles is a good set of ideologies, but surely the Wikimedia Foundation values high-quality content as much as it does the abstract principles like transparency and accountability. I understand that the Foundation does not generally (nor should) directly involve itself in the creation or judging of content on the projects, but certainly one of its core duties is encouraging or enabling the content creation, and one of the core implicit principles is that the content of the projects ought to be high-quality, comprehensive, authoritative, and so on (to the degree such quality descriptors are applicable to each project). To me, it seems like the omission of any principle that actually addresses the content of the projects is likely a matter of something being so obvious it didn't seem to need saying. I think it is important nonetheless, though. [[User:Dominic|Dominic]] ([[User talk:Dominic|talk]]) 06:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
: I agree. I think reiterating the [[wmf:mission statement|mission statement]] might be good here. (Related to the section above about [[wmf:values]], this page seems to be doing a bit of wheel reinvention....) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 06:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Ads? ==<br />
<br />
Is being ad-free a guiding principle? Relatedly, is being neutral? --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 07:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:On the neutrality issue... that seems perhaps too WIkipedia-specific? Wikivoyage, for instance, has [[:wikivoyage:Wikivoyage:Be fair|no neutrality policy]]. It seems like being independent is really the principle here, related to being ad-free, and that actually extends to other things like not being reliant on a few major donors. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think being ad-free is ''something we think is really great'', but the relevant guiding principle is indeed independence. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Mm, it's a little more than "really great"; Sue, Jimmy, and other board members have repeatedly stated for the record that Wikipedia will never show ads. So it's not accurate to present this as merely a strong preference; it has long been a firm commitment. (All this not to contradict that the principle here ''is'' independence rather than ''no ads''.) [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 22:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::IMO a commitment to not put ads on the site is more of a ''position'' than a ''principle''. We certainly don't advocate against advertisement culture the way we advocate for free speech and access to information. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 23:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Agreed. (your first comment did not acknowledge it was a committed position.) [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 23:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::: Independence is the overall meta-principle, but ads come up ''so often'', even today, even after all the times we've said no. I think it's an artifact of our time and place and how every other internet service in the world gets funded, so I think it's worth focusing on ads specifically just to make the very clear point that: we are not the same as google, or facebook, etc. What we show people under our logos ''matters a lot'', and part of that is that no one can pay to control one square pixel of a Wikimedia project page. -- [[user:phoebe|phoebe]] | <small>[[user_talk:phoebe|talk]]</small> 00:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::Hilarious that I omitted anything about ads, considering I am asked about literally on a weekly basis. Ridiculous oversight, I'm glad it's been caught :-)<br />
:::::How about something like this (also now on the article page): <br />
:::::''Because the Wikimedia Foundation does not want to compromise the editorial integrity and independence of the projects, nor risk a perception that they have been compromised, we would be extremely reluctant to put advertising on the projects, or anything that might be perceived as advertising. We do not say that would never happen, because if it was a choice between shutting down the projects and accepting advertisements we would consider doing it, but we think it is highly unlikely to ever happen, and would only be considered in the gravest of circumstances.''<br />
:::::Let me know what you think -- thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 21:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Free speech ==<br />
<br />
"Another crack at alternative wording: We aim to balance appropriately between our goal of being active internationally and our desire to minimize legal risk to the projects."<br />
:^ I worry this version doesn't actually say anything about being pro-free speech or making information available to everyone. One way to improve our international activity and lower our risk profile would be to censor information for certain countries to comply with local censorship or blasphemy laws, but I think we wouldn't consider that acceptable. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 19:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Gah, good point Brion. You're right, it could be misread as supporting/allowing censorship, which of course is the opposite of what it's supposed to say. Clumsy writing. (By me.) I'll delete it from the page.<br />
::What about this version (copied from the article page): <br />
::''In making decisions, we will not allow censorship of our content as a means to facilitate other strategic goals: to the contrary, our strategic goal is to preserve content, and other initiatives must be consistent with that mission.''<br />
::Personally I never like use of the word "content" so I might rather word it as "censorship of the projects" and "to preserve the material in the projects," but that aside, do we think this works? <br />
::Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 21:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Thank you ==<br />
<br />
I just checked this page because I had a free moment (I am in an all-day annual planning meeting) and I want to say thank you to everyone who's contributing here -- this is a really useful conversation. Some of the language folks are proposing is really helpful, and there are a couple of places where the comments show that the existing language isn't nearly as clear as I thought it was. So this is good. I'll come back sometime over the next week, but please meanwhile continue to develop new needed language through discussion here -- it's very, very helpful. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]])<br />
<br />
== Wikimedia Brasil Statement of Principles ==<br />
Hi, I would like to suggest also the reading of the Statement of Principles made by the group of volunteers of Wikimedia in Brazil, in 2009, which has nice thoughts and can inspire a little those reading here:<br />
* [[:br:chapter:Wikimedia:Statement of Principles|Wikimedia Brasil - Statement of Principles]]<br />
I would like later, when I find time, to make comments on the internationalization section. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Tom]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 22:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Transparency: lack of IRS Form 990 ==<br />
<br />
Hello,<br />
<br />
The text mention we disclose the IRS form 990. The Financial page at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Financial_reports only shows the 2010-2011 form, thus we are missing the 2011-2012 form which should have been filled last year. [[User:Hashar|Ashar Voultoiz]] ([[User talk:Hashar|talk]]) 11:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:This isn't missing, just not there yet. :) The 2010-2011 form ([[:wmf:File:Form 990 - FY 10-11 - Public.pdf|here]]) was uploaded in May 2012. Previous years have been uploaded in [[:wmf::File:WMF 2009 2010 Form 990.pdf|April]], [[:wmf:File:WMF 2008 Form 990.pdf|May]], [[:wmf:File:WMF 2007 Form 990.pdf|May]] and [[:wmf:File:WMF 2006 Form 990.pdf|September]] of the year following the expiration of the fiscal year. Forms 990 are not due until the 15th day of the fifth month after the end of the fiscal year, with up to 180 days of extension if necessary. Last year's form 990 is still on schedule with previous years, and I'm sure it'll be uploaded sooner if ready. --[[User:Mdennis (WMF)|Maggie Dennis (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mdennis (WMF)|talk]]) 14:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Entities ==<br />
<br />
Thank you Sue for sharing and drafting this document in public! Reading the document – while understanding that it is aimed to describe current practice – I was a bit saddened to not see "movement entities" described in the context of partnership and cooperation in achieving the common goals. (There is some mention about giving movement entities money and freedom to do what they want, but I feel this does not live fully up to the [[mission]] statement, either in practice or at the level of principles.) –[[User:Bdamokos|Bence]] ([[User talk:Bdamokos|talk]]) 13:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Hi Bence. Yeah, I totally understand why you would say that -- it makes sense. I've just added this: "In addition to our work with individual volunteers, we work in collaboration with a network of chapter organizations and other Wikimedia movement entities, in our shared pursuit of the Wikimedia mission." Let me know if that works for you :-) Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 00:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks! --[[User:Bdamokos|Bence]] ([[User talk:Bdamokos|talk]]) 11:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== "Regardless of their title or position" ==<br />
<br />
"We aim to be careful with donors' money. We pay salaries that are fair but not lavish, and provide reasonable benefits (e.g., health and dental insurance) that are the same for all employees regardless of their title or position. We aim to incur only reasonable travel costs, and to keep work-related entertainment costs moderate."<br />
<br />
Hi. Is this recent? Was this envisioned when people were planning the catalyst programs? What about benefits as laptops and mobiles, how is the policy of WMF defined regading this? Best, --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Tom]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 18:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Hi Tom. No, none of this is recent. It's in the compensation practices document, which I don't have time right now to find the link for, but which is linked from the Foundation website -- I think if you do a search for compensation, you'll find it. I created that document in I believe 2009, to document practices that had been generally in place since I started. For things like laptops and phones, it works like this -- we provide laptops for all staff who want them (some I think prefer to use their personal machines) and we provide phones for staff whose jobs require them to have one. Generally, we provide whatever equipment people need to do their work. The equipment's the property of the Wikimedia Foundation, although in some cases when people leave the organization we let them keep them, depending how old (and therefore depreciated) they are. In a few cases when people had reasonably new equipment when they left, we let them buy them from the Foundation upon their leaving. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 16:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Finalizing the Guiding Principles soon ==<br />
<br />
Hey folks -- just wanted to let you know I am going to be finalizing the Guiding Principles over the next day or two. (So, by the end of 13 April.) The discussion can still continue, but if there's anything in the actual wording of the text that you would still like to see fine-tuned, please say so, and please propose new wording, over the next two days. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 00:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)</div>Sue Gardnerhttps://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resolution_talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles/Archive_1&diff=328123Resolution talk:Wikimedia Foundation Guiding Principles/Archive 12013-04-12T16:25:19Z<p>Sue Gardner: /* Right to influence */ replying to Nemo</p>
<hr />
<div>== Freedom and open source ==<br />
"As an organization, we strive to use open source tools over proprietary ones, although we use proprietary or closed tools (such as software, operating systems, etc.) where there is currently no open-source tool that will effectively meet our needs." - Is there a requirement and process in place which forces people to publish an evaluation which open-source tools were considered and tested for a task in order to identify which specific functionality was only provided by closed-source tools? --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 18:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:<br />
:Well, maybe that is my impression because I work remotely, but I've seen some proprietary files been shared and proprietary softwares being used when we could have free software. For instance, microsoft documents or apple softwares. And I've heard the wifi network in SF office works better with apple stuff, which is kind of weird - I've visited SF office only once and I checked that, but I've heard the same from other online meetings. For pragmatical reasons, sometimes I know using some closed softwares can deliver things faster tho. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Ezalvarenga]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 19:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:I agree we could use a little more discipline on this. e.g. I'm not ''convinced'' all Mac users in the office would truly be significantly less effective at their work on Ubuntu machines. I do acknowledge some may be. I think it warrants some nudging/pushing, though. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 20:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::I think there's a huge distinction between closed source tools for personal productivity, and closed source tools for supporting the projects. This should be clarified in the text of the principles, because the current state of affairs is that we require FOSS when it comes to what is actually necessary for the projects to run, and we obviously don't when it comes to the office IT. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 22:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Thanks. In my initial posting I had shared tools in production (servers, webservices, etc.) in mind, but did not mean to refer to personal computers of individuals - that would be under the "personal freedom" category, and a published evaluation feels like overkill for such private cases. --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::Hi, Aklapper, I don't have time today to make a longer comment, but for the personal freedom, if everybody begin to use closed formats, people who wants to use open formats will be forced to use also closed ones. If a person doesn't want to buy an apple computer, but the wifi network forces people to do so or make their lifes with other hardwares difficult, sorry, a serious policy about that should change. Yes, people can choose whatever they want on their personal computers, but if the majority is using what is fashion, a conscious minitority will not have freedom to choose what they want. As an example, I do use sometimes closed softwares, like skype, but only when really necessary, like a partner or co-worker that prefers to use it. And I know the pain it is sometimes to use only Linux since 1998. :) In Brazil, at least, in the government level, we are trying to [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/thackday/WCmyz2jltF8/sKDd0xCPQaQJ BURN ALL THE DOCS]! There are also [https://groups.google.com/group/thackday/browse_thread/thread/4f94fbf09e4b6f54 bills] under way. ;D P. S. I could not even imagine close softwares on the server side. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Ezalvarenga]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 12:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Responding to a couple of you here. No, AKlapper, AFAIK there is no formal documented requirement/process for evaluation of when the Wikimedia Foundation uses a proprietary tool instead of an open source one. To date we've been small enough, and had a sufficient proportion of the staff who're personally dedicated to open source values, such that evaluation has tended to happen informally on a case-by-case basis, and it's worked reasonably well. Like, we made an organizational commitment to use CiviCRM early and we've stuck with that, and similarly I know that Finance & Admin uses proprietary accounting tools because early on some research was done that determined there was no acceptable open-source tool. I think those were both reasonable outcomes. Over the years we've toyed with the idea of developing a formal evaluation policy, but we have not done it. If you're suggesting we should, I would generally agree, but I also wouldn't say it's the thing Office IT should prioritize as most important and most urgent.<br />
<br />
More generally, in response to Ezalvarenga and Ijon, yes, I'd agree that our actual practices are likely imperfect -- there are probably some people at the Wikimedia Foundation using proprietary tools for individual use that could be replaced by open source tools. For example, I know that Legal has at some times used Microsoft Word for documents shared with external firms, when they probably could've insisted on using OpenOffice or LibreOffice without too much of a productivity hit.<br />
<br />
Frankly, individuals using proprietary tools has been a pretty big pain point for the Wikimedia Foundation. It's understandable: individual staff have widely varying levels of personal commitment to FLOSS, people want to be effective at work and so they want to use the tools that support them best, and people's work, and their needs, vary. No-one wants to be told they have no choice but to use X, whether X is Ubuntu/Thunderbird/LibreOffice or IE/Outlook/Word. That's utterly reasonable. So it's complex, and we're not going to capture a lot of complexity in a short statement. <br />
<br />
StevenW had proposed we modify the language here to distinguish between site production tools and personal/individual tools. Can somebody propose language for that, and for anything else here that might need clarification or finetuning? Feel free to make a change and I'll revert it or finetune it if I feel I need to. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Related reading: [[FLOSS-Exchange]]. I think focusing on the ideal (and its rationale, which Erik sort of touched on with his "right to fork" [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5334873&oldid=5334652 addition]), instead of what individuals might do, is a reasonable compromise. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 07:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think the line should be what's shared by the organization (or teams within the organization) and personal. For anything shared, we should make it free software/open source unless it's really unworkable (and even then, we should always keep an eye out for moving to free software as it improves). But if you want to use MS Word on your personal machine to write PHP that fully meets our coding conventions, more power to you ;). This basically [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&oldid=5335910#Freedom_and_open_source matches] the current text. But there are some cases where free software is workable for shared tools but we're not currently using them; as I said, we should try to change that. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Agreed with SteveW and others above that there's some distinction between what we share, what we use personally, and what we require others to use. Apple users in the office? Who cares, they're mostly running FOSS on top of Apple -- most of our ops folks and engineers live in a terminal and use standard Unix tools. Adobe Photoshop and proprietary-format files for graphics work? Maybe we do care, because you can't always use the PSD files without it. (I always advocate for SVG format for graphics, especially anything we intend to use in software or on sites that may need to be revisioned in the future.) Google Apps for email? Who cares, email is interoperable. Google Hangouts for video conferencing internally? Who cares? Google Hangouts for video conferencing including open community participation? Runs on Linux, but requires a proprietary plugin; not ideal but we accept it as the best compromise of several options for now. Maybe we care but we can live with it. etc. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::So the text now reads like this: <br />
<br />
::''The Wikimedia Foundation is deeply rooted in the values of the free culture and free software movements. With the exception of "fair use" material, all information in Wikimedia projects can be freely shared, freely distributed, freely modified and freely used for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, in perpetuity.''<br />
::''All code written by the Wikimedia Foundation is licensed under an applicable open source license. We realize our obligations not just to share code, but to cultivate a healthy community of contributors around the source code, and to work with upstream projects and contribute back improvements to their code.''<br />
::''All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software.''<br />
::''Consistent with the above principles, we support the right of third parties to make and maintain licensing-compliant copies and forks of Wikimedia content and Wikimedia-developed code, regardless of motivation or purpose. While we are generally not able to directly assist such efforts, we enable them by making available copies of Wikimedia content in bulk, and avoiding critical dependencies on proprietary code or services for maintaining a largely functionally equivalent fork.''<br />
::''As an organization, we strive to use open source tools over proprietary ones, although we use proprietary or closed tools (such as software, operating systems, etc.) where there is currently no open-source tool that will effectively meet our needs.''<br />
<br />
::Does this work for everybody? I could add some language specifically around personal tool use, but I feel like "where there's no open-source tool that would effectively meet our needs" covers it. Like, you use Illustrator if Gimp isn't good enough for what you need. Let me know if anyone feels like this language isn't clear/accurate: otherwise I'll consider this thread resolved. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 21:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: As a very minor piece of word-smithing, I'd change "not able to directly assist such efforts" to "not able to individually assist such efforts" - we do directly help such efforts with data dumps and tools, we just don't have the resources to give human attention individually to such efforts. But yes, looks good to go otherwise. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 22:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::: Done -- thanks James :-) [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 17:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Quick suggestion... ==<br />
<br />
[https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASue_Gardner%2FWikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5332950&oldid=5331958 ], which I made before seeing the request to comment first. Anyway, "serving every human being" seems a bit disingenuous, since we really aim to serve every literate human being with access to data and a digital device. ;-) The goal of providing equal access to all seems fairer, and more in line the the section's comments about well, accessibility. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 00:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:"equal access to all" is, er, equally disingenuous, as, by your own phrase, we're providing equal access only to "every literate human being with access to data and a digital device".<br />
:Furthermore, I actually do think we ''strive'' to serve every human being. Remember the free knowledge the Wikimedia community creates and shares is consumed offline too, not to mention the huge value of secondary use -- the knowledge worked into presentations, newspapers, books, radio and TV programs -- all consumed by hundreds of millions ''more'' than the group consuming it directly from our Web sites. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 00:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Yeah, I agree with Ijon. The language is "aims to" and "endeavours to," so I think it's appropriately framed as aspirational. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Actually, it's not quite that limited. We do generally serve literate people, but there are actually readings of many articles (e.g. see [[:w:Template:Spoken Wikipedia|Template:Spoken Wikipedia]], I'm sure among others). There are also various mechanisms for printing Wikipedia (some in-house, some just people trying to make money by selling Wikipedia books), so you don't need a digital device. The fact that we've consistently used fully free licenses for our content (except fair use extracts) has facilitated all of that. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Commons serves non-literate people indirectly. {{Smiley}} —[[User:Tom Morris|Tom Morris]] ([[User talk:Tom Morris|talk]]) 19:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Getting rich ==<br />
<br />
On «nobody is getting rich by working at the Wikimedia Foundation»: define "rich". For instance, I'm a student but I'm very rich compared to most world population and richer than millions of Italians (so, when serving in my university board I raised tuition fees for myself/my income range). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Yeah obviously "getting rich" is relative. It's only when you compare [[:wiktionary:apples and oranges|apples to apples]] and look at other tech and nonprofit compensation schemes that you see what is meant. In any case, it's pretty awesome that we want to put that among our guiding principles, right? <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Edit conflict with StevenW! And yeah, Steven, I agree. I think the key word here is "getting." Nemo is correct of course that by world population standards, everybody who works at the Wikimedia Foundation is rich. But we were born rich, we did not "get" rich through our work at the Wikimedia Foundation. The point here is that working at the Wikimedia Foundation is not a path to dramatically improving one's personal wealth. Thanks. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::I tend to see those negative statements ("'''not''' getting rich") as putting things in people's head that you don't want there in the first place. You say "not getting rich" (and I am on par with both Steven's and your interpretation on this) and all people seem to read/hear is "rich". Maybe we should try to find a positive statement for this? I'm kind of stuck though for a good one. "If you want to get rich, go work somewhere else"? -- ok, that one is stupid, but maybe you get my point? [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 21:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::I suspected that the point was in ''getting'', however this is tricky. One may get "richer" by going to work in the WMF for career reasons, compared to the previous work (or country?), comparatively getting "poorer" than possible in some other place, however the latter is mostly impossible to prove. "Nobody is getting richer" would be clearer but is technically wrong.<br />
:::Maybe: "we aim at level of income not being an important [the most important? one of the most important?] motivation[s] for someone to stay at the WMF", which implies there are different/contrasting motivations (presumably honest ;) ) without getting lost in defining which, and that income may be sacrificed. This is probably what is meant hear; no idea if it is positive enough as per notafish. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC) <small>P.s.: Steven, personally I don't care that much if someone gets rich at the WMF, as long as it's not by fleeing with the cash. :) I just like clarity.</small><br />
::::Seems a bit "off" for Sue Gardner to be commenting on "not getting rich" when her salary exceeds that of about 99% of American wage earners. -- [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A|2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A]] 18:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
I've just removed the phrase about getting rich. I think "fair but not lavish" covers it :-) Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 22:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Reasonable travel costs==<br />
«We aim to incur only reasonable travel costs: the general policy is to travel economy class and stay in moderately-priced hotels»: were $225K for staff (and board) at Wikimania reasonable? [[Talk:Wikimedia budget#Wikimania travel question]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:How much is that per person sent to Wikimania that year? I think looking at the total for shock value is unfair. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Nemo we're not making a commitment here to reduce travel costs, or to minimize travel. (I wouldn't want to do that: with a growing staff that operates as part of a global community that stages many international events such as Wikimania, the chapters' meeting and various hackathons, it strikes me that a focus on reducing travel costs would be a net negative not a net plus. I expect travel costs to be a not-insubstantial chunk of the Wikimedia Foundation budget: that seems eminently reasonable to me given the nature of our work.) The point here is simply that when we travel, we aim to do it moderately not luxuriously. The nuts-and-bolts of how we do that are captured in [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Travel_policy the travel policy], but the purpose of this statement is simply to summarize the overall intent. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::So in short yes, you think it's reasonable. :) <small>I don't know if it was: while you do or can know all the details on the alternatives and other considerations, I can't judge — no opinion at all.</small> Given that "reasonable" conveys little, you may consider removing «to incur only reasonable travel costs: the general policy is » and leaving only the straightforward part of the statement.<br />
:::Ideally (IMHO), we'd include some other criteria, like the impact:cost ratio (which you hinted to), usage of cheapest means of transportation, miscellaneous synergies (dumb example: double rooms instead of single where possible? and other more impactful stuff), with the disclaimer that all this must be applied fairly (see other section on benefits/reimbursements). I have no idea what are the current practices on all this so I don't know where to start, but I'm confident a compact form is possible. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::Hey Nemo, please see my comment in Title and Position (the next section down). Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 17:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Title or position==<br />
«People at the Wikimedia Foundation get the same benefits regardless of their title or position». <br />
*Who's "people"? Are you including all managers, trustees and employees?<br />
*What's "benefits" and how do you measure if "salaries" are "fair"? Are you considering only accessories or also the actual wage, before or after taxes, pension contributions etc.?<br />
*What are you including in "title or position" (or other comparison for "fair")? For instance, remote worker vs. office worker, full time vs. part time, staff vs. contractor.<br />
--[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:*Well, people does include at least all staff if you read further "regardless of their title or position". This should include everyone. As for Trustees, you've got a point, "people" is not clear and should probably be changed to "Staff" when it comes to benefits. I do not believe Trustees get benefits, even though they might benefit from insurance and related stuff when it comes to their work for the Foundation. It might make sense here to differentiate between staff/volunteers or something along those lines. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 14:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::To be clear: yes, the statement's intended to refer to all staff, and I can change the word "people" to "staff." There is detail available in the document [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/2a/Wikimedia_Foundation_Compensation_Practices.pdf Wikimedia Foundation Compensation Practices]. And for Notafish, yes, the trustees don't get any benefits. Expenses they incur on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation are reimbursed as per the policies, but they receive no compensation in the form of salary or other benefits. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::I think Staff makes sense in that context, thanks for clarifying. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 21:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC) <small>(Sue, it's '''n'''otafish, with a small '''n''', and I'm stupidly particular about it. If you want a capital, go with Delphine ;)</small><br />
:::::Thank you, Sue, this clarifies the first point: only two left in this section. :)<br />
:::::On "benefits", the exact meaning of the word (or lexical equivalent) varies quite a lot across jurisdictions and fiscal systems, as far as I know, so it's not safe to assume everyone will get what you mean. I understand that reimbursements are a different matter, but it would be nice if they were fair and independent from title etc., too. (I suppose they already mostly are?) --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::: Yeah, in the U.S. "benefits" is generally understood not to include salary (people talk about "salary plus benefits") (it's basically everything ''but'' salary). However, that might not be true in other countries/languages. Also, the 401(k) maximum match is a fixed percentage of salary. While the percentage is the same across position, the amount (n% × salary) technically is not. However, it's true this is a fine distinction. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
*'Staff' is normally understood to mean Employees + Contractors, where contractors are afforded fewer benefits (if any at all). I'd suggest amending to specify 'Employees at...'. [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 23:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
**I'd kind of like us to provide fair benefits to all staff including international contractors, but of course jurisdictions make things.... difficult. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 19:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::: As per Oliver and others, I changed "staff" to "employees" for clarity. I do wish the WMF could provide equivalent benefits to everyone regardless of their official status (i.e., staff versus contractor) but Brion is right, it's very complex. Having said that, I'm pleased we do provide additional benefits to all U.S. employees beyond what's provided by the state. In many/most countries, the state provides the basics: in the United States it does not, and so employer-provided health insurance is critical. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 17:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::: Okay I just rewrote this section. <br />
<br />
::::''We aim to be careful with donors' money. We pay salaries that are fair but not lavish, and provide reasonable benefits (e.g., health and dental insurance) that are the same for all employees regardless of their title or position. We aim to incur only reasonable travel costs, and to keep work-related entertainment costs moderate.'' <br />
<br />
::::Purpose of the rewrite is just clarity/simplicity. Nemo, rather than expanding the travel-related part with more detail I made it higher-level. [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Travel_policy The full travel policy is here], and it's an official Board policy, so if it changes it would be updated on that page. Folks, let me know if aiming "to keep work-related entertainment costs moderate" is clear enough. Again, there is a [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Duty_entertainment_guidelines_policy more detailed policy on this]. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 17:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::: It's clearer now, although of course it requires some knowledge to understand what "employee" and "benefit" mean exactly in USA.<br />
::::: As for travel costs, fine to "redirect" to the policy; what about replacing "reasonable travel costs" with "consistent and fair travel costs", quoting the very first paragraph of the policy itself? It's still high level but more specific. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 14:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Accountable==<br />
«The Wikimedia Foundation wants to be accountable to [...]». Please clarify how the concept of accountability applies here: «responsible for your decisions or actions and expected to explain them when you are asked»[http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/accountable] (are there processes to be responsible of your actions in front of the readers, receive their questions and explain? etc.). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Sure, of course there are processes to be responsible to the readers of the projects. Reader surveys. User testing. OTRS. The blogs. The annual reports. The regular publication of activity reports, performance reports, financial statements. Social media. Engagement with charity watchdog groups. Public mailing lists. Bugzilla. Office hours on IRC. Events for donors. This page, and many other on-wiki consultations related to feature development, policy development, and so forth. There are probably lots I am forgetting :-) Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Most of what you mention is communication ''by'' the WMF (or discussion among colleagues), not something that falls under "expected to explain [your decisions or actions] when you are asked": specifically, everything except OTRS, mailing lists, social media and office hours; in fact, I've never heard of watchdog groups and events for donors in WMF (links?), but again are they really people you're held accountable to, who can ask questions independently and to whom you're expected to answer?<br />
::Social media are obviously not the place for serious discussions and office hours are only for affectionate wikimedians willing to use IRC, so we're left with OTRS and mailing lists. Would you say that WMF is ''expected'' to explain its decisions and actions when asked on mailing lists and OTRS? Who specifically at the WMF, what lists and OTRS queues, and questions by whom (are readers expected to write on mailing lists?)? For instance, [[wmf:Contact us]] doesn't offer any such option, nor [[wmf:Staff and contractors]] says anything on the topic. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 14:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Shared power==<br />
This section seems entirely useless, in that it lists a lot of minor ephemeral details from the ''here and now'' and no actual "principles" that may "guide" any action. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:The purpose of this section is to explicitly acknowledge that the Wikimedia Foundation works in partnership with a global community of volunteers -- that the Wikimedia Foundation is not the sole or even primary actor in fulfilling the Wikimedia mission, and that it needs to conduct itself accordingly, by creating mechanisms and processes enabling the community to have influence on its actions. Because we are interdependent partners. I think this is a pretty fundamental and important point to make, because in this regard we are different from practically everybody else. (What I mean by that: eBay and Facebook and Yelp may also have a social purpose or utility, but their primary purpose is to make money, and "community members" are a resource to be managed by the company to that end. In our case, the primary purpose of the movement is to make knowledge freely available to everyone around the world, and the Wikimedia Foundation and the global community of volunteers play different and complementary roles in achieving that shared goal.) So I wonder if that's not clear -- if my wording is just mucky. If so, can someone help propose better, more useful language? Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]])<br />
:The shared power section does mention volunteer "developers". However, I would like to see more emphasis on this. Something like "The Wikimedia Foundation strives to continually increase its partnership with outside developers, project managers, and system adminstrators so we can technically improve the sites together". This is an area where we've had some success, but more can definitely be done. The reason I said "outside" not "volunteer" is that they may be paid to work on something like MediaWiki, just not paid ''by'' WMF. The Apache Software Foundation is an example of an organization where many (not all) developers are paid (by various companies organizations), but they partner together to get things done. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Hi Matt,<br />
<br />
:: Sue asked me to help her add to the section, and I've made an effort to do so [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5361354&oldid=5361335 here]. I think the "aligned with our interests" piece is an important qualifier.--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 21:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==United States==<br />
On «support successful job candidates in attaining the legal right to work in the United States»: why only USA? What if they want to move elsewhere? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Maybe this should become "...to work from a WMF office in the United States", in case that's what's meant here. --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Or rather: Support succesful job candidates in attaining the legal right to work in the US should the need arise". Or something along those lines. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 14:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Yeah -- you're correct, we also support remote workers when people don't want to relocate and the job doesn't require it. I will reword :-) [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Here's what I changed it too -- let me know if this is clearer. "We aim to recruit talented people regardless of where they live, and depending on their preferences and the needs of the job, we support them in working remotely or relocating to the United States." Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::Does the trick, as far as I'm concerned. :) [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 21:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::::Yes, much clearer, thanks. <br />
::::::Ideally you'd be completely nation-neutral and support them in relocating to another country of their choice too, if suitable for them, and you could remove the "to the United States" bit. However, I understand this is an edge case. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::::Relocations are done because the WMF feels the employee should be in-office. Up until we open an office somewhere else I can't imagine that spending donor funds moving people to a country 'because they want to live there' would be optimal. [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 23:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::::::Yeah, Oliver is right. We have once or twice had staff who wanted to relocate for personal reasons. We are okay with them doing it when it doesn't interfere with their work (like, if they are moving from one non-SF location to another non-SF location, or if they used to work from SF, want to move elsewhere, and working remotely wouldn't hurt their ability to do their work). But in those cases, when they are moving for personal reasons, the WMF wouldn't pay for the move, and wouldn't arrange or pay for any services related to the move, such as immigration-related legal fees. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 20:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::::::I understand this, but I'm convinced that "the employee should be in-office" is only one of the many possible requirements to achieve the max productivity for an employee. Assuming that the only possible relocation one may be forced to in order to work efficiently for the WMF is a relocation to SF sounds bad to my ears in principle. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 14:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Just out of curiosity, does the WMF pay for the repatriation of employees once their employment ends? --[[User:Bdamokos|Bence]] ([[User talk:Bdamokos|talk]]) 11:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Nemo yeah, that is definitely true. Not everyone needs to be in the office, and the people who're in the office don't need to be there all the time. It's definitely true that sometimes productivity is higher if people are out of the office (all the time or some of the time), and that's why the WMF is pretty flexible on this issue. For example, lots of people who work in the San Francisco office normally will work from home if they have a dense session of writing to get through, or if they want to slam through a bunch of code without being interrupted.<br />
::Bence, no, generally we don't pay to repatriate employees. There might be circumstances in which we would do that, for example if someone was coming in for a chunk of work with a defined duration -- like, a one-year-contract. In that case we might be open to exploring whether we'd move them here and then move them back afterwards. But I don't think we have ever done that to date. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 16:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Serving every human being==<br />
This section looks weird being 7 sections away from «Freedom and open source» with «All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software» etc. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The emphasis on the development of new features is undue and likely to grate on both engineering staff and community, in my opinion. It is out of step with the custodian role which many individuals in both groups identify with. We should express a stronger commitment to high availability and site performance. --[[User:Ori.livneh|Ori.livneh]] ([[User talk:Ori.livneh|talk]]) 10:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Oh ha, Ori.livneh I think that's just clumsy wording on my part. I can see how it's easy to misread, but what you think I said is not what I meant to be saying. I'll revise. I'll also move this chunk up to be nearer to Freedom and Open Source. Thanks to you both [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Also, it talks about these being directed at "readers", and hoping to support them in starting to contribute - but we should probably also talk about supporting existing contributors. :-) [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 20:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: On Sue's request, I've tried to address these points with [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5334886&oldid=5334873 this edit].--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 23:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: It's better (thanks, Sue, Erik, and James) but it's still not quite right, in my opinion: rather than rank engineering priorities (features, performance, availability) and then work backwards to explain the values that motivate them (access, participation), I think the section ought to lead with a statement of values, and then explain how our engineering priorities reflect our effort to realize these values maximally. --[[User:Ori.livneh|Ori.livneh]] ([[User talk:Ori.livneh|talk]]) 11:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::: Want to take a crack at drafting something on talk?--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 20:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::: How about:<br />
:::::: <div style="border:1px solid silver; background:#eee; margin:0.5em; padding:1em 2em;">The Wikimedia Foundation aims to make <span style="background: #d8ecff;">the</span> material in the Wikimedia projects broadly accessible to all. <span style="background: #d8ecff;">We work to enable for the world education from, entertainment by, and engagement with our projects' content, and participation in the communities and processes that create them.</span> Ensuring <span style="background: #d8ecff;">the</span> continued reliability, availability and responsiveness of all Wikimedia sites and services is our first priority. In prioritizing new products and features, our goal is to impact the largest-possible number of readers and contributors, and to eliminate barriers that could preclude people from accessing or contributing to our projects, such as poor usability, lack of language support, and limited access to technology. We endeavour to create the structural support and the necessary preconditions for bottom-up innovation by others. We do not form agreements in which one organization is given access to material or functionality that others are denied. Where possible, we aim to preserve and support frictionless use of the material in the projects, so that people can share it widely and easily.</div><br />
:::::: Thoughts? Please forgive the "power of threes" and running alliterations. :-) I worry that this section is now trying to say too much; possibly split after "technology"? I'm not particularly attached to my wording, so don't worry about offending. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 05:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Communication==<br />
Do you think https://xkcd.com/802/ [https://xkcd.com/802_large/] applies to the WMF? (In particular, the proportions in the two maps on the top <s>right</s> left being zoomed.) --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Nemo, could you clarify which proportions you refer to by naming them? Top right is "Unread Updates". --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Ouch. I meant left, of course. :) Thanks, [[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Right to fork==<br />
Again nothing. [[Talk:Terms of use/Archives/2011-12-06#Right to Fork]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
* Probably more of a Wikimedia principle than a Wikimedia Foundation principle. Perhaps we need a separate list? :-) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 09:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
*: I doubt it: «principles intended to guide the work of the Wikimedia Foundation». Who else do you suggest to task with ensuring the right to fork? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: Sue asked me to explore some language around this, so I've taken a first crack at it with [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5334873&oldid=5334652 this edit].--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 23:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::: Thanks! Much better. I'll let the experts comment on the specific wording and if it covers all the essential (people would like to have something more than page history dumps, but what exactly is tricky). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 23:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::: If this idea is developed any further could someone ping me? I'm interested for obvious reasons. Thanks. -- [[User:ArielGlenn|ArielGlenn]] ([[User talk:ArielGlenn|talk]]) 09:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think this is covered now by Erik's language, right? <br />
<br />
''Consistent with the above principles, we support the right of third parties to make and maintain licensing-compliant copies and forks of Wikimedia content and Wikimedia-developed code, regardless of motivation or purpose. While we are generally not able to individually assist such efforts, we enable them by making available copies of Wikimedia content in bulk, and avoiding critical dependencies on proprietary code or services for maintaining a largely functionally equivalent fork.''<br />
<br />
Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 20:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Not necessarily. For instance, a list of users is not "content" nor software dependency. This is probably a stupid example, again I'm not an expert of forking. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 14:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Internationalism ==<br />
<br />
«''When we consider the community'' as a whole, we aim to consider all its languages and geographies and to avoid global initiatives that favor communities speaking only our languages» (emphasis added).<br />
I note that you're only talking of how you consider the community; what about «initiatives that favor communities speaking only our languages» in general? For instance, roughly how much of the WMF spending goes on initiatives that favor only English-language people (projects, users etc., readers) or only the USA? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Right to influence ==<br />
<br />
«Their work has earned [...] financial support sustaining the Wikimedia Foundation [...] and the global community has therefore earned the right to influence the work of the organizations»: it ''seems'' that you're stating that the only reason why someone has the "right to influence" the work is that they bring in dollars. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Mm, Nemo, this is a good point. I was meaning to specifically talk about the financial aspect, but I realize from your comment that it reads wrong --- it *does* read like that's the only reason the community members matter, which is of course not true. I've taken a crack at rewording below, let me know what you think.<br />
<br />
''These are the people who build the projects, and they have earned the right to influence the development of the platform, and the work of organizations that receive funding from the movement.''<br />
<br />
Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 20:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Better, but again the emphasis on funding is IMHO misleading. Also, what is "funding from the movement"?<br />
:I think it would be better to build upon that "influence the development of the platform", generalising to any work around the [[Wikimedia projects]] (whether software development or other kind of activity); and to replace the second part with "anyone willing to work with or within the [[Wikimedia movement]], of which they are the most important part". <br />
:For instance, lettera27 works on WikiAfrica with external funds, and is working with the Wikimedia movement (or is already part of it because it furthers its aims): does this mean that the rest of the Wikimedia movement should have nothing to say about what they do? Of course not, lettera27 should and does listen carefully to what editors and other wikimedians have to say, because they are among those who can advise them best on the work they wish to do on Wikimedia projects (apart from having some "right" to do so). <br />
:Which brings me to the final observation: the "right to influence" makes it sound something those "organizations that receive funding" have to live with against their will ("hey, you must listen to me because it's my right, whether you like it or not!"), rather than a cooperation in which they learn and gain something. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 15:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::All good comments Nemo, thank you. I've made some pretty substantial edits to the text to reflect what you've said here. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 16:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Transparency ==<br />
<br />
This section says "including employee guidelines". What happened to the public sharing of the [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Employee_Handbook Employee Handbook]? -- [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A|2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A]] 18:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
: I asked about this recently. It doesn't really seem relevant to this kind of document, though. There's a thread on wikimedia-l, I think, if you want to follow up. :-) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 21:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:: It explicitly says "As a matter of general practice, unless there’s a particular reason not to, we aim to publish internal organizational policies and procedures, including employee guidelines, financial policies, etc." I think it does belong here, because what the employees do is relevant, particularly to the donors who are essentially paying us. I agree the current reality around such employee procedures, etc. is not quite consistent with the document. There is some stuff on Office Wiki (a private WMF wiki for employees) that does not need to be confidential. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 23:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::: If only there were someone with access to both wikis with the technical know-how to move the pages. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 03:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::I'm pretty sure the staff handbook contains (amongst other things) access info to our healthcare providers, and other non-public information which should be stripped. I think that if someone did have the access and technical know-how to move the pages and acted on it, they'd swiftly find themselves losing the access ;p. As a general statement, the document ''should'' be moved over - but I imagine they want to get it finished and stable before combing through it to identify elements inappropriate for public consumption (otherwise you end up having to do multiple sweeps). [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 03:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::There are also sections which have been vetted by Legal and should not be open for editing by the public. This is one of the problems.--[[User:Jorm (WMF)|Jorm (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jorm (WMF)|talk]]) 23:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::: The legal team has no issue creating redacted PDFs. They just did for the [[NDA]]s. But they shouldn't be releasing documents in this way, of course. I've started some notes at [[legal docs]] for anyone interested. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 06:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Independence ==<br />
<br />
"Skillsets" is not a proper word. -- [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A|2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A]] 18:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
: Context, "Similarly, our Board of Trustees selection process is designed to encourage representation of different voices and skillsets, rather than recognizing donors or celebrities."<br />
: What would you recommend instead? "skill sets"? Something else? (This level of minor word tweaking you can really just do yourself, but I'm happy to proxy the edit for you from the talk page, if you'd like.) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 20:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: "Skillsets" is a reasonable word, but if the IP objects strenuously, we could use "sets of skills", which is rather po-faced. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 05:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::"Skillsets" is a perfectly cromulent word, even if my spell checker doesn't like it. If you're picky, write it as "skill sets". :) --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Frictionless and copyleft ==<br />
<br />
You might want to clarify this does not mean abandoning copyleft. Though not all WMF wikis use copyleft, many do, and there is general understanding of its benefits. I want to ensure people don't come later and start arguing that e.g. all new wikis should be non-copyleft to avoid "friction". [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 23:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Surely by definition, 'avoiding friction in reuse' would be 'copyleft' - it's talking about freedom for others to reuse our work, not freedom for us to reuse the work of others. Which WMF wikis are non-copyleft? [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 04:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:: Wikinews and Wikidata, for two. Copyleft licences are overly restrictive for wider re-use in some contexts. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 05:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Aha, we're talking less- rather than more-restrictive; my mistake :). [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 05:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Duplicate of [[wmf:Values]]? ==<br />
<br />
Hi. I wonder if these guiding principles aren't in some ways a duplicate of (or perhaps an update to) [[wmf:Values]]. What's the purpose of this document? Is it going to live alongside the [[wmf:mission|mission statement]], [[wmf:vision|vision statement]], etc.? Or will it end up being a Board resolution? Or something else? --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 04:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:It is similar, but more detailed than the values statement. I think the guiding principles are pretty well done, and cover some additional ground. It is worth considering if they could supersede the values statement, but there is some value in having a shorter document too. The guiding principles draft says, "It is likely that these principles will be presented to the Board of Trustees for their approval, at a future Board meeting." [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 16:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Yeah, Superm401 is correct. This document isn't intended to supersede the Values document. It's actually intended to flesh out the values a little bit further, so it's more explicit how we live them on a day-to-day basis at the staff level. A word like "independence," for example, is very subject to interpretation, and so the purpose here is to lay out how (e.g.,) the value "independence" manifests on a day-to-day basis, in practice, e.g., in the realm of fundraising, our commitment to open source, etc. Thanks. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 21:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Free formats ==<br />
<br />
In re: ''All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software,'' can you clarify whether or not this is meant to mean that we will provide every file in free formats and thus not ''require'' the use of non-free software to view the file or does this mean that we will not provide the file in non-free formats at all? There seems to be some contention both internally and externally surrounding the possibility of providing non-free formats. I, personally, full appreciate having available to me free-formats, but when all of my devices have hardware-accelerated H.264 decoding, I would prefer to save cpu cycles and my battery when watching videos from commons. Similarly, there are some mobile devices that only support non-free formats and thus we currently do not support those users. -[[User:Pgehres (WMF)|Peter Gehres (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Pgehres (WMF)|talk]]) 05:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:We're working on that issue with legal internally... I'm certainly trying to push advocacy for explicit support of multi-format stack as officially acceptable, and would prefer clearer language on this as well. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Quality ==<br />
<br />
It strikes me that there is a glaring omission here. The current list of principles is a good set of ideologies, but surely the Wikimedia Foundation values high-quality content as much as it does the abstract principles like transparency and accountability. I understand that the Foundation does not generally (nor should) directly involve itself in the creation or judging of content on the projects, but certainly one of its core duties is encouraging or enabling the content creation, and one of the core implicit principles is that the content of the projects ought to be high-quality, comprehensive, authoritative, and so on (to the degree such quality descriptors are applicable to each project). To me, it seems like the omission of any principle that actually addresses the content of the projects is likely a matter of something being so obvious it didn't seem to need saying. I think it is important nonetheless, though. [[User:Dominic|Dominic]] ([[User talk:Dominic|talk]]) 06:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
: I agree. I think reiterating the [[wmf:mission statement|mission statement]] might be good here. (Related to the section above about [[wmf:values]], this page seems to be doing a bit of wheel reinvention....) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 06:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Ads? ==<br />
<br />
Is being ad-free a guiding principle? Relatedly, is being neutral? --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 07:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:On the neutrality issue... that seems perhaps too WIkipedia-specific? Wikivoyage, for instance, has [[:wikivoyage:Wikivoyage:Be fair|no neutrality policy]]. It seems like being independent is really the principle here, related to being ad-free, and that actually extends to other things like not being reliant on a few major donors. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think being ad-free is ''something we think is really great'', but the relevant guiding principle is indeed independence. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Mm, it's a little more than "really great"; Sue, Jimmy, and other board members have repeatedly stated for the record that Wikipedia will never show ads. So it's not accurate to present this as merely a strong preference; it has long been a firm commitment. (All this not to contradict that the principle here ''is'' independence rather than ''no ads''.) [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 22:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::IMO a commitment to not put ads on the site is more of a ''position'' than a ''principle''. We certainly don't advocate against advertisement culture the way we advocate for free speech and access to information. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 23:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Agreed. (your first comment did not acknowledge it was a committed position.) [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 23:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::: Independence is the overall meta-principle, but ads come up ''so often'', even today, even after all the times we've said no. I think it's an artifact of our time and place and how every other internet service in the world gets funded, so I think it's worth focusing on ads specifically just to make the very clear point that: we are not the same as google, or facebook, etc. What we show people under our logos ''matters a lot'', and part of that is that no one can pay to control one square pixel of a Wikimedia project page. -- [[user:phoebe|phoebe]] | <small>[[user_talk:phoebe|talk]]</small> 00:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::Hilarious that I omitted anything about ads, considering I am asked about literally on a weekly basis. Ridiculous oversight, I'm glad it's been caught :-)<br />
:::::How about something like this (also now on the article page): <br />
:::::''Because the Wikimedia Foundation does not want to compromise the editorial integrity and independence of the projects, nor risk a perception that they have been compromised, we would be extremely reluctant to put advertising on the projects, or anything that might be perceived as advertising. We do not say that would never happen, because if it was a choice between shutting down the projects and accepting advertisements we would consider doing it, but we think it is highly unlikely to ever happen, and would only be considered in the gravest of circumstances.''<br />
:::::Let me know what you think -- thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 21:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Free speech ==<br />
<br />
"Another crack at alternative wording: We aim to balance appropriately between our goal of being active internationally and our desire to minimize legal risk to the projects."<br />
:^ I worry this version doesn't actually say anything about being pro-free speech or making information available to everyone. One way to improve our international activity and lower our risk profile would be to censor information for certain countries to comply with local censorship or blasphemy laws, but I think we wouldn't consider that acceptable. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 19:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Gah, good point Brion. You're right, it could be misread as supporting/allowing censorship, which of course is the opposite of what it's supposed to say. Clumsy writing. (By me.) I'll delete it from the page.<br />
::What about this version (copied from the article page): <br />
::''In making decisions, we will not allow censorship of our content as a means to facilitate other strategic goals: to the contrary, our strategic goal is to preserve content, and other initiatives must be consistent with that mission.''<br />
::Personally I never like use of the word "content" so I might rather word it as "censorship of the projects" and "to preserve the material in the projects," but that aside, do we think this works? <br />
::Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 21:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Thank you ==<br />
<br />
I just checked this page because I had a free moment (I am in an all-day annual planning meeting) and I want to say thank you to everyone who's contributing here -- this is a really useful conversation. Some of the language folks are proposing is really helpful, and there are a couple of places where the comments show that the existing language isn't nearly as clear as I thought it was. So this is good. I'll come back sometime over the next week, but please meanwhile continue to develop new needed language through discussion here -- it's very, very helpful. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]])<br />
<br />
== Wikimedia Brasil Statement of Principles ==<br />
Hi, I would like to suggest also the reading of the Statement of Principles made by the group of volunteers of Wikimedia in Brazil, in 2009, which has nice thoughts and can inspire a little those reading here:<br />
* [[:br:chapter:Wikimedia:Statement of Principles|Wikimedia Brasil - Statement of Principles]]<br />
I would like later, when I find time, to make comments on the internationalization section. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Tom]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 22:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Transparency: lack of IRS Form 990 ==<br />
<br />
Hello,<br />
<br />
The text mention we disclose the IRS form 990. The Financial page at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Financial_reports only shows the 2010-2011 form, thus we are missing the 2011-2012 form which should have been filled last year. [[User:Hashar|Ashar Voultoiz]] ([[User talk:Hashar|talk]]) 11:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:This isn't missing, just not there yet. :) The 2010-2011 form ([[:wmf:File:Form 990 - FY 10-11 - Public.pdf|here]]) was uploaded in May 2012. Previous years have been uploaded in [[:wmf::File:WMF 2009 2010 Form 990.pdf|April]], [[:wmf:File:WMF 2008 Form 990.pdf|May]], [[:wmf:File:WMF 2007 Form 990.pdf|May]] and [[:wmf:File:WMF 2006 Form 990.pdf|September]] of the year following the expiration of the fiscal year. Forms 990 are not due until the 15th day of the fifth month after the end of the fiscal year, with up to 180 days of extension if necessary. Last year's form 990 is still on schedule with previous years, and I'm sure it'll be uploaded sooner if ready. --[[User:Mdennis (WMF)|Maggie Dennis (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mdennis (WMF)|talk]]) 14:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Entities ==<br />
<br />
Thank you Sue for sharing and drafting this document in public! Reading the document – while understanding that it is aimed to describe current practice – I was a bit saddened to not see "movement entities" described in the context of partnership and cooperation in achieving the common goals. (There is some mention about giving movement entities money and freedom to do what they want, but I feel this does not live fully up to the [[mission]] statement, either in practice or at the level of principles.) –[[User:Bdamokos|Bence]] ([[User talk:Bdamokos|talk]]) 13:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Hi Bence. Yeah, I totally understand why you would say that -- it makes sense. I've just added this: "In addition to our work with individual volunteers, we work in collaboration with a network of chapter organizations and other Wikimedia movement entities, in our shared pursuit of the Wikimedia mission." Let me know if that works for you :-) Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 00:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks! --[[User:Bdamokos|Bence]] ([[User talk:Bdamokos|talk]]) 11:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== "Regardless of their title or position" ==<br />
<br />
"We aim to be careful with donors' money. We pay salaries that are fair but not lavish, and provide reasonable benefits (e.g., health and dental insurance) that are the same for all employees regardless of their title or position. We aim to incur only reasonable travel costs, and to keep work-related entertainment costs moderate."<br />
<br />
Hi. Is this recent? Was this envisioned when people were planning the catalyst programs? What about benefits as laptops and mobiles, how is the policy of WMF defined regading this? Best, --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Tom]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 18:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Finalizing the Guiding Principles soon ==<br />
<br />
Hey folks -- just wanted to let you know I am going to be finalizing the Guiding Principles over the next day or two. (So, by the end of 13 April.) The discussion can still continue, but if there's anything in the actual wording of the text that you would still like to see fine-tuned, please say so, and please propose new wording, over the next two days. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 00:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)</div>Sue Gardnerhttps://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resolution_talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles/Archive_1&diff=328122Resolution talk:Wikimedia Foundation Guiding Principles/Archive 12013-04-12T16:19:46Z<p>Sue Gardner: /* United States */ responding to Nemo and Bence</p>
<hr />
<div>== Freedom and open source ==<br />
"As an organization, we strive to use open source tools over proprietary ones, although we use proprietary or closed tools (such as software, operating systems, etc.) where there is currently no open-source tool that will effectively meet our needs." - Is there a requirement and process in place which forces people to publish an evaluation which open-source tools were considered and tested for a task in order to identify which specific functionality was only provided by closed-source tools? --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 18:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:<br />
:Well, maybe that is my impression because I work remotely, but I've seen some proprietary files been shared and proprietary softwares being used when we could have free software. For instance, microsoft documents or apple softwares. And I've heard the wifi network in SF office works better with apple stuff, which is kind of weird - I've visited SF office only once and I checked that, but I've heard the same from other online meetings. For pragmatical reasons, sometimes I know using some closed softwares can deliver things faster tho. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Ezalvarenga]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 19:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:I agree we could use a little more discipline on this. e.g. I'm not ''convinced'' all Mac users in the office would truly be significantly less effective at their work on Ubuntu machines. I do acknowledge some may be. I think it warrants some nudging/pushing, though. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 20:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::I think there's a huge distinction between closed source tools for personal productivity, and closed source tools for supporting the projects. This should be clarified in the text of the principles, because the current state of affairs is that we require FOSS when it comes to what is actually necessary for the projects to run, and we obviously don't when it comes to the office IT. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 22:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Thanks. In my initial posting I had shared tools in production (servers, webservices, etc.) in mind, but did not mean to refer to personal computers of individuals - that would be under the "personal freedom" category, and a published evaluation feels like overkill for such private cases. --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::Hi, Aklapper, I don't have time today to make a longer comment, but for the personal freedom, if everybody begin to use closed formats, people who wants to use open formats will be forced to use also closed ones. If a person doesn't want to buy an apple computer, but the wifi network forces people to do so or make their lifes with other hardwares difficult, sorry, a serious policy about that should change. Yes, people can choose whatever they want on their personal computers, but if the majority is using what is fashion, a conscious minitority will not have freedom to choose what they want. As an example, I do use sometimes closed softwares, like skype, but only when really necessary, like a partner or co-worker that prefers to use it. And I know the pain it is sometimes to use only Linux since 1998. :) In Brazil, at least, in the government level, we are trying to [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/thackday/WCmyz2jltF8/sKDd0xCPQaQJ BURN ALL THE DOCS]! There are also [https://groups.google.com/group/thackday/browse_thread/thread/4f94fbf09e4b6f54 bills] under way. ;D P. S. I could not even imagine close softwares on the server side. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Ezalvarenga]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 12:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Responding to a couple of you here. No, AKlapper, AFAIK there is no formal documented requirement/process for evaluation of when the Wikimedia Foundation uses a proprietary tool instead of an open source one. To date we've been small enough, and had a sufficient proportion of the staff who're personally dedicated to open source values, such that evaluation has tended to happen informally on a case-by-case basis, and it's worked reasonably well. Like, we made an organizational commitment to use CiviCRM early and we've stuck with that, and similarly I know that Finance & Admin uses proprietary accounting tools because early on some research was done that determined there was no acceptable open-source tool. I think those were both reasonable outcomes. Over the years we've toyed with the idea of developing a formal evaluation policy, but we have not done it. If you're suggesting we should, I would generally agree, but I also wouldn't say it's the thing Office IT should prioritize as most important and most urgent.<br />
<br />
More generally, in response to Ezalvarenga and Ijon, yes, I'd agree that our actual practices are likely imperfect -- there are probably some people at the Wikimedia Foundation using proprietary tools for individual use that could be replaced by open source tools. For example, I know that Legal has at some times used Microsoft Word for documents shared with external firms, when they probably could've insisted on using OpenOffice or LibreOffice without too much of a productivity hit.<br />
<br />
Frankly, individuals using proprietary tools has been a pretty big pain point for the Wikimedia Foundation. It's understandable: individual staff have widely varying levels of personal commitment to FLOSS, people want to be effective at work and so they want to use the tools that support them best, and people's work, and their needs, vary. No-one wants to be told they have no choice but to use X, whether X is Ubuntu/Thunderbird/LibreOffice or IE/Outlook/Word. That's utterly reasonable. So it's complex, and we're not going to capture a lot of complexity in a short statement. <br />
<br />
StevenW had proposed we modify the language here to distinguish between site production tools and personal/individual tools. Can somebody propose language for that, and for anything else here that might need clarification or finetuning? Feel free to make a change and I'll revert it or finetune it if I feel I need to. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Related reading: [[FLOSS-Exchange]]. I think focusing on the ideal (and its rationale, which Erik sort of touched on with his "right to fork" [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5334873&oldid=5334652 addition]), instead of what individuals might do, is a reasonable compromise. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 07:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think the line should be what's shared by the organization (or teams within the organization) and personal. For anything shared, we should make it free software/open source unless it's really unworkable (and even then, we should always keep an eye out for moving to free software as it improves). But if you want to use MS Word on your personal machine to write PHP that fully meets our coding conventions, more power to you ;). This basically [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&oldid=5335910#Freedom_and_open_source matches] the current text. But there are some cases where free software is workable for shared tools but we're not currently using them; as I said, we should try to change that. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Agreed with SteveW and others above that there's some distinction between what we share, what we use personally, and what we require others to use. Apple users in the office? Who cares, they're mostly running FOSS on top of Apple -- most of our ops folks and engineers live in a terminal and use standard Unix tools. Adobe Photoshop and proprietary-format files for graphics work? Maybe we do care, because you can't always use the PSD files without it. (I always advocate for SVG format for graphics, especially anything we intend to use in software or on sites that may need to be revisioned in the future.) Google Apps for email? Who cares, email is interoperable. Google Hangouts for video conferencing internally? Who cares? Google Hangouts for video conferencing including open community participation? Runs on Linux, but requires a proprietary plugin; not ideal but we accept it as the best compromise of several options for now. Maybe we care but we can live with it. etc. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::So the text now reads like this: <br />
<br />
::''The Wikimedia Foundation is deeply rooted in the values of the free culture and free software movements. With the exception of "fair use" material, all information in Wikimedia projects can be freely shared, freely distributed, freely modified and freely used for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, in perpetuity.''<br />
::''All code written by the Wikimedia Foundation is licensed under an applicable open source license. We realize our obligations not just to share code, but to cultivate a healthy community of contributors around the source code, and to work with upstream projects and contribute back improvements to their code.''<br />
::''All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software.''<br />
::''Consistent with the above principles, we support the right of third parties to make and maintain licensing-compliant copies and forks of Wikimedia content and Wikimedia-developed code, regardless of motivation or purpose. While we are generally not able to directly assist such efforts, we enable them by making available copies of Wikimedia content in bulk, and avoiding critical dependencies on proprietary code or services for maintaining a largely functionally equivalent fork.''<br />
::''As an organization, we strive to use open source tools over proprietary ones, although we use proprietary or closed tools (such as software, operating systems, etc.) where there is currently no open-source tool that will effectively meet our needs.''<br />
<br />
::Does this work for everybody? I could add some language specifically around personal tool use, but I feel like "where there's no open-source tool that would effectively meet our needs" covers it. Like, you use Illustrator if Gimp isn't good enough for what you need. Let me know if anyone feels like this language isn't clear/accurate: otherwise I'll consider this thread resolved. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 21:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: As a very minor piece of word-smithing, I'd change "not able to directly assist such efforts" to "not able to individually assist such efforts" - we do directly help such efforts with data dumps and tools, we just don't have the resources to give human attention individually to such efforts. But yes, looks good to go otherwise. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 22:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::: Done -- thanks James :-) [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 17:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Quick suggestion... ==<br />
<br />
[https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASue_Gardner%2FWikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5332950&oldid=5331958 ], which I made before seeing the request to comment first. Anyway, "serving every human being" seems a bit disingenuous, since we really aim to serve every literate human being with access to data and a digital device. ;-) The goal of providing equal access to all seems fairer, and more in line the the section's comments about well, accessibility. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 00:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:"equal access to all" is, er, equally disingenuous, as, by your own phrase, we're providing equal access only to "every literate human being with access to data and a digital device".<br />
:Furthermore, I actually do think we ''strive'' to serve every human being. Remember the free knowledge the Wikimedia community creates and shares is consumed offline too, not to mention the huge value of secondary use -- the knowledge worked into presentations, newspapers, books, radio and TV programs -- all consumed by hundreds of millions ''more'' than the group consuming it directly from our Web sites. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 00:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Yeah, I agree with Ijon. The language is "aims to" and "endeavours to," so I think it's appropriately framed as aspirational. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Actually, it's not quite that limited. We do generally serve literate people, but there are actually readings of many articles (e.g. see [[:w:Template:Spoken Wikipedia|Template:Spoken Wikipedia]], I'm sure among others). There are also various mechanisms for printing Wikipedia (some in-house, some just people trying to make money by selling Wikipedia books), so you don't need a digital device. The fact that we've consistently used fully free licenses for our content (except fair use extracts) has facilitated all of that. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Commons serves non-literate people indirectly. {{Smiley}} —[[User:Tom Morris|Tom Morris]] ([[User talk:Tom Morris|talk]]) 19:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Getting rich ==<br />
<br />
On «nobody is getting rich by working at the Wikimedia Foundation»: define "rich". For instance, I'm a student but I'm very rich compared to most world population and richer than millions of Italians (so, when serving in my university board I raised tuition fees for myself/my income range). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Yeah obviously "getting rich" is relative. It's only when you compare [[:wiktionary:apples and oranges|apples to apples]] and look at other tech and nonprofit compensation schemes that you see what is meant. In any case, it's pretty awesome that we want to put that among our guiding principles, right? <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Edit conflict with StevenW! And yeah, Steven, I agree. I think the key word here is "getting." Nemo is correct of course that by world population standards, everybody who works at the Wikimedia Foundation is rich. But we were born rich, we did not "get" rich through our work at the Wikimedia Foundation. The point here is that working at the Wikimedia Foundation is not a path to dramatically improving one's personal wealth. Thanks. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::I tend to see those negative statements ("'''not''' getting rich") as putting things in people's head that you don't want there in the first place. You say "not getting rich" (and I am on par with both Steven's and your interpretation on this) and all people seem to read/hear is "rich". Maybe we should try to find a positive statement for this? I'm kind of stuck though for a good one. "If you want to get rich, go work somewhere else"? -- ok, that one is stupid, but maybe you get my point? [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 21:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::I suspected that the point was in ''getting'', however this is tricky. One may get "richer" by going to work in the WMF for career reasons, compared to the previous work (or country?), comparatively getting "poorer" than possible in some other place, however the latter is mostly impossible to prove. "Nobody is getting richer" would be clearer but is technically wrong.<br />
:::Maybe: "we aim at level of income not being an important [the most important? one of the most important?] motivation[s] for someone to stay at the WMF", which implies there are different/contrasting motivations (presumably honest ;) ) without getting lost in defining which, and that income may be sacrificed. This is probably what is meant hear; no idea if it is positive enough as per notafish. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC) <small>P.s.: Steven, personally I don't care that much if someone gets rich at the WMF, as long as it's not by fleeing with the cash. :) I just like clarity.</small><br />
::::Seems a bit "off" for Sue Gardner to be commenting on "not getting rich" when her salary exceeds that of about 99% of American wage earners. -- [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A|2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A]] 18:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
I've just removed the phrase about getting rich. I think "fair but not lavish" covers it :-) Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 22:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Reasonable travel costs==<br />
«We aim to incur only reasonable travel costs: the general policy is to travel economy class and stay in moderately-priced hotels»: were $225K for staff (and board) at Wikimania reasonable? [[Talk:Wikimedia budget#Wikimania travel question]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:How much is that per person sent to Wikimania that year? I think looking at the total for shock value is unfair. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Nemo we're not making a commitment here to reduce travel costs, or to minimize travel. (I wouldn't want to do that: with a growing staff that operates as part of a global community that stages many international events such as Wikimania, the chapters' meeting and various hackathons, it strikes me that a focus on reducing travel costs would be a net negative not a net plus. I expect travel costs to be a not-insubstantial chunk of the Wikimedia Foundation budget: that seems eminently reasonable to me given the nature of our work.) The point here is simply that when we travel, we aim to do it moderately not luxuriously. The nuts-and-bolts of how we do that are captured in [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Travel_policy the travel policy], but the purpose of this statement is simply to summarize the overall intent. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::So in short yes, you think it's reasonable. :) <small>I don't know if it was: while you do or can know all the details on the alternatives and other considerations, I can't judge — no opinion at all.</small> Given that "reasonable" conveys little, you may consider removing «to incur only reasonable travel costs: the general policy is » and leaving only the straightforward part of the statement.<br />
:::Ideally (IMHO), we'd include some other criteria, like the impact:cost ratio (which you hinted to), usage of cheapest means of transportation, miscellaneous synergies (dumb example: double rooms instead of single where possible? and other more impactful stuff), with the disclaimer that all this must be applied fairly (see other section on benefits/reimbursements). I have no idea what are the current practices on all this so I don't know where to start, but I'm confident a compact form is possible. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::Hey Nemo, please see my comment in Title and Position (the next section down). Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 17:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Title or position==<br />
«People at the Wikimedia Foundation get the same benefits regardless of their title or position». <br />
*Who's "people"? Are you including all managers, trustees and employees?<br />
*What's "benefits" and how do you measure if "salaries" are "fair"? Are you considering only accessories or also the actual wage, before or after taxes, pension contributions etc.?<br />
*What are you including in "title or position" (or other comparison for "fair")? For instance, remote worker vs. office worker, full time vs. part time, staff vs. contractor.<br />
--[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:*Well, people does include at least all staff if you read further "regardless of their title or position". This should include everyone. As for Trustees, you've got a point, "people" is not clear and should probably be changed to "Staff" when it comes to benefits. I do not believe Trustees get benefits, even though they might benefit from insurance and related stuff when it comes to their work for the Foundation. It might make sense here to differentiate between staff/volunteers or something along those lines. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 14:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::To be clear: yes, the statement's intended to refer to all staff, and I can change the word "people" to "staff." There is detail available in the document [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/2a/Wikimedia_Foundation_Compensation_Practices.pdf Wikimedia Foundation Compensation Practices]. And for Notafish, yes, the trustees don't get any benefits. Expenses they incur on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation are reimbursed as per the policies, but they receive no compensation in the form of salary or other benefits. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::I think Staff makes sense in that context, thanks for clarifying. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 21:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC) <small>(Sue, it's '''n'''otafish, with a small '''n''', and I'm stupidly particular about it. If you want a capital, go with Delphine ;)</small><br />
:::::Thank you, Sue, this clarifies the first point: only two left in this section. :)<br />
:::::On "benefits", the exact meaning of the word (or lexical equivalent) varies quite a lot across jurisdictions and fiscal systems, as far as I know, so it's not safe to assume everyone will get what you mean. I understand that reimbursements are a different matter, but it would be nice if they were fair and independent from title etc., too. (I suppose they already mostly are?) --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::: Yeah, in the U.S. "benefits" is generally understood not to include salary (people talk about "salary plus benefits") (it's basically everything ''but'' salary). However, that might not be true in other countries/languages. Also, the 401(k) maximum match is a fixed percentage of salary. While the percentage is the same across position, the amount (n% × salary) technically is not. However, it's true this is a fine distinction. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
*'Staff' is normally understood to mean Employees + Contractors, where contractors are afforded fewer benefits (if any at all). I'd suggest amending to specify 'Employees at...'. [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 23:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
**I'd kind of like us to provide fair benefits to all staff including international contractors, but of course jurisdictions make things.... difficult. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 19:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::: As per Oliver and others, I changed "staff" to "employees" for clarity. I do wish the WMF could provide equivalent benefits to everyone regardless of their official status (i.e., staff versus contractor) but Brion is right, it's very complex. Having said that, I'm pleased we do provide additional benefits to all U.S. employees beyond what's provided by the state. In many/most countries, the state provides the basics: in the United States it does not, and so employer-provided health insurance is critical. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 17:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::: Okay I just rewrote this section. <br />
<br />
::::''We aim to be careful with donors' money. We pay salaries that are fair but not lavish, and provide reasonable benefits (e.g., health and dental insurance) that are the same for all employees regardless of their title or position. We aim to incur only reasonable travel costs, and to keep work-related entertainment costs moderate.'' <br />
<br />
::::Purpose of the rewrite is just clarity/simplicity. Nemo, rather than expanding the travel-related part with more detail I made it higher-level. [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Travel_policy The full travel policy is here], and it's an official Board policy, so if it changes it would be updated on that page. Folks, let me know if aiming "to keep work-related entertainment costs moderate" is clear enough. Again, there is a [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Duty_entertainment_guidelines_policy more detailed policy on this]. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 17:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::: It's clearer now, although of course it requires some knowledge to understand what "employee" and "benefit" mean exactly in USA.<br />
::::: As for travel costs, fine to "redirect" to the policy; what about replacing "reasonable travel costs" with "consistent and fair travel costs", quoting the very first paragraph of the policy itself? It's still high level but more specific. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 14:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Accountable==<br />
«The Wikimedia Foundation wants to be accountable to [...]». Please clarify how the concept of accountability applies here: «responsible for your decisions or actions and expected to explain them when you are asked»[http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/accountable] (are there processes to be responsible of your actions in front of the readers, receive their questions and explain? etc.). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Sure, of course there are processes to be responsible to the readers of the projects. Reader surveys. User testing. OTRS. The blogs. The annual reports. The regular publication of activity reports, performance reports, financial statements. Social media. Engagement with charity watchdog groups. Public mailing lists. Bugzilla. Office hours on IRC. Events for donors. This page, and many other on-wiki consultations related to feature development, policy development, and so forth. There are probably lots I am forgetting :-) Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Most of what you mention is communication ''by'' the WMF (or discussion among colleagues), not something that falls under "expected to explain [your decisions or actions] when you are asked": specifically, everything except OTRS, mailing lists, social media and office hours; in fact, I've never heard of watchdog groups and events for donors in WMF (links?), but again are they really people you're held accountable to, who can ask questions independently and to whom you're expected to answer?<br />
::Social media are obviously not the place for serious discussions and office hours are only for affectionate wikimedians willing to use IRC, so we're left with OTRS and mailing lists. Would you say that WMF is ''expected'' to explain its decisions and actions when asked on mailing lists and OTRS? Who specifically at the WMF, what lists and OTRS queues, and questions by whom (are readers expected to write on mailing lists?)? For instance, [[wmf:Contact us]] doesn't offer any such option, nor [[wmf:Staff and contractors]] says anything on the topic. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 14:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Shared power==<br />
This section seems entirely useless, in that it lists a lot of minor ephemeral details from the ''here and now'' and no actual "principles" that may "guide" any action. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:The purpose of this section is to explicitly acknowledge that the Wikimedia Foundation works in partnership with a global community of volunteers -- that the Wikimedia Foundation is not the sole or even primary actor in fulfilling the Wikimedia mission, and that it needs to conduct itself accordingly, by creating mechanisms and processes enabling the community to have influence on its actions. Because we are interdependent partners. I think this is a pretty fundamental and important point to make, because in this regard we are different from practically everybody else. (What I mean by that: eBay and Facebook and Yelp may also have a social purpose or utility, but their primary purpose is to make money, and "community members" are a resource to be managed by the company to that end. In our case, the primary purpose of the movement is to make knowledge freely available to everyone around the world, and the Wikimedia Foundation and the global community of volunteers play different and complementary roles in achieving that shared goal.) So I wonder if that's not clear -- if my wording is just mucky. If so, can someone help propose better, more useful language? Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]])<br />
:The shared power section does mention volunteer "developers". However, I would like to see more emphasis on this. Something like "The Wikimedia Foundation strives to continually increase its partnership with outside developers, project managers, and system adminstrators so we can technically improve the sites together". This is an area where we've had some success, but more can definitely be done. The reason I said "outside" not "volunteer" is that they may be paid to work on something like MediaWiki, just not paid ''by'' WMF. The Apache Software Foundation is an example of an organization where many (not all) developers are paid (by various companies organizations), but they partner together to get things done. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Hi Matt,<br />
<br />
:: Sue asked me to help her add to the section, and I've made an effort to do so [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5361354&oldid=5361335 here]. I think the "aligned with our interests" piece is an important qualifier.--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 21:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==United States==<br />
On «support successful job candidates in attaining the legal right to work in the United States»: why only USA? What if they want to move elsewhere? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Maybe this should become "...to work from a WMF office in the United States", in case that's what's meant here. --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Or rather: Support succesful job candidates in attaining the legal right to work in the US should the need arise". Or something along those lines. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 14:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Yeah -- you're correct, we also support remote workers when people don't want to relocate and the job doesn't require it. I will reword :-) [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Here's what I changed it too -- let me know if this is clearer. "We aim to recruit talented people regardless of where they live, and depending on their preferences and the needs of the job, we support them in working remotely or relocating to the United States." Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::Does the trick, as far as I'm concerned. :) [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 21:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::::Yes, much clearer, thanks. <br />
::::::Ideally you'd be completely nation-neutral and support them in relocating to another country of their choice too, if suitable for them, and you could remove the "to the United States" bit. However, I understand this is an edge case. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::::Relocations are done because the WMF feels the employee should be in-office. Up until we open an office somewhere else I can't imagine that spending donor funds moving people to a country 'because they want to live there' would be optimal. [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 23:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::::::Yeah, Oliver is right. We have once or twice had staff who wanted to relocate for personal reasons. We are okay with them doing it when it doesn't interfere with their work (like, if they are moving from one non-SF location to another non-SF location, or if they used to work from SF, want to move elsewhere, and working remotely wouldn't hurt their ability to do their work). But in those cases, when they are moving for personal reasons, the WMF wouldn't pay for the move, and wouldn't arrange or pay for any services related to the move, such as immigration-related legal fees. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 20:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::::::I understand this, but I'm convinced that "the employee should be in-office" is only one of the many possible requirements to achieve the max productivity for an employee. Assuming that the only possible relocation one may be forced to in order to work efficiently for the WMF is a relocation to SF sounds bad to my ears in principle. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 14:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Just out of curiosity, does the WMF pay for the repatriation of employees once their employment ends? --[[User:Bdamokos|Bence]] ([[User talk:Bdamokos|talk]]) 11:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Nemo yeah, that is definitely true. Not everyone needs to be in the office, and the people who're in the office don't need to be there all the time. It's definitely true that sometimes productivity is higher if people are out of the office (all the time or some of the time), and that's why the WMF is pretty flexible on this issue. For example, lots of people who work in the San Francisco office normally will work from home if they have a dense session of writing to get through, or if they want to slam through a bunch of code without being interrupted.<br />
::Bence, no, generally we don't pay to repatriate employees. There might be circumstances in which we would do that, for example if someone was coming in for a chunk of work with a defined duration -- like, a one-year-contract. In that case we might be open to exploring whether we'd move them here and then move them back afterwards. But I don't think we have ever done that to date. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 16:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Serving every human being==<br />
This section looks weird being 7 sections away from «Freedom and open source» with «All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software» etc. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The emphasis on the development of new features is undue and likely to grate on both engineering staff and community, in my opinion. It is out of step with the custodian role which many individuals in both groups identify with. We should express a stronger commitment to high availability and site performance. --[[User:Ori.livneh|Ori.livneh]] ([[User talk:Ori.livneh|talk]]) 10:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Oh ha, Ori.livneh I think that's just clumsy wording on my part. I can see how it's easy to misread, but what you think I said is not what I meant to be saying. I'll revise. I'll also move this chunk up to be nearer to Freedom and Open Source. Thanks to you both [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Also, it talks about these being directed at "readers", and hoping to support them in starting to contribute - but we should probably also talk about supporting existing contributors. :-) [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 20:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: On Sue's request, I've tried to address these points with [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5334886&oldid=5334873 this edit].--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 23:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: It's better (thanks, Sue, Erik, and James) but it's still not quite right, in my opinion: rather than rank engineering priorities (features, performance, availability) and then work backwards to explain the values that motivate them (access, participation), I think the section ought to lead with a statement of values, and then explain how our engineering priorities reflect our effort to realize these values maximally. --[[User:Ori.livneh|Ori.livneh]] ([[User talk:Ori.livneh|talk]]) 11:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::: Want to take a crack at drafting something on talk?--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 20:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::: How about:<br />
:::::: <div style="border:1px solid silver; background:#eee; margin:0.5em; padding:1em 2em;">The Wikimedia Foundation aims to make <span style="background: #d8ecff;">the</span> material in the Wikimedia projects broadly accessible to all. <span style="background: #d8ecff;">We work to enable for the world education from, entertainment by, and engagement with our projects' content, and participation in the communities and processes that create them.</span> Ensuring <span style="background: #d8ecff;">the</span> continued reliability, availability and responsiveness of all Wikimedia sites and services is our first priority. In prioritizing new products and features, our goal is to impact the largest-possible number of readers and contributors, and to eliminate barriers that could preclude people from accessing or contributing to our projects, such as poor usability, lack of language support, and limited access to technology. We endeavour to create the structural support and the necessary preconditions for bottom-up innovation by others. We do not form agreements in which one organization is given access to material or functionality that others are denied. Where possible, we aim to preserve and support frictionless use of the material in the projects, so that people can share it widely and easily.</div><br />
:::::: Thoughts? Please forgive the "power of threes" and running alliterations. :-) I worry that this section is now trying to say too much; possibly split after "technology"? I'm not particularly attached to my wording, so don't worry about offending. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 05:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Communication==<br />
Do you think https://xkcd.com/802/ [https://xkcd.com/802_large/] applies to the WMF? (In particular, the proportions in the two maps on the top <s>right</s> left being zoomed.) --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Nemo, could you clarify which proportions you refer to by naming them? Top right is "Unread Updates". --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Ouch. I meant left, of course. :) Thanks, [[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Right to fork==<br />
Again nothing. [[Talk:Terms of use/Archives/2011-12-06#Right to Fork]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
* Probably more of a Wikimedia principle than a Wikimedia Foundation principle. Perhaps we need a separate list? :-) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 09:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
*: I doubt it: «principles intended to guide the work of the Wikimedia Foundation». Who else do you suggest to task with ensuring the right to fork? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: Sue asked me to explore some language around this, so I've taken a first crack at it with [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5334873&oldid=5334652 this edit].--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 23:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::: Thanks! Much better. I'll let the experts comment on the specific wording and if it covers all the essential (people would like to have something more than page history dumps, but what exactly is tricky). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 23:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::: If this idea is developed any further could someone ping me? I'm interested for obvious reasons. Thanks. -- [[User:ArielGlenn|ArielGlenn]] ([[User talk:ArielGlenn|talk]]) 09:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think this is covered now by Erik's language, right? <br />
<br />
''Consistent with the above principles, we support the right of third parties to make and maintain licensing-compliant copies and forks of Wikimedia content and Wikimedia-developed code, regardless of motivation or purpose. While we are generally not able to individually assist such efforts, we enable them by making available copies of Wikimedia content in bulk, and avoiding critical dependencies on proprietary code or services for maintaining a largely functionally equivalent fork.''<br />
<br />
Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 20:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Not necessarily. For instance, a list of users is not "content" nor software dependency. This is probably a stupid example, again I'm not an expert of forking. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 14:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Internationalism ==<br />
<br />
«''When we consider the community'' as a whole, we aim to consider all its languages and geographies and to avoid global initiatives that favor communities speaking only our languages» (emphasis added).<br />
I note that you're only talking of how you consider the community; what about «initiatives that favor communities speaking only our languages» in general? For instance, roughly how much of the WMF spending goes on initiatives that favor only English-language people (projects, users etc., readers) or only the USA? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Right to influence ==<br />
<br />
«Their work has earned [...] financial support sustaining the Wikimedia Foundation [...] and the global community has therefore earned the right to influence the work of the organizations»: it ''seems'' that you're stating that the only reason why someone has the "right to influence" the work is that they bring in dollars. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Mm, Nemo, this is a good point. I was meaning to specifically talk about the financial aspect, but I realize from your comment that it reads wrong --- it *does* read like that's the only reason the community members matter, which is of course not true. I've taken a crack at rewording below, let me know what you think.<br />
<br />
''These are the people who build the projects, and they have earned the right to influence the development of the platform, and the work of organizations that receive funding from the movement.''<br />
<br />
Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 20:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Better, but again the emphasis on funding is IMHO misleading. Also, what is "funding from the movement"?<br />
:I think it would be better to build upon that "influence the development of the platform", generalising to any work around the [[Wikimedia projects]] (whether software development or other kind of activity); and to replace the second part with "anyone willing to work with or within the [[Wikimedia movement]], of which they are the most important part". <br />
:For instance, lettera27 works on WikiAfrica with external funds, and is working with the Wikimedia movement (or is already part of it because it furthers its aims): does this mean that the rest of the Wikimedia movement should have nothing to say about what they do? Of course not, lettera27 should and does listen carefully to what editors and other wikimedians have to say, because they are among those who can advise them best on the work they wish to do on Wikimedia projects (apart from having some "right" to do so). <br />
:Which brings me to the final observation: the "right to influence" makes it sound something those "organizations that receive funding" have to live with against their will ("hey, you must listen to me because it's my right, whether you like it or not!"), rather than a cooperation in which they learn and gain something. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 15:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Transparency ==<br />
<br />
This section says "including employee guidelines". What happened to the public sharing of the [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Employee_Handbook Employee Handbook]? -- [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A|2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A]] 18:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
: I asked about this recently. It doesn't really seem relevant to this kind of document, though. There's a thread on wikimedia-l, I think, if you want to follow up. :-) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 21:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:: It explicitly says "As a matter of general practice, unless there’s a particular reason not to, we aim to publish internal organizational policies and procedures, including employee guidelines, financial policies, etc." I think it does belong here, because what the employees do is relevant, particularly to the donors who are essentially paying us. I agree the current reality around such employee procedures, etc. is not quite consistent with the document. There is some stuff on Office Wiki (a private WMF wiki for employees) that does not need to be confidential. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 23:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::: If only there were someone with access to both wikis with the technical know-how to move the pages. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 03:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::I'm pretty sure the staff handbook contains (amongst other things) access info to our healthcare providers, and other non-public information which should be stripped. I think that if someone did have the access and technical know-how to move the pages and acted on it, they'd swiftly find themselves losing the access ;p. As a general statement, the document ''should'' be moved over - but I imagine they want to get it finished and stable before combing through it to identify elements inappropriate for public consumption (otherwise you end up having to do multiple sweeps). [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 03:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::There are also sections which have been vetted by Legal and should not be open for editing by the public. This is one of the problems.--[[User:Jorm (WMF)|Jorm (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jorm (WMF)|talk]]) 23:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::: The legal team has no issue creating redacted PDFs. They just did for the [[NDA]]s. But they shouldn't be releasing documents in this way, of course. I've started some notes at [[legal docs]] for anyone interested. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 06:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Independence ==<br />
<br />
"Skillsets" is not a proper word. -- [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A|2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A]] 18:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
: Context, "Similarly, our Board of Trustees selection process is designed to encourage representation of different voices and skillsets, rather than recognizing donors or celebrities."<br />
: What would you recommend instead? "skill sets"? Something else? (This level of minor word tweaking you can really just do yourself, but I'm happy to proxy the edit for you from the talk page, if you'd like.) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 20:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: "Skillsets" is a reasonable word, but if the IP objects strenuously, we could use "sets of skills", which is rather po-faced. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 05:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::"Skillsets" is a perfectly cromulent word, even if my spell checker doesn't like it. If you're picky, write it as "skill sets". :) --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Frictionless and copyleft ==<br />
<br />
You might want to clarify this does not mean abandoning copyleft. Though not all WMF wikis use copyleft, many do, and there is general understanding of its benefits. I want to ensure people don't come later and start arguing that e.g. all new wikis should be non-copyleft to avoid "friction". [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 23:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Surely by definition, 'avoiding friction in reuse' would be 'copyleft' - it's talking about freedom for others to reuse our work, not freedom for us to reuse the work of others. Which WMF wikis are non-copyleft? [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 04:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:: Wikinews and Wikidata, for two. Copyleft licences are overly restrictive for wider re-use in some contexts. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 05:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Aha, we're talking less- rather than more-restrictive; my mistake :). [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 05:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Duplicate of [[wmf:Values]]? ==<br />
<br />
Hi. I wonder if these guiding principles aren't in some ways a duplicate of (or perhaps an update to) [[wmf:Values]]. What's the purpose of this document? Is it going to live alongside the [[wmf:mission|mission statement]], [[wmf:vision|vision statement]], etc.? Or will it end up being a Board resolution? Or something else? --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 04:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:It is similar, but more detailed than the values statement. I think the guiding principles are pretty well done, and cover some additional ground. It is worth considering if they could supersede the values statement, but there is some value in having a shorter document too. The guiding principles draft says, "It is likely that these principles will be presented to the Board of Trustees for their approval, at a future Board meeting." [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 16:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Yeah, Superm401 is correct. This document isn't intended to supersede the Values document. It's actually intended to flesh out the values a little bit further, so it's more explicit how we live them on a day-to-day basis at the staff level. A word like "independence," for example, is very subject to interpretation, and so the purpose here is to lay out how (e.g.,) the value "independence" manifests on a day-to-day basis, in practice, e.g., in the realm of fundraising, our commitment to open source, etc. Thanks. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 21:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Free formats ==<br />
<br />
In re: ''All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software,'' can you clarify whether or not this is meant to mean that we will provide every file in free formats and thus not ''require'' the use of non-free software to view the file or does this mean that we will not provide the file in non-free formats at all? There seems to be some contention both internally and externally surrounding the possibility of providing non-free formats. I, personally, full appreciate having available to me free-formats, but when all of my devices have hardware-accelerated H.264 decoding, I would prefer to save cpu cycles and my battery when watching videos from commons. Similarly, there are some mobile devices that only support non-free formats and thus we currently do not support those users. -[[User:Pgehres (WMF)|Peter Gehres (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Pgehres (WMF)|talk]]) 05:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:We're working on that issue with legal internally... I'm certainly trying to push advocacy for explicit support of multi-format stack as officially acceptable, and would prefer clearer language on this as well. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Quality ==<br />
<br />
It strikes me that there is a glaring omission here. The current list of principles is a good set of ideologies, but surely the Wikimedia Foundation values high-quality content as much as it does the abstract principles like transparency and accountability. I understand that the Foundation does not generally (nor should) directly involve itself in the creation or judging of content on the projects, but certainly one of its core duties is encouraging or enabling the content creation, and one of the core implicit principles is that the content of the projects ought to be high-quality, comprehensive, authoritative, and so on (to the degree such quality descriptors are applicable to each project). To me, it seems like the omission of any principle that actually addresses the content of the projects is likely a matter of something being so obvious it didn't seem to need saying. I think it is important nonetheless, though. [[User:Dominic|Dominic]] ([[User talk:Dominic|talk]]) 06:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
: I agree. I think reiterating the [[wmf:mission statement|mission statement]] might be good here. (Related to the section above about [[wmf:values]], this page seems to be doing a bit of wheel reinvention....) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 06:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Ads? ==<br />
<br />
Is being ad-free a guiding principle? Relatedly, is being neutral? --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 07:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:On the neutrality issue... that seems perhaps too WIkipedia-specific? Wikivoyage, for instance, has [[:wikivoyage:Wikivoyage:Be fair|no neutrality policy]]. It seems like being independent is really the principle here, related to being ad-free, and that actually extends to other things like not being reliant on a few major donors. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think being ad-free is ''something we think is really great'', but the relevant guiding principle is indeed independence. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Mm, it's a little more than "really great"; Sue, Jimmy, and other board members have repeatedly stated for the record that Wikipedia will never show ads. So it's not accurate to present this as merely a strong preference; it has long been a firm commitment. (All this not to contradict that the principle here ''is'' independence rather than ''no ads''.) [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 22:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::IMO a commitment to not put ads on the site is more of a ''position'' than a ''principle''. We certainly don't advocate against advertisement culture the way we advocate for free speech and access to information. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 23:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Agreed. (your first comment did not acknowledge it was a committed position.) [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 23:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::: Independence is the overall meta-principle, but ads come up ''so often'', even today, even after all the times we've said no. I think it's an artifact of our time and place and how every other internet service in the world gets funded, so I think it's worth focusing on ads specifically just to make the very clear point that: we are not the same as google, or facebook, etc. What we show people under our logos ''matters a lot'', and part of that is that no one can pay to control one square pixel of a Wikimedia project page. -- [[user:phoebe|phoebe]] | <small>[[user_talk:phoebe|talk]]</small> 00:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::Hilarious that I omitted anything about ads, considering I am asked about literally on a weekly basis. Ridiculous oversight, I'm glad it's been caught :-)<br />
:::::How about something like this (also now on the article page): <br />
:::::''Because the Wikimedia Foundation does not want to compromise the editorial integrity and independence of the projects, nor risk a perception that they have been compromised, we would be extremely reluctant to put advertising on the projects, or anything that might be perceived as advertising. We do not say that would never happen, because if it was a choice between shutting down the projects and accepting advertisements we would consider doing it, but we think it is highly unlikely to ever happen, and would only be considered in the gravest of circumstances.''<br />
:::::Let me know what you think -- thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 21:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Free speech ==<br />
<br />
"Another crack at alternative wording: We aim to balance appropriately between our goal of being active internationally and our desire to minimize legal risk to the projects."<br />
:^ I worry this version doesn't actually say anything about being pro-free speech or making information available to everyone. One way to improve our international activity and lower our risk profile would be to censor information for certain countries to comply with local censorship or blasphemy laws, but I think we wouldn't consider that acceptable. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 19:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Gah, good point Brion. You're right, it could be misread as supporting/allowing censorship, which of course is the opposite of what it's supposed to say. Clumsy writing. (By me.) I'll delete it from the page.<br />
::What about this version (copied from the article page): <br />
::''In making decisions, we will not allow censorship of our content as a means to facilitate other strategic goals: to the contrary, our strategic goal is to preserve content, and other initiatives must be consistent with that mission.''<br />
::Personally I never like use of the word "content" so I might rather word it as "censorship of the projects" and "to preserve the material in the projects," but that aside, do we think this works? <br />
::Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 21:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Thank you ==<br />
<br />
I just checked this page because I had a free moment (I am in an all-day annual planning meeting) and I want to say thank you to everyone who's contributing here -- this is a really useful conversation. Some of the language folks are proposing is really helpful, and there are a couple of places where the comments show that the existing language isn't nearly as clear as I thought it was. So this is good. I'll come back sometime over the next week, but please meanwhile continue to develop new needed language through discussion here -- it's very, very helpful. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]])<br />
<br />
== Wikimedia Brasil Statement of Principles ==<br />
Hi, I would like to suggest also the reading of the Statement of Principles made by the group of volunteers of Wikimedia in Brazil, in 2009, which has nice thoughts and can inspire a little those reading here:<br />
* [[:br:chapter:Wikimedia:Statement of Principles|Wikimedia Brasil - Statement of Principles]]<br />
I would like later, when I find time, to make comments on the internationalization section. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Tom]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 22:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Transparency: lack of IRS Form 990 ==<br />
<br />
Hello,<br />
<br />
The text mention we disclose the IRS form 990. The Financial page at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Financial_reports only shows the 2010-2011 form, thus we are missing the 2011-2012 form which should have been filled last year. [[User:Hashar|Ashar Voultoiz]] ([[User talk:Hashar|talk]]) 11:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:This isn't missing, just not there yet. :) The 2010-2011 form ([[:wmf:File:Form 990 - FY 10-11 - Public.pdf|here]]) was uploaded in May 2012. Previous years have been uploaded in [[:wmf::File:WMF 2009 2010 Form 990.pdf|April]], [[:wmf:File:WMF 2008 Form 990.pdf|May]], [[:wmf:File:WMF 2007 Form 990.pdf|May]] and [[:wmf:File:WMF 2006 Form 990.pdf|September]] of the year following the expiration of the fiscal year. Forms 990 are not due until the 15th day of the fifth month after the end of the fiscal year, with up to 180 days of extension if necessary. Last year's form 990 is still on schedule with previous years, and I'm sure it'll be uploaded sooner if ready. --[[User:Mdennis (WMF)|Maggie Dennis (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mdennis (WMF)|talk]]) 14:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Entities ==<br />
<br />
Thank you Sue for sharing and drafting this document in public! Reading the document – while understanding that it is aimed to describe current practice – I was a bit saddened to not see "movement entities" described in the context of partnership and cooperation in achieving the common goals. (There is some mention about giving movement entities money and freedom to do what they want, but I feel this does not live fully up to the [[mission]] statement, either in practice or at the level of principles.) –[[User:Bdamokos|Bence]] ([[User talk:Bdamokos|talk]]) 13:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Hi Bence. Yeah, I totally understand why you would say that -- it makes sense. I've just added this: "In addition to our work with individual volunteers, we work in collaboration with a network of chapter organizations and other Wikimedia movement entities, in our shared pursuit of the Wikimedia mission." Let me know if that works for you :-) Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 00:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks! --[[User:Bdamokos|Bence]] ([[User talk:Bdamokos|talk]]) 11:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== "Regardless of their title or position" ==<br />
<br />
"We aim to be careful with donors' money. We pay salaries that are fair but not lavish, and provide reasonable benefits (e.g., health and dental insurance) that are the same for all employees regardless of their title or position. We aim to incur only reasonable travel costs, and to keep work-related entertainment costs moderate."<br />
<br />
Hi. Is this recent? Was this envisioned when people were planning the catalyst programs? What about benefits as laptops and mobiles, how is the policy of WMF defined regading this? Best, --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Tom]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 18:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Finalizing the Guiding Principles soon ==<br />
<br />
Hey folks -- just wanted to let you know I am going to be finalizing the Guiding Principles over the next day or two. (So, by the end of 13 April.) The discussion can still continue, but if there's anything in the actual wording of the text that you would still like to see fine-tuned, please say so, and please propose new wording, over the next two days. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 00:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)</div>Sue Gardnerhttps://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resolution_talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles/Archive_1&diff=328114Resolution talk:Wikimedia Foundation Guiding Principles/Archive 12013-04-12T00:58:20Z<p>Sue Gardner: /* Entities */ responding to Bence</p>
<hr />
<div>== Freedom and open source ==<br />
"As an organization, we strive to use open source tools over proprietary ones, although we use proprietary or closed tools (such as software, operating systems, etc.) where there is currently no open-source tool that will effectively meet our needs." - Is there a requirement and process in place which forces people to publish an evaluation which open-source tools were considered and tested for a task in order to identify which specific functionality was only provided by closed-source tools? --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 18:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:<br />
:Well, maybe that is my impression because I work remotely, but I've seen some proprietary files been shared and proprietary softwares being used when we could have free software. For instance, microsoft documents or apple softwares. And I've heard the wifi network in SF office works better with apple stuff, which is kind of weird - I've visited SF office only once and I checked that, but I've heard the same from other online meetings. For pragmatical reasons, sometimes I know using some closed softwares can deliver things faster tho. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Ezalvarenga]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 19:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:I agree we could use a little more discipline on this. e.g. I'm not ''convinced'' all Mac users in the office would truly be significantly less effective at their work on Ubuntu machines. I do acknowledge some may be. I think it warrants some nudging/pushing, though. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 20:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::I think there's a huge distinction between closed source tools for personal productivity, and closed source tools for supporting the projects. This should be clarified in the text of the principles, because the current state of affairs is that we require FOSS when it comes to what is actually necessary for the projects to run, and we obviously don't when it comes to the office IT. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 22:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Thanks. In my initial posting I had shared tools in production (servers, webservices, etc.) in mind, but did not mean to refer to personal computers of individuals - that would be under the "personal freedom" category, and a published evaluation feels like overkill for such private cases. --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::Hi, Aklapper, I don't have time today to make a longer comment, but for the personal freedom, if everybody begin to use closed formats, people who wants to use open formats will be forced to use also closed ones. If a person doesn't want to buy an apple computer, but the wifi network forces people to do so or make their lifes with other hardwares difficult, sorry, a serious policy about that should change. Yes, people can choose whatever they want on their personal computers, but if the majority is using what is fashion, a conscious minitority will not have freedom to choose what they want. As an example, I do use sometimes closed softwares, like skype, but only when really necessary, like a partner or co-worker that prefers to use it. And I know the pain it is sometimes to use only Linux since 1998. :) In Brazil, at least, in the government level, we are trying to [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/thackday/WCmyz2jltF8/sKDd0xCPQaQJ BURN ALL THE DOCS]! There are also [https://groups.google.com/group/thackday/browse_thread/thread/4f94fbf09e4b6f54 bills] under way. ;D P. S. I could not even imagine close softwares on the server side. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Ezalvarenga]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 12:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Responding to a couple of you here. No, AKlapper, AFAIK there is no formal documented requirement/process for evaluation of when the Wikimedia Foundation uses a proprietary tool instead of an open source one. To date we've been small enough, and had a sufficient proportion of the staff who're personally dedicated to open source values, such that evaluation has tended to happen informally on a case-by-case basis, and it's worked reasonably well. Like, we made an organizational commitment to use CiviCRM early and we've stuck with that, and similarly I know that Finance & Admin uses proprietary accounting tools because early on some research was done that determined there was no acceptable open-source tool. I think those were both reasonable outcomes. Over the years we've toyed with the idea of developing a formal evaluation policy, but we have not done it. If you're suggesting we should, I would generally agree, but I also wouldn't say it's the thing Office IT should prioritize as most important and most urgent.<br />
<br />
More generally, in response to Ezalvarenga and Ijon, yes, I'd agree that our actual practices are likely imperfect -- there are probably some people at the Wikimedia Foundation using proprietary tools for individual use that could be replaced by open source tools. For example, I know that Legal has at some times used Microsoft Word for documents shared with external firms, when they probably could've insisted on using OpenOffice or LibreOffice without too much of a productivity hit.<br />
<br />
Frankly, individuals using proprietary tools has been a pretty big pain point for the Wikimedia Foundation. It's understandable: individual staff have widely varying levels of personal commitment to FLOSS, people want to be effective at work and so they want to use the tools that support them best, and people's work, and their needs, vary. No-one wants to be told they have no choice but to use X, whether X is Ubuntu/Thunderbird/LibreOffice or IE/Outlook/Word. That's utterly reasonable. So it's complex, and we're not going to capture a lot of complexity in a short statement. <br />
<br />
StevenW had proposed we modify the language here to distinguish between site production tools and personal/individual tools. Can somebody propose language for that, and for anything else here that might need clarification or finetuning? Feel free to make a change and I'll revert it or finetune it if I feel I need to. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Related reading: [[FLOSS-Exchange]]. I think focusing on the ideal (and its rationale, which Erik sort of touched on with his "right to fork" [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5334873&oldid=5334652 addition]), instead of what individuals might do, is a reasonable compromise. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 07:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think the line should be what's shared by the organization (or teams within the organization) and personal. For anything shared, we should make it free software/open source unless it's really unworkable (and even then, we should always keep an eye out for moving to free software as it improves). But if you want to use MS Word on your personal machine to write PHP that fully meets our coding conventions, more power to you ;). This basically [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&oldid=5335910#Freedom_and_open_source matches] the current text. But there are some cases where free software is workable for shared tools but we're not currently using them; as I said, we should try to change that. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Agreed with SteveW and others above that there's some distinction between what we share, what we use personally, and what we require others to use. Apple users in the office? Who cares, they're mostly running FOSS on top of Apple -- most of our ops folks and engineers live in a terminal and use standard Unix tools. Adobe Photoshop and proprietary-format files for graphics work? Maybe we do care, because you can't always use the PSD files without it. (I always advocate for SVG format for graphics, especially anything we intend to use in software or on sites that may need to be revisioned in the future.) Google Apps for email? Who cares, email is interoperable. Google Hangouts for video conferencing internally? Who cares? Google Hangouts for video conferencing including open community participation? Runs on Linux, but requires a proprietary plugin; not ideal but we accept it as the best compromise of several options for now. Maybe we care but we can live with it. etc. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::So the text now reads like this: <br />
<br />
::''The Wikimedia Foundation is deeply rooted in the values of the free culture and free software movements. With the exception of "fair use" material, all information in Wikimedia projects can be freely shared, freely distributed, freely modified and freely used for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, in perpetuity.''<br />
::''All code written by the Wikimedia Foundation is licensed under an applicable open source license. We realize our obligations not just to share code, but to cultivate a healthy community of contributors around the source code, and to work with upstream projects and contribute back improvements to their code.''<br />
::''All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software.''<br />
::''Consistent with the above principles, we support the right of third parties to make and maintain licensing-compliant copies and forks of Wikimedia content and Wikimedia-developed code, regardless of motivation or purpose. While we are generally not able to directly assist such efforts, we enable them by making available copies of Wikimedia content in bulk, and avoiding critical dependencies on proprietary code or services for maintaining a largely functionally equivalent fork.''<br />
::''As an organization, we strive to use open source tools over proprietary ones, although we use proprietary or closed tools (such as software, operating systems, etc.) where there is currently no open-source tool that will effectively meet our needs.''<br />
<br />
::Does this work for everybody? I could add some language specifically around personal tool use, but I feel like "where there's no open-source tool that would effectively meet our needs" covers it. Like, you use Illustrator if Gimp isn't good enough for what you need. Let me know if anyone feels like this language isn't clear/accurate: otherwise I'll consider this thread resolved. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 21:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: As a very minor piece of word-smithing, I'd change "not able to directly assist such efforts" to "not able to individually assist such efforts" - we do directly help such efforts with data dumps and tools, we just don't have the resources to give human attention individually to such efforts. But yes, looks good to go otherwise. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 22:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::: Done -- thanks James :-) [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 17:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Quick suggestion... ==<br />
<br />
[https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASue_Gardner%2FWikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5332950&oldid=5331958 ], which I made before seeing the request to comment first. Anyway, "serving every human being" seems a bit disingenuous, since we really aim to serve every literate human being with access to data and a digital device. ;-) The goal of providing equal access to all seems fairer, and more in line the the section's comments about well, accessibility. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 00:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:"equal access to all" is, er, equally disingenuous, as, by your own phrase, we're providing equal access only to "every literate human being with access to data and a digital device".<br />
:Furthermore, I actually do think we ''strive'' to serve every human being. Remember the free knowledge the Wikimedia community creates and shares is consumed offline too, not to mention the huge value of secondary use -- the knowledge worked into presentations, newspapers, books, radio and TV programs -- all consumed by hundreds of millions ''more'' than the group consuming it directly from our Web sites. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 00:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Yeah, I agree with Ijon. The language is "aims to" and "endeavours to," so I think it's appropriately framed as aspirational. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Actually, it's not quite that limited. We do generally serve literate people, but there are actually readings of many articles (e.g. see [[:w:Template:Spoken Wikipedia|Template:Spoken Wikipedia]], I'm sure among others). There are also various mechanisms for printing Wikipedia (some in-house, some just people trying to make money by selling Wikipedia books), so you don't need a digital device. The fact that we've consistently used fully free licenses for our content (except fair use extracts) has facilitated all of that. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Commons serves non-literate people indirectly. {{Smiley}} —[[User:Tom Morris|Tom Morris]] ([[User talk:Tom Morris|talk]]) 19:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Getting rich ==<br />
<br />
On «nobody is getting rich by working at the Wikimedia Foundation»: define "rich". For instance, I'm a student but I'm very rich compared to most world population and richer than millions of Italians (so, when serving in my university board I raised tuition fees for myself/my income range). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Yeah obviously "getting rich" is relative. It's only when you compare [[:wiktionary:apples and oranges|apples to apples]] and look at other tech and nonprofit compensation schemes that you see what is meant. In any case, it's pretty awesome that we want to put that among our guiding principles, right? <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Edit conflict with StevenW! And yeah, Steven, I agree. I think the key word here is "getting." Nemo is correct of course that by world population standards, everybody who works at the Wikimedia Foundation is rich. But we were born rich, we did not "get" rich through our work at the Wikimedia Foundation. The point here is that working at the Wikimedia Foundation is not a path to dramatically improving one's personal wealth. Thanks. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::I tend to see those negative statements ("'''not''' getting rich") as putting things in people's head that you don't want there in the first place. You say "not getting rich" (and I am on par with both Steven's and your interpretation on this) and all people seem to read/hear is "rich". Maybe we should try to find a positive statement for this? I'm kind of stuck though for a good one. "If you want to get rich, go work somewhere else"? -- ok, that one is stupid, but maybe you get my point? [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 21:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::I suspected that the point was in ''getting'', however this is tricky. One may get "richer" by going to work in the WMF for career reasons, compared to the previous work (or country?), comparatively getting "poorer" than possible in some other place, however the latter is mostly impossible to prove. "Nobody is getting richer" would be clearer but is technically wrong.<br />
:::Maybe: "we aim at level of income not being an important [the most important? one of the most important?] motivation[s] for someone to stay at the WMF", which implies there are different/contrasting motivations (presumably honest ;) ) without getting lost in defining which, and that income may be sacrificed. This is probably what is meant hear; no idea if it is positive enough as per notafish. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC) <small>P.s.: Steven, personally I don't care that much if someone gets rich at the WMF, as long as it's not by fleeing with the cash. :) I just like clarity.</small><br />
::::Seems a bit "off" for Sue Gardner to be commenting on "not getting rich" when her salary exceeds that of about 99% of American wage earners. -- [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A|2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A]] 18:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
I've just removed the phrase about getting rich. I think "fair but not lavish" covers it :-) Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 22:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Reasonable travel costs==<br />
«We aim to incur only reasonable travel costs: the general policy is to travel economy class and stay in moderately-priced hotels»: were $225K for staff (and board) at Wikimania reasonable? [[Talk:Wikimedia budget#Wikimania travel question]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:How much is that per person sent to Wikimania that year? I think looking at the total for shock value is unfair. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Nemo we're not making a commitment here to reduce travel costs, or to minimize travel. (I wouldn't want to do that: with a growing staff that operates as part of a global community that stages many international events such as Wikimania, the chapters' meeting and various hackathons, it strikes me that a focus on reducing travel costs would be a net negative not a net plus. I expect travel costs to be a not-insubstantial chunk of the Wikimedia Foundation budget: that seems eminently reasonable to me given the nature of our work.) The point here is simply that when we travel, we aim to do it moderately not luxuriously. The nuts-and-bolts of how we do that are captured in [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Travel_policy the travel policy], but the purpose of this statement is simply to summarize the overall intent. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::So in short yes, you think it's reasonable. :) <small>I don't know if it was: while you do or can know all the details on the alternatives and other considerations, I can't judge — no opinion at all.</small> Given that "reasonable" conveys little, you may consider removing «to incur only reasonable travel costs: the general policy is » and leaving only the straightforward part of the statement.<br />
:::Ideally (IMHO), we'd include some other criteria, like the impact:cost ratio (which you hinted to), usage of cheapest means of transportation, miscellaneous synergies (dumb example: double rooms instead of single where possible? and other more impactful stuff), with the disclaimer that all this must be applied fairly (see other section on benefits/reimbursements). I have no idea what are the current practices on all this so I don't know where to start, but I'm confident a compact form is possible. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::Hey Nemo, please see my comment in Title and Position (the next section down). Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 17:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Title or position==<br />
«People at the Wikimedia Foundation get the same benefits regardless of their title or position». <br />
*Who's "people"? Are you including all managers, trustees and employees?<br />
*What's "benefits" and how do you measure if "salaries" are "fair"? Are you considering only accessories or also the actual wage, before or after taxes, pension contributions etc.?<br />
*What are you including in "title or position" (or other comparison for "fair")? For instance, remote worker vs. office worker, full time vs. part time, staff vs. contractor.<br />
--[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:*Well, people does include at least all staff if you read further "regardless of their title or position". This should include everyone. As for Trustees, you've got a point, "people" is not clear and should probably be changed to "Staff" when it comes to benefits. I do not believe Trustees get benefits, even though they might benefit from insurance and related stuff when it comes to their work for the Foundation. It might make sense here to differentiate between staff/volunteers or something along those lines. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 14:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::To be clear: yes, the statement's intended to refer to all staff, and I can change the word "people" to "staff." There is detail available in the document [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/2a/Wikimedia_Foundation_Compensation_Practices.pdf Wikimedia Foundation Compensation Practices]. And for Notafish, yes, the trustees don't get any benefits. Expenses they incur on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation are reimbursed as per the policies, but they receive no compensation in the form of salary or other benefits. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::I think Staff makes sense in that context, thanks for clarifying. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 21:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC) <small>(Sue, it's '''n'''otafish, with a small '''n''', and I'm stupidly particular about it. If you want a capital, go with Delphine ;)</small><br />
:::::Thank you, Sue, this clarifies the first point: only two left in this section. :)<br />
:::::On "benefits", the exact meaning of the word (or lexical equivalent) varies quite a lot across jurisdictions and fiscal systems, as far as I know, so it's not safe to assume everyone will get what you mean. I understand that reimbursements are a different matter, but it would be nice if they were fair and independent from title etc., too. (I suppose they already mostly are?) --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::: Yeah, in the U.S. "benefits" is generally understood not to include salary (people talk about "salary plus benefits") (it's basically everything ''but'' salary). However, that might not be true in other countries/languages. Also, the 401(k) maximum match is a fixed percentage of salary. While the percentage is the same across position, the amount (n% × salary) technically is not. However, it's true this is a fine distinction. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
*'Staff' is normally understood to mean Employees + Contractors, where contractors are afforded fewer benefits (if any at all). I'd suggest amending to specify 'Employees at...'. [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 23:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
**I'd kind of like us to provide fair benefits to all staff including international contractors, but of course jurisdictions make things.... difficult. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 19:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::: As per Oliver and others, I changed "staff" to "employees" for clarity. I do wish the WMF could provide equivalent benefits to everyone regardless of their official status (i.e., staff versus contractor) but Brion is right, it's very complex. Having said that, I'm pleased we do provide additional benefits to all U.S. employees beyond what's provided by the state. In many/most countries, the state provides the basics: in the United States it does not, and so employer-provided health insurance is critical. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 17:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::: Okay I just rewrote this section. <br />
<br />
::::''We aim to be careful with donors' money. We pay salaries that are fair but not lavish, and provide reasonable benefits (e.g., health and dental insurance) that are the same for all employees regardless of their title or position. We aim to incur only reasonable travel costs, and to keep work-related entertainment costs moderate.'' <br />
<br />
::::Purpose of the rewrite is just clarity/simplicity. Nemo, rather than expanding the travel-related part with more detail I made it higher-level. [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Travel_policy The full travel policy is here], and it's an official Board policy, so if it changes it would be updated on that page. Folks, let me know if aiming "to keep work-related entertainment costs moderate" is clear enough. Again, there is a [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Duty_entertainment_guidelines_policy more detailed policy on this]. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 17:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Accountable==<br />
«The Wikimedia Foundation wants to be accountable to [...]». Please clarify how the concept of accountability applies here: «responsible for your decisions or actions and expected to explain them when you are asked»[http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/accountable] (are there processes to be responsible of your actions in front of the readers, receive their questions and explain? etc.). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Sure, of course there are processes to be responsible to the readers of the projects. Reader surveys. User testing. OTRS. The blogs. The annual reports. The regular publication of activity reports, performance reports, financial statements. Social media. Engagement with charity watchdog groups. Public mailing lists. Bugzilla. Office hours on IRC. Events for donors. This page, and many other on-wiki consultations related to feature development, policy development, and so forth. There are probably lots I am forgetting :-) Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Shared power==<br />
This section seems entirely useless, in that it lists a lot of minor ephemeral details from the ''here and now'' and no actual "principles" that may "guide" any action. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:The purpose of this section is to explicitly acknowledge that the Wikimedia Foundation works in partnership with a global community of volunteers -- that the Wikimedia Foundation is not the sole or even primary actor in fulfilling the Wikimedia mission, and that it needs to conduct itself accordingly, by creating mechanisms and processes enabling the community to have influence on its actions. Because we are interdependent partners. I think this is a pretty fundamental and important point to make, because in this regard we are different from practically everybody else. (What I mean by that: eBay and Facebook and Yelp may also have a social purpose or utility, but their primary purpose is to make money, and "community members" are a resource to be managed by the company to that end. In our case, the primary purpose of the movement is to make knowledge freely available to everyone around the world, and the Wikimedia Foundation and the global community of volunteers play different and complementary roles in achieving that shared goal.) So I wonder if that's not clear -- if my wording is just mucky. If so, can someone help propose better, more useful language? Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]])<br />
:The shared power section does mention volunteer "developers". However, I would like to see more emphasis on this. Something like "The Wikimedia Foundation strives to continually increase its partnership with outside developers, project managers, and system adminstrators so we can technically improve the sites together". This is an area where we've had some success, but more can definitely be done. The reason I said "outside" not "volunteer" is that they may be paid to work on something like MediaWiki, just not paid ''by'' WMF. The Apache Software Foundation is an example of an organization where many (not all) developers are paid (by various companies organizations), but they partner together to get things done. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Hi Matt,<br />
<br />
:: Sue asked me to help her add to the section, and I've made an effort to do so [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5361354&oldid=5361335 here]. I think the "aligned with our interests" piece is an important qualifier.--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 21:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==United States==<br />
On «support successful job candidates in attaining the legal right to work in the United States»: why only USA? What if they want to move elsewhere? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Maybe this should become "...to work from a WMF office in the United States", in case that's what's meant here. --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Or rather: Support succesful job candidates in attaining the legal right to work in the US should the need arise". Or something along those lines. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 14:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Yeah -- you're correct, we also support remote workers when people don't want to relocate and the job doesn't require it. I will reword :-) [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Here's what I changed it too -- let me know if this is clearer. "We aim to recruit talented people regardless of where they live, and depending on their preferences and the needs of the job, we support them in working remotely or relocating to the United States." Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::Does the trick, as far as I'm concerned. :) [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 21:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::::Yes, much clearer, thanks. <br />
::::::Ideally you'd be completely nation-neutral and support them in relocating to another country of their choice too, if suitable for them, and you could remove the "to the United States" bit. However, I understand this is an edge case. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::::Relocations are done because the WMF feels the employee should be in-office. Up until we open an office somewhere else I can't imagine that spending donor funds moving people to a country 'because they want to live there' would be optimal. [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 23:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::::::Yeah, Oliver is right. We have once or twice had staff who wanted to relocate for personal reasons. We are okay with them doing it when it doesn't interfere with their work (like, if they are moving from one non-SF location to another non-SF location, or if they used to work from SF, want to move elsewhere, and working remotely wouldn't hurt their ability to do their work). But in those cases, when they are moving for personal reasons, the WMF wouldn't pay for the move, and wouldn't arrange or pay for any services related to the move, such as immigration-related legal fees. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 20:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Serving every human being==<br />
This section looks weird being 7 sections away from «Freedom and open source» with «All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software» etc. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The emphasis on the development of new features is undue and likely to grate on both engineering staff and community, in my opinion. It is out of step with the custodian role which many individuals in both groups identify with. We should express a stronger commitment to high availability and site performance. --[[User:Ori.livneh|Ori.livneh]] ([[User talk:Ori.livneh|talk]]) 10:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Oh ha, Ori.livneh I think that's just clumsy wording on my part. I can see how it's easy to misread, but what you think I said is not what I meant to be saying. I'll revise. I'll also move this chunk up to be nearer to Freedom and Open Source. Thanks to you both [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Also, it talks about these being directed at "readers", and hoping to support them in starting to contribute - but we should probably also talk about supporting existing contributors. :-) [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 20:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: On Sue's request, I've tried to address these points with [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5334886&oldid=5334873 this edit].--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 23:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: It's better (thanks, Sue, Erik, and James) but it's still not quite right, in my opinion: rather than rank engineering priorities (features, performance, availability) and then work backwards to explain the values that motivate them (access, participation), I think the section ought to lead with a statement of values, and then explain how our engineering priorities reflect our effort to realize these values maximally. --[[User:Ori.livneh|Ori.livneh]] ([[User talk:Ori.livneh|talk]]) 11:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::: Want to take a crack at drafting something on talk?--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 20:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::: How about:<br />
:::::: <div style="border:1px solid silver; background:#eee; margin:0.5em; padding:1em 2em;">The Wikimedia Foundation aims to make <span style="background: #d8ecff;">the</span> material in the Wikimedia projects broadly accessible to all. <span style="background: #d8ecff;">We work to enable for the world education from, entertainment by, and engagement with our projects' content, and participation in the communities and processes that create them.</span> Ensuring <span style="background: #d8ecff;">the</span> continued reliability, availability and responsiveness of all Wikimedia sites and services is our first priority. In prioritizing new products and features, our goal is to impact the largest-possible number of readers and contributors, and to eliminate barriers that could preclude people from accessing or contributing to our projects, such as poor usability, lack of language support, and limited access to technology. We endeavour to create the structural support and the necessary preconditions for bottom-up innovation by others. We do not form agreements in which one organization is given access to material or functionality that others are denied. Where possible, we aim to preserve and support frictionless use of the material in the projects, so that people can share it widely and easily.</div><br />
:::::: Thoughts? Please forgive the "power of threes" and running alliterations. :-) I worry that this section is now trying to say too much; possibly split after "technology"? I'm not particularly attached to my wording, so don't worry about offending. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 05:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Communication==<br />
Do you think https://xkcd.com/802/ [https://xkcd.com/802_large/] applies to the WMF? (In particular, the proportions in the two maps on the top <s>right</s> left being zoomed.) --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Nemo, could you clarify which proportions you refer to by naming them? Top right is "Unread Updates". --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Ouch. I meant left, of course. :) Thanks, [[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Right to fork==<br />
Again nothing. [[Talk:Terms of use/Archives/2011-12-06#Right to Fork]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
* Probably more of a Wikimedia principle than a Wikimedia Foundation principle. Perhaps we need a separate list? :-) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 09:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
*: I doubt it: «principles intended to guide the work of the Wikimedia Foundation». Who else do you suggest to task with ensuring the right to fork? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: Sue asked me to explore some language around this, so I've taken a first crack at it with [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5334873&oldid=5334652 this edit].--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 23:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::: Thanks! Much better. I'll let the experts comment on the specific wording and if it covers all the essential (people would like to have something more than page history dumps, but what exactly is tricky). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 23:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::: If this idea is developed any further could someone ping me? I'm interested for obvious reasons. Thanks. -- [[User:ArielGlenn|ArielGlenn]] ([[User talk:ArielGlenn|talk]]) 09:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think this is covered now by Erik's language, right? <br />
<br />
''Consistent with the above principles, we support the right of third parties to make and maintain licensing-compliant copies and forks of Wikimedia content and Wikimedia-developed code, regardless of motivation or purpose. While we are generally not able to individually assist such efforts, we enable them by making available copies of Wikimedia content in bulk, and avoiding critical dependencies on proprietary code or services for maintaining a largely functionally equivalent fork.''<br />
<br />
Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 20:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Internationalism ==<br />
<br />
«''When we consider the community'' as a whole, we aim to consider all its languages and geographies and to avoid global initiatives that favor communities speaking only our languages» (emphasis added).<br />
I note that you're only talking of how you consider the community; what about «initiatives that favor communities speaking only our languages» in general? For instance, roughly how much of the WMF spending goes on initiatives that favor only English-language people (projects, users etc., readers) or only the USA? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Right to influence ==<br />
<br />
«Their work has earned [...] financial support sustaining the Wikimedia Foundation [...] and the global community has therefore earned the right to influence the work of the organizations»: it ''seems'' that you're stating that the only reason why someone has the "right to influence" the work is that they bring in dollars. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Mm, Nemo, this is a good point. I was meaning to specifically talk about the financial aspect, but I realize from your comment that it reads wrong --- it *does* read like that's the only reason the community members matter, which is of course not true. I've taken a crack at rewording below, let me know what you think.<br />
<br />
''These are the people who build the projects, and they have earned the right to influence the development of the platform, and the work of organizations that receive funding from the movement.''<br />
<br />
Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 20:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Transparency ==<br />
<br />
This section says "including employee guidelines". What happened to the public sharing of the [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Employee_Handbook Employee Handbook]? -- [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A|2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A]] 18:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
: I asked about this recently. It doesn't really seem relevant to this kind of document, though. There's a thread on wikimedia-l, I think, if you want to follow up. :-) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 21:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:: It explicitly says "As a matter of general practice, unless there’s a particular reason not to, we aim to publish internal organizational policies and procedures, including employee guidelines, financial policies, etc." I think it does belong here, because what the employees do is relevant, particularly to the donors who are essentially paying us. I agree the current reality around such employee procedures, etc. is not quite consistent with the document. There is some stuff on Office Wiki (a private WMF wiki for employees) that does not need to be confidential. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 23:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::: If only there were someone with access to both wikis with the technical know-how to move the pages. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 03:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::I'm pretty sure the staff handbook contains (amongst other things) access info to our healthcare providers, and other non-public information which should be stripped. I think that if someone did have the access and technical know-how to move the pages and acted on it, they'd swiftly find themselves losing the access ;p. As a general statement, the document ''should'' be moved over - but I imagine they want to get it finished and stable before combing through it to identify elements inappropriate for public consumption (otherwise you end up having to do multiple sweeps). [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 03:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::There are also sections which have been vetted by Legal and should not be open for editing by the public. This is one of the problems.--[[User:Jorm (WMF)|Jorm (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jorm (WMF)|talk]]) 23:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::: The legal team has no issue creating redacted PDFs. They just did for the [[NDA]]s. But they shouldn't be releasing documents in this way, of course. I've started some notes at [[legal docs]] for anyone interested. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 06:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Independence ==<br />
<br />
"Skillsets" is not a proper word. -- [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A|2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A]] 18:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
: Context, "Similarly, our Board of Trustees selection process is designed to encourage representation of different voices and skillsets, rather than recognizing donors or celebrities."<br />
: What would you recommend instead? "skill sets"? Something else? (This level of minor word tweaking you can really just do yourself, but I'm happy to proxy the edit for you from the talk page, if you'd like.) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 20:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: "Skillsets" is a reasonable word, but if the IP objects strenuously, we could use "sets of skills", which is rather po-faced. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 05:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::"Skillsets" is a perfectly cromulent word, even if my spell checker doesn't like it. If you're picky, write it as "skill sets". :) --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Frictionless and copyleft ==<br />
<br />
You might want to clarify this does not mean abandoning copyleft. Though not all WMF wikis use copyleft, many do, and there is general understanding of its benefits. I want to ensure people don't come later and start arguing that e.g. all new wikis should be non-copyleft to avoid "friction". [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 23:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Surely by definition, 'avoiding friction in reuse' would be 'copyleft' - it's talking about freedom for others to reuse our work, not freedom for us to reuse the work of others. Which WMF wikis are non-copyleft? [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 04:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:: Wikinews and Wikidata, for two. Copyleft licences are overly restrictive for wider re-use in some contexts. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 05:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Aha, we're talking less- rather than more-restrictive; my mistake :). [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 05:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Duplicate of [[wmf:Values]]? ==<br />
<br />
Hi. I wonder if these guiding principles aren't in some ways a duplicate of (or perhaps an update to) [[wmf:Values]]. What's the purpose of this document? Is it going to live alongside the [[wmf:mission|mission statement]], [[wmf:vision|vision statement]], etc.? Or will it end up being a Board resolution? Or something else? --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 04:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:It is similar, but more detailed than the values statement. I think the guiding principles are pretty well done, and cover some additional ground. It is worth considering if they could supersede the values statement, but there is some value in having a shorter document too. The guiding principles draft says, "It is likely that these principles will be presented to the Board of Trustees for their approval, at a future Board meeting." [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 16:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Yeah, Superm401 is correct. This document isn't intended to supersede the Values document. It's actually intended to flesh out the values a little bit further, so it's more explicit how we live them on a day-to-day basis at the staff level. A word like "independence," for example, is very subject to interpretation, and so the purpose here is to lay out how (e.g.,) the value "independence" manifests on a day-to-day basis, in practice, e.g., in the realm of fundraising, our commitment to open source, etc. Thanks. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 21:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Free formats ==<br />
<br />
In re: ''All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software,'' can you clarify whether or not this is meant to mean that we will provide every file in free formats and thus not ''require'' the use of non-free software to view the file or does this mean that we will not provide the file in non-free formats at all? There seems to be some contention both internally and externally surrounding the possibility of providing non-free formats. I, personally, full appreciate having available to me free-formats, but when all of my devices have hardware-accelerated H.264 decoding, I would prefer to save cpu cycles and my battery when watching videos from commons. Similarly, there are some mobile devices that only support non-free formats and thus we currently do not support those users. -[[User:Pgehres (WMF)|Peter Gehres (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Pgehres (WMF)|talk]]) 05:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:We're working on that issue with legal internally... I'm certainly trying to push advocacy for explicit support of multi-format stack as officially acceptable, and would prefer clearer language on this as well. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Quality ==<br />
<br />
It strikes me that there is a glaring omission here. The current list of principles is a good set of ideologies, but surely the Wikimedia Foundation values high-quality content as much as it does the abstract principles like transparency and accountability. I understand that the Foundation does not generally (nor should) directly involve itself in the creation or judging of content on the projects, but certainly one of its core duties is encouraging or enabling the content creation, and one of the core implicit principles is that the content of the projects ought to be high-quality, comprehensive, authoritative, and so on (to the degree such quality descriptors are applicable to each project). To me, it seems like the omission of any principle that actually addresses the content of the projects is likely a matter of something being so obvious it didn't seem to need saying. I think it is important nonetheless, though. [[User:Dominic|Dominic]] ([[User talk:Dominic|talk]]) 06:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
: I agree. I think reiterating the [[wmf:mission statement|mission statement]] might be good here. (Related to the section above about [[wmf:values]], this page seems to be doing a bit of wheel reinvention....) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 06:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Ads? ==<br />
<br />
Is being ad-free a guiding principle? Relatedly, is being neutral? --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 07:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:On the neutrality issue... that seems perhaps too WIkipedia-specific? Wikivoyage, for instance, has [[:wikivoyage:Wikivoyage:Be fair|no neutrality policy]]. It seems like being independent is really the principle here, related to being ad-free, and that actually extends to other things like not being reliant on a few major donors. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think being ad-free is ''something we think is really great'', but the relevant guiding principle is indeed independence. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Mm, it's a little more than "really great"; Sue, Jimmy, and other board members have repeatedly stated for the record that Wikipedia will never show ads. So it's not accurate to present this as merely a strong preference; it has long been a firm commitment. (All this not to contradict that the principle here ''is'' independence rather than ''no ads''.) [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 22:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::IMO a commitment to not put ads on the site is more of a ''position'' than a ''principle''. We certainly don't advocate against advertisement culture the way we advocate for free speech and access to information. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 23:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Agreed. (your first comment did not acknowledge it was a committed position.) [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 23:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::: Independence is the overall meta-principle, but ads come up ''so often'', even today, even after all the times we've said no. I think it's an artifact of our time and place and how every other internet service in the world gets funded, so I think it's worth focusing on ads specifically just to make the very clear point that: we are not the same as google, or facebook, etc. What we show people under our logos ''matters a lot'', and part of that is that no one can pay to control one square pixel of a Wikimedia project page. -- [[user:phoebe|phoebe]] | <small>[[user_talk:phoebe|talk]]</small> 00:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::Hilarious that I omitted anything about ads, considering I am asked about literally on a weekly basis. Ridiculous oversight, I'm glad it's been caught :-)<br />
:::::How about something like this (also now on the article page): <br />
:::::''Because the Wikimedia Foundation does not want to compromise the editorial integrity and independence of the projects, nor risk a perception that they have been compromised, we would be extremely reluctant to put advertising on the projects, or anything that might be perceived as advertising. We do not say that would never happen, because if it was a choice between shutting down the projects and accepting advertisements we would consider doing it, but we think it is highly unlikely to ever happen, and would only be considered in the gravest of circumstances.''<br />
:::::Let me know what you think -- thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 21:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Free speech ==<br />
<br />
"Another crack at alternative wording: We aim to balance appropriately between our goal of being active internationally and our desire to minimize legal risk to the projects."<br />
:^ I worry this version doesn't actually say anything about being pro-free speech or making information available to everyone. One way to improve our international activity and lower our risk profile would be to censor information for certain countries to comply with local censorship or blasphemy laws, but I think we wouldn't consider that acceptable. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 19:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Gah, good point Brion. You're right, it could be misread as supporting/allowing censorship, which of course is the opposite of what it's supposed to say. Clumsy writing. (By me.) I'll delete it from the page.<br />
::What about this version (copied from the article page): <br />
::''In making decisions, we will not allow censorship of our content as a means to facilitate other strategic goals: to the contrary, our strategic goal is to preserve content, and other initiatives must be consistent with that mission.''<br />
::Personally I never like use of the word "content" so I might rather word it as "censorship of the projects" and "to preserve the material in the projects," but that aside, do we think this works? <br />
::Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 21:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Thank you ==<br />
<br />
I just checked this page because I had a free moment (I am in an all-day annual planning meeting) and I want to say thank you to everyone who's contributing here -- this is a really useful conversation. Some of the language folks are proposing is really helpful, and there are a couple of places where the comments show that the existing language isn't nearly as clear as I thought it was. So this is good. I'll come back sometime over the next week, but please meanwhile continue to develop new needed language through discussion here -- it's very, very helpful. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]])<br />
<br />
== Wikimedia Brasil Statement of Principles ==<br />
Hi, I would like to suggest also the reading of the Statement of Principles made by the group of volunteers of Wikimedia in Brazil, in 2009, which has nice thoughts and can inspire a little those reading here:<br />
* [[:br:chapter:Wikimedia:Statement of Principles|Wikimedia Brasil - Statement of Principles]]<br />
I would like later, when I find time, to make comments on the internationalization section. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Tom]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 22:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Transparency: lack of IRS Form 990 ==<br />
<br />
Hello,<br />
<br />
The text mention we disclose the IRS form 990. The Financial page at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Financial_reports only shows the 2010-2011 form, thus we are missing the 2011-2012 form which should have been filled last year. [[User:Hashar|Ashar Voultoiz]] ([[User talk:Hashar|talk]]) 11:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:This isn't missing, just not there yet. :) The 2010-2011 form ([[:wmf:File:Form 990 - FY 10-11 - Public.pdf|here]]) was uploaded in May 2012. Previous years have been uploaded in [[:wmf::File:WMF 2009 2010 Form 990.pdf|April]], [[:wmf:File:WMF 2008 Form 990.pdf|May]], [[:wmf:File:WMF 2007 Form 990.pdf|May]] and [[:wmf:File:WMF 2006 Form 990.pdf|September]] of the year following the expiration of the fiscal year. Forms 990 are not due until the 15th day of the fifth month after the end of the fiscal year, with up to 180 days of extension if necessary. Last year's form 990 is still on schedule with previous years, and I'm sure it'll be uploaded sooner if ready. --[[User:Mdennis (WMF)|Maggie Dennis (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mdennis (WMF)|talk]]) 14:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Entities ==<br />
<br />
Thank you Sue for sharing and drafting this document in public! Reading the document – while understanding that it is aimed to describe current practice – I was a bit saddened to not see "movement entities" described in the context of partnership and cooperation in achieving the common goals. (There is some mention about giving movement entities money and freedom to do what they want, but I feel this does not live fully up to the [[mission]] statement, either in practice or at the level of principles.) –[[User:Bdamokos|Bence]] ([[User talk:Bdamokos|talk]]) 13:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Hi Bence. Yeah, I totally understand why you would say that -- it makes sense. I've just added this: "In addition to our work with individual volunteers, we work in collaboration with a network of chapter organizations and other Wikimedia movement entities, in our shared pursuit of the Wikimedia mission." Let me know if that works for you :-) Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 00:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== "Regardless of their title or position" ==<br />
<br />
"We aim to be careful with donors' money. We pay salaries that are fair but not lavish, and provide reasonable benefits (e.g., health and dental insurance) that are the same for all employees regardless of their title or position. We aim to incur only reasonable travel costs, and to keep work-related entertainment costs moderate."<br />
<br />
Hi. Is this recent? Was this envisioned when people were planning the catalyst programs? What about benefits as laptops and mobiles, how is the policy of WMF defined regading this? Best, --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Tom]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 18:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Finalizing the Guiding Principles soon ==<br />
<br />
Hey folks -- just wanted to let you know I am going to be finalizing the Guiding Principles over the next day or two. (So, by the end of 13 April.) The discussion can still continue, but if there's anything in the actual wording of the text that you would still like to see fine-tuned, please say so, and please propose new wording, over the next two days. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 00:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)</div>Sue Gardnerhttps://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resolution_talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles/Archive_1&diff=328113Resolution talk:Wikimedia Foundation Guiding Principles/Archive 12013-04-12T00:51:20Z<p>Sue Gardner: /* Finalizing the Guiding Principles soon */ new section</p>
<hr />
<div>== Freedom and open source ==<br />
"As an organization, we strive to use open source tools over proprietary ones, although we use proprietary or closed tools (such as software, operating systems, etc.) where there is currently no open-source tool that will effectively meet our needs." - Is there a requirement and process in place which forces people to publish an evaluation which open-source tools were considered and tested for a task in order to identify which specific functionality was only provided by closed-source tools? --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 18:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:<br />
:Well, maybe that is my impression because I work remotely, but I've seen some proprietary files been shared and proprietary softwares being used when we could have free software. For instance, microsoft documents or apple softwares. And I've heard the wifi network in SF office works better with apple stuff, which is kind of weird - I've visited SF office only once and I checked that, but I've heard the same from other online meetings. For pragmatical reasons, sometimes I know using some closed softwares can deliver things faster tho. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Ezalvarenga]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 19:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:I agree we could use a little more discipline on this. e.g. I'm not ''convinced'' all Mac users in the office would truly be significantly less effective at their work on Ubuntu machines. I do acknowledge some may be. I think it warrants some nudging/pushing, though. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 20:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::I think there's a huge distinction between closed source tools for personal productivity, and closed source tools for supporting the projects. This should be clarified in the text of the principles, because the current state of affairs is that we require FOSS when it comes to what is actually necessary for the projects to run, and we obviously don't when it comes to the office IT. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 22:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Thanks. In my initial posting I had shared tools in production (servers, webservices, etc.) in mind, but did not mean to refer to personal computers of individuals - that would be under the "personal freedom" category, and a published evaluation feels like overkill for such private cases. --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::Hi, Aklapper, I don't have time today to make a longer comment, but for the personal freedom, if everybody begin to use closed formats, people who wants to use open formats will be forced to use also closed ones. If a person doesn't want to buy an apple computer, but the wifi network forces people to do so or make their lifes with other hardwares difficult, sorry, a serious policy about that should change. Yes, people can choose whatever they want on their personal computers, but if the majority is using what is fashion, a conscious minitority will not have freedom to choose what they want. As an example, I do use sometimes closed softwares, like skype, but only when really necessary, like a partner or co-worker that prefers to use it. And I know the pain it is sometimes to use only Linux since 1998. :) In Brazil, at least, in the government level, we are trying to [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/thackday/WCmyz2jltF8/sKDd0xCPQaQJ BURN ALL THE DOCS]! There are also [https://groups.google.com/group/thackday/browse_thread/thread/4f94fbf09e4b6f54 bills] under way. ;D P. S. I could not even imagine close softwares on the server side. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Ezalvarenga]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 12:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Responding to a couple of you here. No, AKlapper, AFAIK there is no formal documented requirement/process for evaluation of when the Wikimedia Foundation uses a proprietary tool instead of an open source one. To date we've been small enough, and had a sufficient proportion of the staff who're personally dedicated to open source values, such that evaluation has tended to happen informally on a case-by-case basis, and it's worked reasonably well. Like, we made an organizational commitment to use CiviCRM early and we've stuck with that, and similarly I know that Finance & Admin uses proprietary accounting tools because early on some research was done that determined there was no acceptable open-source tool. I think those were both reasonable outcomes. Over the years we've toyed with the idea of developing a formal evaluation policy, but we have not done it. If you're suggesting we should, I would generally agree, but I also wouldn't say it's the thing Office IT should prioritize as most important and most urgent.<br />
<br />
More generally, in response to Ezalvarenga and Ijon, yes, I'd agree that our actual practices are likely imperfect -- there are probably some people at the Wikimedia Foundation using proprietary tools for individual use that could be replaced by open source tools. For example, I know that Legal has at some times used Microsoft Word for documents shared with external firms, when they probably could've insisted on using OpenOffice or LibreOffice without too much of a productivity hit.<br />
<br />
Frankly, individuals using proprietary tools has been a pretty big pain point for the Wikimedia Foundation. It's understandable: individual staff have widely varying levels of personal commitment to FLOSS, people want to be effective at work and so they want to use the tools that support them best, and people's work, and their needs, vary. No-one wants to be told they have no choice but to use X, whether X is Ubuntu/Thunderbird/LibreOffice or IE/Outlook/Word. That's utterly reasonable. So it's complex, and we're not going to capture a lot of complexity in a short statement. <br />
<br />
StevenW had proposed we modify the language here to distinguish between site production tools and personal/individual tools. Can somebody propose language for that, and for anything else here that might need clarification or finetuning? Feel free to make a change and I'll revert it or finetune it if I feel I need to. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Related reading: [[FLOSS-Exchange]]. I think focusing on the ideal (and its rationale, which Erik sort of touched on with his "right to fork" [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5334873&oldid=5334652 addition]), instead of what individuals might do, is a reasonable compromise. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 07:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think the line should be what's shared by the organization (or teams within the organization) and personal. For anything shared, we should make it free software/open source unless it's really unworkable (and even then, we should always keep an eye out for moving to free software as it improves). But if you want to use MS Word on your personal machine to write PHP that fully meets our coding conventions, more power to you ;). This basically [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&oldid=5335910#Freedom_and_open_source matches] the current text. But there are some cases where free software is workable for shared tools but we're not currently using them; as I said, we should try to change that. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Agreed with SteveW and others above that there's some distinction between what we share, what we use personally, and what we require others to use. Apple users in the office? Who cares, they're mostly running FOSS on top of Apple -- most of our ops folks and engineers live in a terminal and use standard Unix tools. Adobe Photoshop and proprietary-format files for graphics work? Maybe we do care, because you can't always use the PSD files without it. (I always advocate for SVG format for graphics, especially anything we intend to use in software or on sites that may need to be revisioned in the future.) Google Apps for email? Who cares, email is interoperable. Google Hangouts for video conferencing internally? Who cares? Google Hangouts for video conferencing including open community participation? Runs on Linux, but requires a proprietary plugin; not ideal but we accept it as the best compromise of several options for now. Maybe we care but we can live with it. etc. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::So the text now reads like this: <br />
<br />
::''The Wikimedia Foundation is deeply rooted in the values of the free culture and free software movements. With the exception of "fair use" material, all information in Wikimedia projects can be freely shared, freely distributed, freely modified and freely used for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, in perpetuity.''<br />
::''All code written by the Wikimedia Foundation is licensed under an applicable open source license. We realize our obligations not just to share code, but to cultivate a healthy community of contributors around the source code, and to work with upstream projects and contribute back improvements to their code.''<br />
::''All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software.''<br />
::''Consistent with the above principles, we support the right of third parties to make and maintain licensing-compliant copies and forks of Wikimedia content and Wikimedia-developed code, regardless of motivation or purpose. While we are generally not able to directly assist such efforts, we enable them by making available copies of Wikimedia content in bulk, and avoiding critical dependencies on proprietary code or services for maintaining a largely functionally equivalent fork.''<br />
::''As an organization, we strive to use open source tools over proprietary ones, although we use proprietary or closed tools (such as software, operating systems, etc.) where there is currently no open-source tool that will effectively meet our needs.''<br />
<br />
::Does this work for everybody? I could add some language specifically around personal tool use, but I feel like "where there's no open-source tool that would effectively meet our needs" covers it. Like, you use Illustrator if Gimp isn't good enough for what you need. Let me know if anyone feels like this language isn't clear/accurate: otherwise I'll consider this thread resolved. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 21:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: As a very minor piece of word-smithing, I'd change "not able to directly assist such efforts" to "not able to individually assist such efforts" - we do directly help such efforts with data dumps and tools, we just don't have the resources to give human attention individually to such efforts. But yes, looks good to go otherwise. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 22:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::: Done -- thanks James :-) [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 17:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Quick suggestion... ==<br />
<br />
[https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASue_Gardner%2FWikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5332950&oldid=5331958 ], which I made before seeing the request to comment first. Anyway, "serving every human being" seems a bit disingenuous, since we really aim to serve every literate human being with access to data and a digital device. ;-) The goal of providing equal access to all seems fairer, and more in line the the section's comments about well, accessibility. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 00:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:"equal access to all" is, er, equally disingenuous, as, by your own phrase, we're providing equal access only to "every literate human being with access to data and a digital device".<br />
:Furthermore, I actually do think we ''strive'' to serve every human being. Remember the free knowledge the Wikimedia community creates and shares is consumed offline too, not to mention the huge value of secondary use -- the knowledge worked into presentations, newspapers, books, radio and TV programs -- all consumed by hundreds of millions ''more'' than the group consuming it directly from our Web sites. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 00:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Yeah, I agree with Ijon. The language is "aims to" and "endeavours to," so I think it's appropriately framed as aspirational. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Actually, it's not quite that limited. We do generally serve literate people, but there are actually readings of many articles (e.g. see [[:w:Template:Spoken Wikipedia|Template:Spoken Wikipedia]], I'm sure among others). There are also various mechanisms for printing Wikipedia (some in-house, some just people trying to make money by selling Wikipedia books), so you don't need a digital device. The fact that we've consistently used fully free licenses for our content (except fair use extracts) has facilitated all of that. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Commons serves non-literate people indirectly. {{Smiley}} —[[User:Tom Morris|Tom Morris]] ([[User talk:Tom Morris|talk]]) 19:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Getting rich ==<br />
<br />
On «nobody is getting rich by working at the Wikimedia Foundation»: define "rich". For instance, I'm a student but I'm very rich compared to most world population and richer than millions of Italians (so, when serving in my university board I raised tuition fees for myself/my income range). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Yeah obviously "getting rich" is relative. It's only when you compare [[:wiktionary:apples and oranges|apples to apples]] and look at other tech and nonprofit compensation schemes that you see what is meant. In any case, it's pretty awesome that we want to put that among our guiding principles, right? <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Edit conflict with StevenW! And yeah, Steven, I agree. I think the key word here is "getting." Nemo is correct of course that by world population standards, everybody who works at the Wikimedia Foundation is rich. But we were born rich, we did not "get" rich through our work at the Wikimedia Foundation. The point here is that working at the Wikimedia Foundation is not a path to dramatically improving one's personal wealth. Thanks. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::I tend to see those negative statements ("'''not''' getting rich") as putting things in people's head that you don't want there in the first place. You say "not getting rich" (and I am on par with both Steven's and your interpretation on this) and all people seem to read/hear is "rich". Maybe we should try to find a positive statement for this? I'm kind of stuck though for a good one. "If you want to get rich, go work somewhere else"? -- ok, that one is stupid, but maybe you get my point? [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 21:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::I suspected that the point was in ''getting'', however this is tricky. One may get "richer" by going to work in the WMF for career reasons, compared to the previous work (or country?), comparatively getting "poorer" than possible in some other place, however the latter is mostly impossible to prove. "Nobody is getting richer" would be clearer but is technically wrong.<br />
:::Maybe: "we aim at level of income not being an important [the most important? one of the most important?] motivation[s] for someone to stay at the WMF", which implies there are different/contrasting motivations (presumably honest ;) ) without getting lost in defining which, and that income may be sacrificed. This is probably what is meant hear; no idea if it is positive enough as per notafish. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC) <small>P.s.: Steven, personally I don't care that much if someone gets rich at the WMF, as long as it's not by fleeing with the cash. :) I just like clarity.</small><br />
::::Seems a bit "off" for Sue Gardner to be commenting on "not getting rich" when her salary exceeds that of about 99% of American wage earners. -- [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A|2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A]] 18:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
I've just removed the phrase about getting rich. I think "fair but not lavish" covers it :-) Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 22:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Reasonable travel costs==<br />
«We aim to incur only reasonable travel costs: the general policy is to travel economy class and stay in moderately-priced hotels»: were $225K for staff (and board) at Wikimania reasonable? [[Talk:Wikimedia budget#Wikimania travel question]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:How much is that per person sent to Wikimania that year? I think looking at the total for shock value is unfair. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Nemo we're not making a commitment here to reduce travel costs, or to minimize travel. (I wouldn't want to do that: with a growing staff that operates as part of a global community that stages many international events such as Wikimania, the chapters' meeting and various hackathons, it strikes me that a focus on reducing travel costs would be a net negative not a net plus. I expect travel costs to be a not-insubstantial chunk of the Wikimedia Foundation budget: that seems eminently reasonable to me given the nature of our work.) The point here is simply that when we travel, we aim to do it moderately not luxuriously. The nuts-and-bolts of how we do that are captured in [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Travel_policy the travel policy], but the purpose of this statement is simply to summarize the overall intent. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::So in short yes, you think it's reasonable. :) <small>I don't know if it was: while you do or can know all the details on the alternatives and other considerations, I can't judge — no opinion at all.</small> Given that "reasonable" conveys little, you may consider removing «to incur only reasonable travel costs: the general policy is » and leaving only the straightforward part of the statement.<br />
:::Ideally (IMHO), we'd include some other criteria, like the impact:cost ratio (which you hinted to), usage of cheapest means of transportation, miscellaneous synergies (dumb example: double rooms instead of single where possible? and other more impactful stuff), with the disclaimer that all this must be applied fairly (see other section on benefits/reimbursements). I have no idea what are the current practices on all this so I don't know where to start, but I'm confident a compact form is possible. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::Hey Nemo, please see my comment in Title and Position (the next section down). Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 17:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Title or position==<br />
«People at the Wikimedia Foundation get the same benefits regardless of their title or position». <br />
*Who's "people"? Are you including all managers, trustees and employees?<br />
*What's "benefits" and how do you measure if "salaries" are "fair"? Are you considering only accessories or also the actual wage, before or after taxes, pension contributions etc.?<br />
*What are you including in "title or position" (or other comparison for "fair")? For instance, remote worker vs. office worker, full time vs. part time, staff vs. contractor.<br />
--[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:*Well, people does include at least all staff if you read further "regardless of their title or position". This should include everyone. As for Trustees, you've got a point, "people" is not clear and should probably be changed to "Staff" when it comes to benefits. I do not believe Trustees get benefits, even though they might benefit from insurance and related stuff when it comes to their work for the Foundation. It might make sense here to differentiate between staff/volunteers or something along those lines. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 14:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::To be clear: yes, the statement's intended to refer to all staff, and I can change the word "people" to "staff." There is detail available in the document [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/2a/Wikimedia_Foundation_Compensation_Practices.pdf Wikimedia Foundation Compensation Practices]. And for Notafish, yes, the trustees don't get any benefits. Expenses they incur on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation are reimbursed as per the policies, but they receive no compensation in the form of salary or other benefits. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::I think Staff makes sense in that context, thanks for clarifying. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 21:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC) <small>(Sue, it's '''n'''otafish, with a small '''n''', and I'm stupidly particular about it. If you want a capital, go with Delphine ;)</small><br />
:::::Thank you, Sue, this clarifies the first point: only two left in this section. :)<br />
:::::On "benefits", the exact meaning of the word (or lexical equivalent) varies quite a lot across jurisdictions and fiscal systems, as far as I know, so it's not safe to assume everyone will get what you mean. I understand that reimbursements are a different matter, but it would be nice if they were fair and independent from title etc., too. (I suppose they already mostly are?) --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::: Yeah, in the U.S. "benefits" is generally understood not to include salary (people talk about "salary plus benefits") (it's basically everything ''but'' salary). However, that might not be true in other countries/languages. Also, the 401(k) maximum match is a fixed percentage of salary. While the percentage is the same across position, the amount (n% × salary) technically is not. However, it's true this is a fine distinction. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
*'Staff' is normally understood to mean Employees + Contractors, where contractors are afforded fewer benefits (if any at all). I'd suggest amending to specify 'Employees at...'. [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 23:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
**I'd kind of like us to provide fair benefits to all staff including international contractors, but of course jurisdictions make things.... difficult. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 19:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::: As per Oliver and others, I changed "staff" to "employees" for clarity. I do wish the WMF could provide equivalent benefits to everyone regardless of their official status (i.e., staff versus contractor) but Brion is right, it's very complex. Having said that, I'm pleased we do provide additional benefits to all U.S. employees beyond what's provided by the state. In many/most countries, the state provides the basics: in the United States it does not, and so employer-provided health insurance is critical. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 17:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::: Okay I just rewrote this section. <br />
<br />
::::''We aim to be careful with donors' money. We pay salaries that are fair but not lavish, and provide reasonable benefits (e.g., health and dental insurance) that are the same for all employees regardless of their title or position. We aim to incur only reasonable travel costs, and to keep work-related entertainment costs moderate.'' <br />
<br />
::::Purpose of the rewrite is just clarity/simplicity. Nemo, rather than expanding the travel-related part with more detail I made it higher-level. [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Travel_policy The full travel policy is here], and it's an official Board policy, so if it changes it would be updated on that page. Folks, let me know if aiming "to keep work-related entertainment costs moderate" is clear enough. Again, there is a [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Duty_entertainment_guidelines_policy more detailed policy on this]. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 17:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Accountable==<br />
«The Wikimedia Foundation wants to be accountable to [...]». Please clarify how the concept of accountability applies here: «responsible for your decisions or actions and expected to explain them when you are asked»[http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/accountable] (are there processes to be responsible of your actions in front of the readers, receive their questions and explain? etc.). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Sure, of course there are processes to be responsible to the readers of the projects. Reader surveys. User testing. OTRS. The blogs. The annual reports. The regular publication of activity reports, performance reports, financial statements. Social media. Engagement with charity watchdog groups. Public mailing lists. Bugzilla. Office hours on IRC. Events for donors. This page, and many other on-wiki consultations related to feature development, policy development, and so forth. There are probably lots I am forgetting :-) Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Shared power==<br />
This section seems entirely useless, in that it lists a lot of minor ephemeral details from the ''here and now'' and no actual "principles" that may "guide" any action. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:The purpose of this section is to explicitly acknowledge that the Wikimedia Foundation works in partnership with a global community of volunteers -- that the Wikimedia Foundation is not the sole or even primary actor in fulfilling the Wikimedia mission, and that it needs to conduct itself accordingly, by creating mechanisms and processes enabling the community to have influence on its actions. Because we are interdependent partners. I think this is a pretty fundamental and important point to make, because in this regard we are different from practically everybody else. (What I mean by that: eBay and Facebook and Yelp may also have a social purpose or utility, but their primary purpose is to make money, and "community members" are a resource to be managed by the company to that end. In our case, the primary purpose of the movement is to make knowledge freely available to everyone around the world, and the Wikimedia Foundation and the global community of volunteers play different and complementary roles in achieving that shared goal.) So I wonder if that's not clear -- if my wording is just mucky. If so, can someone help propose better, more useful language? Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]])<br />
:The shared power section does mention volunteer "developers". However, I would like to see more emphasis on this. Something like "The Wikimedia Foundation strives to continually increase its partnership with outside developers, project managers, and system adminstrators so we can technically improve the sites together". This is an area where we've had some success, but more can definitely be done. The reason I said "outside" not "volunteer" is that they may be paid to work on something like MediaWiki, just not paid ''by'' WMF. The Apache Software Foundation is an example of an organization where many (not all) developers are paid (by various companies organizations), but they partner together to get things done. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Hi Matt,<br />
<br />
:: Sue asked me to help her add to the section, and I've made an effort to do so [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5361354&oldid=5361335 here]. I think the "aligned with our interests" piece is an important qualifier.--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 21:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==United States==<br />
On «support successful job candidates in attaining the legal right to work in the United States»: why only USA? What if they want to move elsewhere? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Maybe this should become "...to work from a WMF office in the United States", in case that's what's meant here. --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Or rather: Support succesful job candidates in attaining the legal right to work in the US should the need arise". Or something along those lines. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 14:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Yeah -- you're correct, we also support remote workers when people don't want to relocate and the job doesn't require it. I will reword :-) [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Here's what I changed it too -- let me know if this is clearer. "We aim to recruit talented people regardless of where they live, and depending on their preferences and the needs of the job, we support them in working remotely or relocating to the United States." Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::Does the trick, as far as I'm concerned. :) [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 21:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::::Yes, much clearer, thanks. <br />
::::::Ideally you'd be completely nation-neutral and support them in relocating to another country of their choice too, if suitable for them, and you could remove the "to the United States" bit. However, I understand this is an edge case. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::::Relocations are done because the WMF feels the employee should be in-office. Up until we open an office somewhere else I can't imagine that spending donor funds moving people to a country 'because they want to live there' would be optimal. [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 23:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::::::Yeah, Oliver is right. We have once or twice had staff who wanted to relocate for personal reasons. We are okay with them doing it when it doesn't interfere with their work (like, if they are moving from one non-SF location to another non-SF location, or if they used to work from SF, want to move elsewhere, and working remotely wouldn't hurt their ability to do their work). But in those cases, when they are moving for personal reasons, the WMF wouldn't pay for the move, and wouldn't arrange or pay for any services related to the move, such as immigration-related legal fees. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 20:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Serving every human being==<br />
This section looks weird being 7 sections away from «Freedom and open source» with «All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software» etc. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The emphasis on the development of new features is undue and likely to grate on both engineering staff and community, in my opinion. It is out of step with the custodian role which many individuals in both groups identify with. We should express a stronger commitment to high availability and site performance. --[[User:Ori.livneh|Ori.livneh]] ([[User talk:Ori.livneh|talk]]) 10:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Oh ha, Ori.livneh I think that's just clumsy wording on my part. I can see how it's easy to misread, but what you think I said is not what I meant to be saying. I'll revise. I'll also move this chunk up to be nearer to Freedom and Open Source. Thanks to you both [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Also, it talks about these being directed at "readers", and hoping to support them in starting to contribute - but we should probably also talk about supporting existing contributors. :-) [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 20:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: On Sue's request, I've tried to address these points with [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5334886&oldid=5334873 this edit].--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 23:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: It's better (thanks, Sue, Erik, and James) but it's still not quite right, in my opinion: rather than rank engineering priorities (features, performance, availability) and then work backwards to explain the values that motivate them (access, participation), I think the section ought to lead with a statement of values, and then explain how our engineering priorities reflect our effort to realize these values maximally. --[[User:Ori.livneh|Ori.livneh]] ([[User talk:Ori.livneh|talk]]) 11:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::: Want to take a crack at drafting something on talk?--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 20:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::: How about:<br />
:::::: <div style="border:1px solid silver; background:#eee; margin:0.5em; padding:1em 2em;">The Wikimedia Foundation aims to make <span style="background: #d8ecff;">the</span> material in the Wikimedia projects broadly accessible to all. <span style="background: #d8ecff;">We work to enable for the world education from, entertainment by, and engagement with our projects' content, and participation in the communities and processes that create them.</span> Ensuring <span style="background: #d8ecff;">the</span> continued reliability, availability and responsiveness of all Wikimedia sites and services is our first priority. In prioritizing new products and features, our goal is to impact the largest-possible number of readers and contributors, and to eliminate barriers that could preclude people from accessing or contributing to our projects, such as poor usability, lack of language support, and limited access to technology. We endeavour to create the structural support and the necessary preconditions for bottom-up innovation by others. We do not form agreements in which one organization is given access to material or functionality that others are denied. Where possible, we aim to preserve and support frictionless use of the material in the projects, so that people can share it widely and easily.</div><br />
:::::: Thoughts? Please forgive the "power of threes" and running alliterations. :-) I worry that this section is now trying to say too much; possibly split after "technology"? I'm not particularly attached to my wording, so don't worry about offending. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 05:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Communication==<br />
Do you think https://xkcd.com/802/ [https://xkcd.com/802_large/] applies to the WMF? (In particular, the proportions in the two maps on the top <s>right</s> left being zoomed.) --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Nemo, could you clarify which proportions you refer to by naming them? Top right is "Unread Updates". --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Ouch. I meant left, of course. :) Thanks, [[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Right to fork==<br />
Again nothing. [[Talk:Terms of use/Archives/2011-12-06#Right to Fork]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
* Probably more of a Wikimedia principle than a Wikimedia Foundation principle. Perhaps we need a separate list? :-) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 09:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
*: I doubt it: «principles intended to guide the work of the Wikimedia Foundation». Who else do you suggest to task with ensuring the right to fork? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: Sue asked me to explore some language around this, so I've taken a first crack at it with [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5334873&oldid=5334652 this edit].--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 23:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::: Thanks! Much better. I'll let the experts comment on the specific wording and if it covers all the essential (people would like to have something more than page history dumps, but what exactly is tricky). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 23:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::: If this idea is developed any further could someone ping me? I'm interested for obvious reasons. Thanks. -- [[User:ArielGlenn|ArielGlenn]] ([[User talk:ArielGlenn|talk]]) 09:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think this is covered now by Erik's language, right? <br />
<br />
''Consistent with the above principles, we support the right of third parties to make and maintain licensing-compliant copies and forks of Wikimedia content and Wikimedia-developed code, regardless of motivation or purpose. While we are generally not able to individually assist such efforts, we enable them by making available copies of Wikimedia content in bulk, and avoiding critical dependencies on proprietary code or services for maintaining a largely functionally equivalent fork.''<br />
<br />
Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 20:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Internationalism ==<br />
<br />
«''When we consider the community'' as a whole, we aim to consider all its languages and geographies and to avoid global initiatives that favor communities speaking only our languages» (emphasis added).<br />
I note that you're only talking of how you consider the community; what about «initiatives that favor communities speaking only our languages» in general? For instance, roughly how much of the WMF spending goes on initiatives that favor only English-language people (projects, users etc., readers) or only the USA? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Right to influence ==<br />
<br />
«Their work has earned [...] financial support sustaining the Wikimedia Foundation [...] and the global community has therefore earned the right to influence the work of the organizations»: it ''seems'' that you're stating that the only reason why someone has the "right to influence" the work is that they bring in dollars. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Mm, Nemo, this is a good point. I was meaning to specifically talk about the financial aspect, but I realize from your comment that it reads wrong --- it *does* read like that's the only reason the community members matter, which is of course not true. I've taken a crack at rewording below, let me know what you think.<br />
<br />
''These are the people who build the projects, and they have earned the right to influence the development of the platform, and the work of organizations that receive funding from the movement.''<br />
<br />
Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 20:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Transparency ==<br />
<br />
This section says "including employee guidelines". What happened to the public sharing of the [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Employee_Handbook Employee Handbook]? -- [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A|2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A]] 18:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
: I asked about this recently. It doesn't really seem relevant to this kind of document, though. There's a thread on wikimedia-l, I think, if you want to follow up. :-) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 21:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:: It explicitly says "As a matter of general practice, unless there’s a particular reason not to, we aim to publish internal organizational policies and procedures, including employee guidelines, financial policies, etc." I think it does belong here, because what the employees do is relevant, particularly to the donors who are essentially paying us. I agree the current reality around such employee procedures, etc. is not quite consistent with the document. There is some stuff on Office Wiki (a private WMF wiki for employees) that does not need to be confidential. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 23:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::: If only there were someone with access to both wikis with the technical know-how to move the pages. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 03:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::I'm pretty sure the staff handbook contains (amongst other things) access info to our healthcare providers, and other non-public information which should be stripped. I think that if someone did have the access and technical know-how to move the pages and acted on it, they'd swiftly find themselves losing the access ;p. As a general statement, the document ''should'' be moved over - but I imagine they want to get it finished and stable before combing through it to identify elements inappropriate for public consumption (otherwise you end up having to do multiple sweeps). [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 03:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::There are also sections which have been vetted by Legal and should not be open for editing by the public. This is one of the problems.--[[User:Jorm (WMF)|Jorm (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jorm (WMF)|talk]]) 23:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::: The legal team has no issue creating redacted PDFs. They just did for the [[NDA]]s. But they shouldn't be releasing documents in this way, of course. I've started some notes at [[legal docs]] for anyone interested. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 06:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Independence ==<br />
<br />
"Skillsets" is not a proper word. -- [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A|2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A]] 18:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
: Context, "Similarly, our Board of Trustees selection process is designed to encourage representation of different voices and skillsets, rather than recognizing donors or celebrities."<br />
: What would you recommend instead? "skill sets"? Something else? (This level of minor word tweaking you can really just do yourself, but I'm happy to proxy the edit for you from the talk page, if you'd like.) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 20:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: "Skillsets" is a reasonable word, but if the IP objects strenuously, we could use "sets of skills", which is rather po-faced. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 05:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::"Skillsets" is a perfectly cromulent word, even if my spell checker doesn't like it. If you're picky, write it as "skill sets". :) --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Frictionless and copyleft ==<br />
<br />
You might want to clarify this does not mean abandoning copyleft. Though not all WMF wikis use copyleft, many do, and there is general understanding of its benefits. I want to ensure people don't come later and start arguing that e.g. all new wikis should be non-copyleft to avoid "friction". [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 23:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Surely by definition, 'avoiding friction in reuse' would be 'copyleft' - it's talking about freedom for others to reuse our work, not freedom for us to reuse the work of others. Which WMF wikis are non-copyleft? [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 04:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:: Wikinews and Wikidata, for two. Copyleft licences are overly restrictive for wider re-use in some contexts. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 05:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Aha, we're talking less- rather than more-restrictive; my mistake :). [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 05:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Duplicate of [[wmf:Values]]? ==<br />
<br />
Hi. I wonder if these guiding principles aren't in some ways a duplicate of (or perhaps an update to) [[wmf:Values]]. What's the purpose of this document? Is it going to live alongside the [[wmf:mission|mission statement]], [[wmf:vision|vision statement]], etc.? Or will it end up being a Board resolution? Or something else? --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 04:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:It is similar, but more detailed than the values statement. I think the guiding principles are pretty well done, and cover some additional ground. It is worth considering if they could supersede the values statement, but there is some value in having a shorter document too. The guiding principles draft says, "It is likely that these principles will be presented to the Board of Trustees for their approval, at a future Board meeting." [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 16:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Yeah, Superm401 is correct. This document isn't intended to supersede the Values document. It's actually intended to flesh out the values a little bit further, so it's more explicit how we live them on a day-to-day basis at the staff level. A word like "independence," for example, is very subject to interpretation, and so the purpose here is to lay out how (e.g.,) the value "independence" manifests on a day-to-day basis, in practice, e.g., in the realm of fundraising, our commitment to open source, etc. Thanks. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 21:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Free formats ==<br />
<br />
In re: ''All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software,'' can you clarify whether or not this is meant to mean that we will provide every file in free formats and thus not ''require'' the use of non-free software to view the file or does this mean that we will not provide the file in non-free formats at all? There seems to be some contention both internally and externally surrounding the possibility of providing non-free formats. I, personally, full appreciate having available to me free-formats, but when all of my devices have hardware-accelerated H.264 decoding, I would prefer to save cpu cycles and my battery when watching videos from commons. Similarly, there are some mobile devices that only support non-free formats and thus we currently do not support those users. -[[User:Pgehres (WMF)|Peter Gehres (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Pgehres (WMF)|talk]]) 05:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:We're working on that issue with legal internally... I'm certainly trying to push advocacy for explicit support of multi-format stack as officially acceptable, and would prefer clearer language on this as well. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Quality ==<br />
<br />
It strikes me that there is a glaring omission here. The current list of principles is a good set of ideologies, but surely the Wikimedia Foundation values high-quality content as much as it does the abstract principles like transparency and accountability. I understand that the Foundation does not generally (nor should) directly involve itself in the creation or judging of content on the projects, but certainly one of its core duties is encouraging or enabling the content creation, and one of the core implicit principles is that the content of the projects ought to be high-quality, comprehensive, authoritative, and so on (to the degree such quality descriptors are applicable to each project). To me, it seems like the omission of any principle that actually addresses the content of the projects is likely a matter of something being so obvious it didn't seem to need saying. I think it is important nonetheless, though. [[User:Dominic|Dominic]] ([[User talk:Dominic|talk]]) 06:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
: I agree. I think reiterating the [[wmf:mission statement|mission statement]] might be good here. (Related to the section above about [[wmf:values]], this page seems to be doing a bit of wheel reinvention....) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 06:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Ads? ==<br />
<br />
Is being ad-free a guiding principle? Relatedly, is being neutral? --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 07:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:On the neutrality issue... that seems perhaps too WIkipedia-specific? Wikivoyage, for instance, has [[:wikivoyage:Wikivoyage:Be fair|no neutrality policy]]. It seems like being independent is really the principle here, related to being ad-free, and that actually extends to other things like not being reliant on a few major donors. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think being ad-free is ''something we think is really great'', but the relevant guiding principle is indeed independence. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Mm, it's a little more than "really great"; Sue, Jimmy, and other board members have repeatedly stated for the record that Wikipedia will never show ads. So it's not accurate to present this as merely a strong preference; it has long been a firm commitment. (All this not to contradict that the principle here ''is'' independence rather than ''no ads''.) [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 22:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::IMO a commitment to not put ads on the site is more of a ''position'' than a ''principle''. We certainly don't advocate against advertisement culture the way we advocate for free speech and access to information. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 23:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Agreed. (your first comment did not acknowledge it was a committed position.) [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 23:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::: Independence is the overall meta-principle, but ads come up ''so often'', even today, even after all the times we've said no. I think it's an artifact of our time and place and how every other internet service in the world gets funded, so I think it's worth focusing on ads specifically just to make the very clear point that: we are not the same as google, or facebook, etc. What we show people under our logos ''matters a lot'', and part of that is that no one can pay to control one square pixel of a Wikimedia project page. -- [[user:phoebe|phoebe]] | <small>[[user_talk:phoebe|talk]]</small> 00:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::Hilarious that I omitted anything about ads, considering I am asked about literally on a weekly basis. Ridiculous oversight, I'm glad it's been caught :-)<br />
:::::How about something like this (also now on the article page): <br />
:::::''Because the Wikimedia Foundation does not want to compromise the editorial integrity and independence of the projects, nor risk a perception that they have been compromised, we would be extremely reluctant to put advertising on the projects, or anything that might be perceived as advertising. We do not say that would never happen, because if it was a choice between shutting down the projects and accepting advertisements we would consider doing it, but we think it is highly unlikely to ever happen, and would only be considered in the gravest of circumstances.''<br />
:::::Let me know what you think -- thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 21:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Free speech ==<br />
<br />
"Another crack at alternative wording: We aim to balance appropriately between our goal of being active internationally and our desire to minimize legal risk to the projects."<br />
:^ I worry this version doesn't actually say anything about being pro-free speech or making information available to everyone. One way to improve our international activity and lower our risk profile would be to censor information for certain countries to comply with local censorship or blasphemy laws, but I think we wouldn't consider that acceptable. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 19:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Gah, good point Brion. You're right, it could be misread as supporting/allowing censorship, which of course is the opposite of what it's supposed to say. Clumsy writing. (By me.) I'll delete it from the page.<br />
::What about this version (copied from the article page): <br />
::''In making decisions, we will not allow censorship of our content as a means to facilitate other strategic goals: to the contrary, our strategic goal is to preserve content, and other initiatives must be consistent with that mission.''<br />
::Personally I never like use of the word "content" so I might rather word it as "censorship of the projects" and "to preserve the material in the projects," but that aside, do we think this works? <br />
::Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 21:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Thank you ==<br />
<br />
I just checked this page because I had a free moment (I am in an all-day annual planning meeting) and I want to say thank you to everyone who's contributing here -- this is a really useful conversation. Some of the language folks are proposing is really helpful, and there are a couple of places where the comments show that the existing language isn't nearly as clear as I thought it was. So this is good. I'll come back sometime over the next week, but please meanwhile continue to develop new needed language through discussion here -- it's very, very helpful. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]])<br />
<br />
== Wikimedia Brasil Statement of Principles ==<br />
Hi, I would like to suggest also the reading of the Statement of Principles made by the group of volunteers of Wikimedia in Brazil, in 2009, which has nice thoughts and can inspire a little those reading here:<br />
* [[:br:chapter:Wikimedia:Statement of Principles|Wikimedia Brasil - Statement of Principles]]<br />
I would like later, when I find time, to make comments on the internationalization section. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Tom]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 22:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Transparency: lack of IRS Form 990 ==<br />
<br />
Hello,<br />
<br />
The text mention we disclose the IRS form 990. The Financial page at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Financial_reports only shows the 2010-2011 form, thus we are missing the 2011-2012 form which should have been filled last year. [[User:Hashar|Ashar Voultoiz]] ([[User talk:Hashar|talk]]) 11:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:This isn't missing, just not there yet. :) The 2010-2011 form ([[:wmf:File:Form 990 - FY 10-11 - Public.pdf|here]]) was uploaded in May 2012. Previous years have been uploaded in [[:wmf::File:WMF 2009 2010 Form 990.pdf|April]], [[:wmf:File:WMF 2008 Form 990.pdf|May]], [[:wmf:File:WMF 2007 Form 990.pdf|May]] and [[:wmf:File:WMF 2006 Form 990.pdf|September]] of the year following the expiration of the fiscal year. Forms 990 are not due until the 15th day of the fifth month after the end of the fiscal year, with up to 180 days of extension if necessary. Last year's form 990 is still on schedule with previous years, and I'm sure it'll be uploaded sooner if ready. --[[User:Mdennis (WMF)|Maggie Dennis (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mdennis (WMF)|talk]]) 14:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Entities ==<br />
<br />
Thank you Sue for sharing and drafting this document in public! Reading the document – while understanding that it is aimed to describe current practice – I was a bit saddened to not see "movement entities" described in the context of partnership and cooperation in achieving the common goals. (There is some mention about giving movement entities money and freedom to do what they want, but I feel this does not live fully up to the [[mission]] statement, either in practice or at the level of principles.) –[[User:Bdamokos|Bence]] ([[User talk:Bdamokos|talk]]) 13:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== "Regardless of their title or position" ==<br />
<br />
"We aim to be careful with donors' money. We pay salaries that are fair but not lavish, and provide reasonable benefits (e.g., health and dental insurance) that are the same for all employees regardless of their title or position. We aim to incur only reasonable travel costs, and to keep work-related entertainment costs moderate."<br />
<br />
Hi. Is this recent? Was this envisioned when people were planning the catalyst programs? What about benefits as laptops and mobiles, how is the policy of WMF defined regading this? Best, --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Tom]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 18:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Finalizing the Guiding Principles soon ==<br />
<br />
Hey folks -- just wanted to let you know I am going to be finalizing the Guiding Principles over the next day or two. (So, by the end of 13 April.) The discussion can still continue, but if there's anything in the actual wording of the text that you would still like to see fine-tuned, please say so, and please propose new wording, over the next two days. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 00:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)</div>Sue Gardnerhttps://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resolution_talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles/Archive_1&diff=328112Resolution talk:Wikimedia Foundation Guiding Principles/Archive 12013-04-07T21:55:36Z<p>Sue Gardner: /* Ads? */ proposing language around advertising</p>
<hr />
<div>== Freedom and open source ==<br />
"As an organization, we strive to use open source tools over proprietary ones, although we use proprietary or closed tools (such as software, operating systems, etc.) where there is currently no open-source tool that will effectively meet our needs." - Is there a requirement and process in place which forces people to publish an evaluation which open-source tools were considered and tested for a task in order to identify which specific functionality was only provided by closed-source tools? --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 18:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:<br />
:Well, maybe that is my impression because I work remotely, but I've seen some proprietary files been shared and proprietary softwares being used when we could have free software. For instance, microsoft documents or apple softwares. And I've heard the wifi network in SF office works better with apple stuff, which is kind of weird - I've visited SF office only once and I checked that, but I've heard the same from other online meetings. For pragmatical reasons, sometimes I know using some closed softwares can deliver things faster tho. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Ezalvarenga]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 19:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:I agree we could use a little more discipline on this. e.g. I'm not ''convinced'' all Mac users in the office would truly be significantly less effective at their work on Ubuntu machines. I do acknowledge some may be. I think it warrants some nudging/pushing, though. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 20:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::I think there's a huge distinction between closed source tools for personal productivity, and closed source tools for supporting the projects. This should be clarified in the text of the principles, because the current state of affairs is that we require FOSS when it comes to what is actually necessary for the projects to run, and we obviously don't when it comes to the office IT. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 22:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Thanks. In my initial posting I had shared tools in production (servers, webservices, etc.) in mind, but did not mean to refer to personal computers of individuals - that would be under the "personal freedom" category, and a published evaluation feels like overkill for such private cases. --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::Hi, Aklapper, I don't have time today to make a longer comment, but for the personal freedom, if everybody begin to use closed formats, people who wants to use open formats will be forced to use also closed ones. If a person doesn't want to buy an apple computer, but the wifi network forces people to do so or make their lifes with other hardwares difficult, sorry, a serious policy about that should change. Yes, people can choose whatever they want on their personal computers, but if the majority is using what is fashion, a conscious minitority will not have freedom to choose what they want. As an example, I do use sometimes closed softwares, like skype, but only when really necessary, like a partner or co-worker that prefers to use it. And I know the pain it is sometimes to use only Linux since 1998. :) In Brazil, at least, in the government level, we are trying to [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/thackday/WCmyz2jltF8/sKDd0xCPQaQJ BURN ALL THE DOCS]! There are also [https://groups.google.com/group/thackday/browse_thread/thread/4f94fbf09e4b6f54 bills] under way. ;D P. S. I could not even imagine close softwares on the server side. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Ezalvarenga]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 12:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Responding to a couple of you here. No, AKlapper, AFAIK there is no formal documented requirement/process for evaluation of when the Wikimedia Foundation uses a proprietary tool instead of an open source one. To date we've been small enough, and had a sufficient proportion of the staff who're personally dedicated to open source values, such that evaluation has tended to happen informally on a case-by-case basis, and it's worked reasonably well. Like, we made an organizational commitment to use CiviCRM early and we've stuck with that, and similarly I know that Finance & Admin uses proprietary accounting tools because early on some research was done that determined there was no acceptable open-source tool. I think those were both reasonable outcomes. Over the years we've toyed with the idea of developing a formal evaluation policy, but we have not done it. If you're suggesting we should, I would generally agree, but I also wouldn't say it's the thing Office IT should prioritize as most important and most urgent.<br />
<br />
More generally, in response to Ezalvarenga and Ijon, yes, I'd agree that our actual practices are likely imperfect -- there are probably some people at the Wikimedia Foundation using proprietary tools for individual use that could be replaced by open source tools. For example, I know that Legal has at some times used Microsoft Word for documents shared with external firms, when they probably could've insisted on using OpenOffice or LibreOffice without too much of a productivity hit.<br />
<br />
Frankly, individuals using proprietary tools has been a pretty big pain point for the Wikimedia Foundation. It's understandable: individual staff have widely varying levels of personal commitment to FLOSS, people want to be effective at work and so they want to use the tools that support them best, and people's work, and their needs, vary. No-one wants to be told they have no choice but to use X, whether X is Ubuntu/Thunderbird/LibreOffice or IE/Outlook/Word. That's utterly reasonable. So it's complex, and we're not going to capture a lot of complexity in a short statement. <br />
<br />
StevenW had proposed we modify the language here to distinguish between site production tools and personal/individual tools. Can somebody propose language for that, and for anything else here that might need clarification or finetuning? Feel free to make a change and I'll revert it or finetune it if I feel I need to. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Related reading: [[FLOSS-Exchange]]. I think focusing on the ideal (and its rationale, which Erik sort of touched on with his "right to fork" [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5334873&oldid=5334652 addition]), instead of what individuals might do, is a reasonable compromise. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 07:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think the line should be what's shared by the organization (or teams within the organization) and personal. For anything shared, we should make it free software/open source unless it's really unworkable (and even then, we should always keep an eye out for moving to free software as it improves). But if you want to use MS Word on your personal machine to write PHP that fully meets our coding conventions, more power to you ;). This basically [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&oldid=5335910#Freedom_and_open_source matches] the current text. But there are some cases where free software is workable for shared tools but we're not currently using them; as I said, we should try to change that. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Agreed with SteveW and others above that there's some distinction between what we share, what we use personally, and what we require others to use. Apple users in the office? Who cares, they're mostly running FOSS on top of Apple -- most of our ops folks and engineers live in a terminal and use standard Unix tools. Adobe Photoshop and proprietary-format files for graphics work? Maybe we do care, because you can't always use the PSD files without it. (I always advocate for SVG format for graphics, especially anything we intend to use in software or on sites that may need to be revisioned in the future.) Google Apps for email? Who cares, email is interoperable. Google Hangouts for video conferencing internally? Who cares? Google Hangouts for video conferencing including open community participation? Runs on Linux, but requires a proprietary plugin; not ideal but we accept it as the best compromise of several options for now. Maybe we care but we can live with it. etc. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::So the text now reads like this: <br />
<br />
::''The Wikimedia Foundation is deeply rooted in the values of the free culture and free software movements. With the exception of "fair use" material, all information in Wikimedia projects can be freely shared, freely distributed, freely modified and freely used for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, in perpetuity.''<br />
::''All code written by the Wikimedia Foundation is licensed under an applicable open source license. We realize our obligations not just to share code, but to cultivate a healthy community of contributors around the source code, and to work with upstream projects and contribute back improvements to their code.''<br />
::''All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software.''<br />
::''Consistent with the above principles, we support the right of third parties to make and maintain licensing-compliant copies and forks of Wikimedia content and Wikimedia-developed code, regardless of motivation or purpose. While we are generally not able to directly assist such efforts, we enable them by making available copies of Wikimedia content in bulk, and avoiding critical dependencies on proprietary code or services for maintaining a largely functionally equivalent fork.''<br />
::''As an organization, we strive to use open source tools over proprietary ones, although we use proprietary or closed tools (such as software, operating systems, etc.) where there is currently no open-source tool that will effectively meet our needs.''<br />
<br />
::Does this work for everybody? I could add some language specifically around personal tool use, but I feel like "where there's no open-source tool that would effectively meet our needs" covers it. Like, you use Illustrator if Gimp isn't good enough for what you need. Let me know if anyone feels like this language isn't clear/accurate: otherwise I'll consider this thread resolved. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 21:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: As a very minor piece of word-smithing, I'd change "not able to directly assist such efforts" to "not able to individually assist such efforts" - we do directly help such efforts with data dumps and tools, we just don't have the resources to give human attention individually to such efforts. But yes, looks good to go otherwise. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 22:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::: Done -- thanks James :-) [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 17:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Quick suggestion... ==<br />
<br />
[https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASue_Gardner%2FWikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5332950&oldid=5331958 ], which I made before seeing the request to comment first. Anyway, "serving every human being" seems a bit disingenuous, since we really aim to serve every literate human being with access to data and a digital device. ;-) The goal of providing equal access to all seems fairer, and more in line the the section's comments about well, accessibility. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 00:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:"equal access to all" is, er, equally disingenuous, as, by your own phrase, we're providing equal access only to "every literate human being with access to data and a digital device".<br />
:Furthermore, I actually do think we ''strive'' to serve every human being. Remember the free knowledge the Wikimedia community creates and shares is consumed offline too, not to mention the huge value of secondary use -- the knowledge worked into presentations, newspapers, books, radio and TV programs -- all consumed by hundreds of millions ''more'' than the group consuming it directly from our Web sites. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 00:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Yeah, I agree with Ijon. The language is "aims to" and "endeavours to," so I think it's appropriately framed as aspirational. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Actually, it's not quite that limited. We do generally serve literate people, but there are actually readings of many articles (e.g. see [[:w:Template:Spoken Wikipedia|Template:Spoken Wikipedia]], I'm sure among others). There are also various mechanisms for printing Wikipedia (some in-house, some just people trying to make money by selling Wikipedia books), so you don't need a digital device. The fact that we've consistently used fully free licenses for our content (except fair use extracts) has facilitated all of that. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Commons serves non-literate people indirectly. {{Smiley}} —[[User:Tom Morris|Tom Morris]] ([[User talk:Tom Morris|talk]]) 19:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Getting rich ==<br />
<br />
On «nobody is getting rich by working at the Wikimedia Foundation»: define "rich". For instance, I'm a student but I'm very rich compared to most world population and richer than millions of Italians (so, when serving in my university board I raised tuition fees for myself/my income range). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Yeah obviously "getting rich" is relative. It's only when you compare [[:wiktionary:apples and oranges|apples to apples]] and look at other tech and nonprofit compensation schemes that you see what is meant. In any case, it's pretty awesome that we want to put that among our guiding principles, right? <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Edit conflict with StevenW! And yeah, Steven, I agree. I think the key word here is "getting." Nemo is correct of course that by world population standards, everybody who works at the Wikimedia Foundation is rich. But we were born rich, we did not "get" rich through our work at the Wikimedia Foundation. The point here is that working at the Wikimedia Foundation is not a path to dramatically improving one's personal wealth. Thanks. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::I tend to see those negative statements ("'''not''' getting rich") as putting things in people's head that you don't want there in the first place. You say "not getting rich" (and I am on par with both Steven's and your interpretation on this) and all people seem to read/hear is "rich". Maybe we should try to find a positive statement for this? I'm kind of stuck though for a good one. "If you want to get rich, go work somewhere else"? -- ok, that one is stupid, but maybe you get my point? [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 21:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::I suspected that the point was in ''getting'', however this is tricky. One may get "richer" by going to work in the WMF for career reasons, compared to the previous work (or country?), comparatively getting "poorer" than possible in some other place, however the latter is mostly impossible to prove. "Nobody is getting richer" would be clearer but is technically wrong.<br />
:::Maybe: "we aim at level of income not being an important [the most important? one of the most important?] motivation[s] for someone to stay at the WMF", which implies there are different/contrasting motivations (presumably honest ;) ) without getting lost in defining which, and that income may be sacrificed. This is probably what is meant hear; no idea if it is positive enough as per notafish. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC) <small>P.s.: Steven, personally I don't care that much if someone gets rich at the WMF, as long as it's not by fleeing with the cash. :) I just like clarity.</small><br />
::::Seems a bit "off" for Sue Gardner to be commenting on "not getting rich" when her salary exceeds that of about 99% of American wage earners. -- [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A|2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A]] 18:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
I've just removed the phrase about getting rich. I think "fair but not lavish" covers it :-) Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 22:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Reasonable travel costs==<br />
«We aim to incur only reasonable travel costs: the general policy is to travel economy class and stay in moderately-priced hotels»: were $225K for staff (and board) at Wikimania reasonable? [[Talk:Wikimedia budget#Wikimania travel question]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:How much is that per person sent to Wikimania that year? I think looking at the total for shock value is unfair. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Nemo we're not making a commitment here to reduce travel costs, or to minimize travel. (I wouldn't want to do that: with a growing staff that operates as part of a global community that stages many international events such as Wikimania, the chapters' meeting and various hackathons, it strikes me that a focus on reducing travel costs would be a net negative not a net plus. I expect travel costs to be a not-insubstantial chunk of the Wikimedia Foundation budget: that seems eminently reasonable to me given the nature of our work.) The point here is simply that when we travel, we aim to do it moderately not luxuriously. The nuts-and-bolts of how we do that are captured in [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Travel_policy the travel policy], but the purpose of this statement is simply to summarize the overall intent. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::So in short yes, you think it's reasonable. :) <small>I don't know if it was: while you do or can know all the details on the alternatives and other considerations, I can't judge — no opinion at all.</small> Given that "reasonable" conveys little, you may consider removing «to incur only reasonable travel costs: the general policy is » and leaving only the straightforward part of the statement.<br />
:::Ideally (IMHO), we'd include some other criteria, like the impact:cost ratio (which you hinted to), usage of cheapest means of transportation, miscellaneous synergies (dumb example: double rooms instead of single where possible? and other more impactful stuff), with the disclaimer that all this must be applied fairly (see other section on benefits/reimbursements). I have no idea what are the current practices on all this so I don't know where to start, but I'm confident a compact form is possible. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::Hey Nemo, please see my comment in Title and Position (the next section down). Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 17:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Title or position==<br />
«People at the Wikimedia Foundation get the same benefits regardless of their title or position». <br />
*Who's "people"? Are you including all managers, trustees and employees?<br />
*What's "benefits" and how do you measure if "salaries" are "fair"? Are you considering only accessories or also the actual wage, before or after taxes, pension contributions etc.?<br />
*What are you including in "title or position" (or other comparison for "fair")? For instance, remote worker vs. office worker, full time vs. part time, staff vs. contractor.<br />
--[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:*Well, people does include at least all staff if you read further "regardless of their title or position". This should include everyone. As for Trustees, you've got a point, "people" is not clear and should probably be changed to "Staff" when it comes to benefits. I do not believe Trustees get benefits, even though they might benefit from insurance and related stuff when it comes to their work for the Foundation. It might make sense here to differentiate between staff/volunteers or something along those lines. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 14:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::To be clear: yes, the statement's intended to refer to all staff, and I can change the word "people" to "staff." There is detail available in the document [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/2a/Wikimedia_Foundation_Compensation_Practices.pdf Wikimedia Foundation Compensation Practices]. And for Notafish, yes, the trustees don't get any benefits. Expenses they incur on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation are reimbursed as per the policies, but they receive no compensation in the form of salary or other benefits. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::I think Staff makes sense in that context, thanks for clarifying. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 21:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC) <small>(Sue, it's '''n'''otafish, with a small '''n''', and I'm stupidly particular about it. If you want a capital, go with Delphine ;)</small><br />
:::::Thank you, Sue, this clarifies the first point: only two left in this section. :)<br />
:::::On "benefits", the exact meaning of the word (or lexical equivalent) varies quite a lot across jurisdictions and fiscal systems, as far as I know, so it's not safe to assume everyone will get what you mean. I understand that reimbursements are a different matter, but it would be nice if they were fair and independent from title etc., too. (I suppose they already mostly are?) --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::: Yeah, in the U.S. "benefits" is generally understood not to include salary (people talk about "salary plus benefits") (it's basically everything ''but'' salary). However, that might not be true in other countries/languages. Also, the 401(k) maximum match is a fixed percentage of salary. While the percentage is the same across position, the amount (n% × salary) technically is not. However, it's true this is a fine distinction. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
*'Staff' is normally understood to mean Employees + Contractors, where contractors are afforded fewer benefits (if any at all). I'd suggest amending to specify 'Employees at...'. [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 23:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
**I'd kind of like us to provide fair benefits to all staff including international contractors, but of course jurisdictions make things.... difficult. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 19:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::: As per Oliver and others, I changed "staff" to "employees" for clarity. I do wish the WMF could provide equivalent benefits to everyone regardless of their official status (i.e., staff versus contractor) but Brion is right, it's very complex. Having said that, I'm pleased we do provide additional benefits to all U.S. employees beyond what's provided by the state. In many/most countries, the state provides the basics: in the United States it does not, and so employer-provided health insurance is critical. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 17:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::: Okay I just rewrote this section. <br />
<br />
::::''We aim to be careful with donors' money. We pay salaries that are fair but not lavish, and provide reasonable benefits (e.g., health and dental insurance) that are the same for all employees regardless of their title or position. We aim to incur only reasonable travel costs, and to keep work-related entertainment costs moderate.'' <br />
<br />
::::Purpose of the rewrite is just clarity/simplicity. Nemo, rather than expanding the travel-related part with more detail I made it higher-level. [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Travel_policy The full travel policy is here], and it's an official Board policy, so if it changes it would be updated on that page. Folks, let me know if aiming "to keep work-related entertainment costs moderate" is clear enough. Again, there is a [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Duty_entertainment_guidelines_policy more detailed policy on this]. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 17:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Accountable==<br />
«The Wikimedia Foundation wants to be accountable to [...]». Please clarify how the concept of accountability applies here: «responsible for your decisions or actions and expected to explain them when you are asked»[http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/accountable] (are there processes to be responsible of your actions in front of the readers, receive their questions and explain? etc.). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Sure, of course there are processes to be responsible to the readers of the projects. Reader surveys. User testing. OTRS. The blogs. The annual reports. The regular publication of activity reports, performance reports, financial statements. Social media. Engagement with charity watchdog groups. Public mailing lists. Bugzilla. Office hours on IRC. Events for donors. This page, and many other on-wiki consultations related to feature development, policy development, and so forth. There are probably lots I am forgetting :-) Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Shared power==<br />
This section seems entirely useless, in that it lists a lot of minor ephemeral details from the ''here and now'' and no actual "principles" that may "guide" any action. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:The purpose of this section is to explicitly acknowledge that the Wikimedia Foundation works in partnership with a global community of volunteers -- that the Wikimedia Foundation is not the sole or even primary actor in fulfilling the Wikimedia mission, and that it needs to conduct itself accordingly, by creating mechanisms and processes enabling the community to have influence on its actions. Because we are interdependent partners. I think this is a pretty fundamental and important point to make, because in this regard we are different from practically everybody else. (What I mean by that: eBay and Facebook and Yelp may also have a social purpose or utility, but their primary purpose is to make money, and "community members" are a resource to be managed by the company to that end. In our case, the primary purpose of the movement is to make knowledge freely available to everyone around the world, and the Wikimedia Foundation and the global community of volunteers play different and complementary roles in achieving that shared goal.) So I wonder if that's not clear -- if my wording is just mucky. If so, can someone help propose better, more useful language? Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]])<br />
:The shared power section does mention volunteer "developers". However, I would like to see more emphasis on this. Something like "The Wikimedia Foundation strives to continually increase its partnership with outside developers, project managers, and system adminstrators so we can technically improve the sites together". This is an area where we've had some success, but more can definitely be done. The reason I said "outside" not "volunteer" is that they may be paid to work on something like MediaWiki, just not paid ''by'' WMF. The Apache Software Foundation is an example of an organization where many (not all) developers are paid (by various companies organizations), but they partner together to get things done. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Hi Matt,<br />
<br />
:: Sue asked me to help her add to the section, and I've made an effort to do so [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5361354&oldid=5361335 here]. I think the "aligned with our interests" piece is an important qualifier.--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 21:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==United States==<br />
On «support successful job candidates in attaining the legal right to work in the United States»: why only USA? What if they want to move elsewhere? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Maybe this should become "...to work from a WMF office in the United States", in case that's what's meant here. --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Or rather: Support succesful job candidates in attaining the legal right to work in the US should the need arise". Or something along those lines. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 14:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Yeah -- you're correct, we also support remote workers when people don't want to relocate and the job doesn't require it. I will reword :-) [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Here's what I changed it too -- let me know if this is clearer. "We aim to recruit talented people regardless of where they live, and depending on their preferences and the needs of the job, we support them in working remotely or relocating to the United States." Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::Does the trick, as far as I'm concerned. :) [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 21:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::::Yes, much clearer, thanks. <br />
::::::Ideally you'd be completely nation-neutral and support them in relocating to another country of their choice too, if suitable for them, and you could remove the "to the United States" bit. However, I understand this is an edge case. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::::Relocations are done because the WMF feels the employee should be in-office. Up until we open an office somewhere else I can't imagine that spending donor funds moving people to a country 'because they want to live there' would be optimal. [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 23:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::::::Yeah, Oliver is right. We have once or twice had staff who wanted to relocate for personal reasons. We are okay with them doing it when it doesn't interfere with their work (like, if they are moving from one non-SF location to another non-SF location, or if they used to work from SF, want to move elsewhere, and working remotely wouldn't hurt their ability to do their work). But in those cases, when they are moving for personal reasons, the WMF wouldn't pay for the move, and wouldn't arrange or pay for any services related to the move, such as immigration-related legal fees. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 20:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Serving every human being==<br />
This section looks weird being 7 sections away from «Freedom and open source» with «All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software» etc. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The emphasis on the development of new features is undue and likely to grate on both engineering staff and community, in my opinion. It is out of step with the custodian role which many individuals in both groups identify with. We should express a stronger commitment to high availability and site performance. --[[User:Ori.livneh|Ori.livneh]] ([[User talk:Ori.livneh|talk]]) 10:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Oh ha, Ori.livneh I think that's just clumsy wording on my part. I can see how it's easy to misread, but what you think I said is not what I meant to be saying. I'll revise. I'll also move this chunk up to be nearer to Freedom and Open Source. Thanks to you both [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Also, it talks about these being directed at "readers", and hoping to support them in starting to contribute - but we should probably also talk about supporting existing contributors. :-) [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 20:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: On Sue's request, I've tried to address these points with [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5334886&oldid=5334873 this edit].--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 23:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: It's better (thanks, Sue, Erik, and James) but it's still not quite right, in my opinion: rather than rank engineering priorities (features, performance, availability) and then work backwards to explain the values that motivate them (access, participation), I think the section ought to lead with a statement of values, and then explain how our engineering priorities reflect our effort to realize these values maximally. --[[User:Ori.livneh|Ori.livneh]] ([[User talk:Ori.livneh|talk]]) 11:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::: Want to take a crack at drafting something on talk?--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 20:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::: How about:<br />
:::::: <div style="border:1px solid silver; background:#eee; margin:0.5em; padding:1em 2em;">The Wikimedia Foundation aims to make <span style="background: #d8ecff;">the</span> material in the Wikimedia projects broadly accessible to all. <span style="background: #d8ecff;">We work to enable for the world education from, entertainment by, and engagement with our projects' content, and participation in the communities and processes that create them.</span> Ensuring <span style="background: #d8ecff;">the</span> continued reliability, availability and responsiveness of all Wikimedia sites and services is our first priority. In prioritizing new products and features, our goal is to impact the largest-possible number of readers and contributors, and to eliminate barriers that could preclude people from accessing or contributing to our projects, such as poor usability, lack of language support, and limited access to technology. We endeavour to create the structural support and the necessary preconditions for bottom-up innovation by others. We do not form agreements in which one organization is given access to material or functionality that others are denied. Where possible, we aim to preserve and support frictionless use of the material in the projects, so that people can share it widely and easily.</div><br />
:::::: Thoughts? Please forgive the "power of threes" and running alliterations. :-) I worry that this section is now trying to say too much; possibly split after "technology"? I'm not particularly attached to my wording, so don't worry about offending. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 05:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Communication==<br />
Do you think https://xkcd.com/802/ [https://xkcd.com/802_large/] applies to the WMF? (In particular, the proportions in the two maps on the top <s>right</s> left being zoomed.) --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Nemo, could you clarify which proportions you refer to by naming them? Top right is "Unread Updates". --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Ouch. I meant left, of course. :) Thanks, [[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Right to fork==<br />
Again nothing. [[Talk:Terms of use/Archives/2011-12-06#Right to Fork]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
* Probably more of a Wikimedia principle than a Wikimedia Foundation principle. Perhaps we need a separate list? :-) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 09:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
*: I doubt it: «principles intended to guide the work of the Wikimedia Foundation». Who else do you suggest to task with ensuring the right to fork? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: Sue asked me to explore some language around this, so I've taken a first crack at it with [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5334873&oldid=5334652 this edit].--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 23:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::: Thanks! Much better. I'll let the experts comment on the specific wording and if it covers all the essential (people would like to have something more than page history dumps, but what exactly is tricky). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 23:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::: If this idea is developed any further could someone ping me? I'm interested for obvious reasons. Thanks. -- [[User:ArielGlenn|ArielGlenn]] ([[User talk:ArielGlenn|talk]]) 09:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think this is covered now by Erik's language, right? <br />
<br />
''Consistent with the above principles, we support the right of third parties to make and maintain licensing-compliant copies and forks of Wikimedia content and Wikimedia-developed code, regardless of motivation or purpose. While we are generally not able to individually assist such efforts, we enable them by making available copies of Wikimedia content in bulk, and avoiding critical dependencies on proprietary code or services for maintaining a largely functionally equivalent fork.''<br />
<br />
Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 20:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Internationalism ==<br />
<br />
«''When we consider the community'' as a whole, we aim to consider all its languages and geographies and to avoid global initiatives that favor communities speaking only our languages» (emphasis added).<br />
I note that you're only talking of how you consider the community; what about «initiatives that favor communities speaking only our languages» in general? For instance, roughly how much of the WMF spending goes on initiatives that favor only English-language people (projects, users etc., readers) or only the USA? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Right to influence ==<br />
<br />
«Their work has earned [...] financial support sustaining the Wikimedia Foundation [...] and the global community has therefore earned the right to influence the work of the organizations»: it ''seems'' that you're stating that the only reason why someone has the "right to influence" the work is that they bring in dollars. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Mm, Nemo, this is a good point. I was meaning to specifically talk about the financial aspect, but I realize from your comment that it reads wrong --- it *does* read like that's the only reason the community members matter, which is of course not true. I've taken a crack at rewording below, let me know what you think.<br />
<br />
''These are the people who build the projects, and they have earned the right to influence the development of the platform, and the work of organizations that receive funding from the movement.''<br />
<br />
Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 20:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Transparency ==<br />
<br />
This section says "including employee guidelines". What happened to the public sharing of the [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Employee_Handbook Employee Handbook]? -- [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A|2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A]] 18:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
: I asked about this recently. It doesn't really seem relevant to this kind of document, though. There's a thread on wikimedia-l, I think, if you want to follow up. :-) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 21:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:: It explicitly says "As a matter of general practice, unless there’s a particular reason not to, we aim to publish internal organizational policies and procedures, including employee guidelines, financial policies, etc." I think it does belong here, because what the employees do is relevant, particularly to the donors who are essentially paying us. I agree the current reality around such employee procedures, etc. is not quite consistent with the document. There is some stuff on Office Wiki (a private WMF wiki for employees) that does not need to be confidential. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 23:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::: If only there were someone with access to both wikis with the technical know-how to move the pages. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 03:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::I'm pretty sure the staff handbook contains (amongst other things) access info to our healthcare providers, and other non-public information which should be stripped. I think that if someone did have the access and technical know-how to move the pages and acted on it, they'd swiftly find themselves losing the access ;p. As a general statement, the document ''should'' be moved over - but I imagine they want to get it finished and stable before combing through it to identify elements inappropriate for public consumption (otherwise you end up having to do multiple sweeps). [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 03:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::There are also sections which have been vetted by Legal and should not be open for editing by the public. This is one of the problems.--[[User:Jorm (WMF)|Jorm (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jorm (WMF)|talk]]) 23:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::: The legal team has no issue creating redacted PDFs. They just did for the [[NDA]]s. But they shouldn't be releasing documents in this way, of course. I've started some notes at [[legal docs]] for anyone interested. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 06:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Independence ==<br />
<br />
"Skillsets" is not a proper word. -- [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A|2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A]] 18:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
: Context, "Similarly, our Board of Trustees selection process is designed to encourage representation of different voices and skillsets, rather than recognizing donors or celebrities."<br />
: What would you recommend instead? "skill sets"? Something else? (This level of minor word tweaking you can really just do yourself, but I'm happy to proxy the edit for you from the talk page, if you'd like.) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 20:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: "Skillsets" is a reasonable word, but if the IP objects strenuously, we could use "sets of skills", which is rather po-faced. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 05:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::"Skillsets" is a perfectly cromulent word, even if my spell checker doesn't like it. If you're picky, write it as "skill sets". :) --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Frictionless and copyleft ==<br />
<br />
You might want to clarify this does not mean abandoning copyleft. Though not all WMF wikis use copyleft, many do, and there is general understanding of its benefits. I want to ensure people don't come later and start arguing that e.g. all new wikis should be non-copyleft to avoid "friction". [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 23:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Surely by definition, 'avoiding friction in reuse' would be 'copyleft' - it's talking about freedom for others to reuse our work, not freedom for us to reuse the work of others. Which WMF wikis are non-copyleft? [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 04:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:: Wikinews and Wikidata, for two. Copyleft licences are overly restrictive for wider re-use in some contexts. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 05:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Aha, we're talking less- rather than more-restrictive; my mistake :). [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 05:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Duplicate of [[wmf:Values]]? ==<br />
<br />
Hi. I wonder if these guiding principles aren't in some ways a duplicate of (or perhaps an update to) [[wmf:Values]]. What's the purpose of this document? Is it going to live alongside the [[wmf:mission|mission statement]], [[wmf:vision|vision statement]], etc.? Or will it end up being a Board resolution? Or something else? --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 04:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:It is similar, but more detailed than the values statement. I think the guiding principles are pretty well done, and cover some additional ground. It is worth considering if they could supersede the values statement, but there is some value in having a shorter document too. The guiding principles draft says, "It is likely that these principles will be presented to the Board of Trustees for their approval, at a future Board meeting." [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 16:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Yeah, Superm401 is correct. This document isn't intended to supersede the Values document. It's actually intended to flesh out the values a little bit further, so it's more explicit how we live them on a day-to-day basis at the staff level. A word like "independence," for example, is very subject to interpretation, and so the purpose here is to lay out how (e.g.,) the value "independence" manifests on a day-to-day basis, in practice, e.g., in the realm of fundraising, our commitment to open source, etc. Thanks. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 21:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Free formats ==<br />
<br />
In re: ''All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software,'' can you clarify whether or not this is meant to mean that we will provide every file in free formats and thus not ''require'' the use of non-free software to view the file or does this mean that we will not provide the file in non-free formats at all? There seems to be some contention both internally and externally surrounding the possibility of providing non-free formats. I, personally, full appreciate having available to me free-formats, but when all of my devices have hardware-accelerated H.264 decoding, I would prefer to save cpu cycles and my battery when watching videos from commons. Similarly, there are some mobile devices that only support non-free formats and thus we currently do not support those users. -[[User:Pgehres (WMF)|Peter Gehres (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Pgehres (WMF)|talk]]) 05:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:We're working on that issue with legal internally... I'm certainly trying to push advocacy for explicit support of multi-format stack as officially acceptable, and would prefer clearer language on this as well. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Quality ==<br />
<br />
It strikes me that there is a glaring omission here. The current list of principles is a good set of ideologies, but surely the Wikimedia Foundation values high-quality content as much as it does the abstract principles like transparency and accountability. I understand that the Foundation does not generally (nor should) directly involve itself in the creation or judging of content on the projects, but certainly one of its core duties is encouraging or enabling the content creation, and one of the core implicit principles is that the content of the projects ought to be high-quality, comprehensive, authoritative, and so on (to the degree such quality descriptors are applicable to each project). To me, it seems like the omission of any principle that actually addresses the content of the projects is likely a matter of something being so obvious it didn't seem to need saying. I think it is important nonetheless, though. [[User:Dominic|Dominic]] ([[User talk:Dominic|talk]]) 06:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
: I agree. I think reiterating the [[wmf:mission statement|mission statement]] might be good here. (Related to the section above about [[wmf:values]], this page seems to be doing a bit of wheel reinvention....) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 06:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Ads? ==<br />
<br />
Is being ad-free a guiding principle? Relatedly, is being neutral? --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 07:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:On the neutrality issue... that seems perhaps too WIkipedia-specific? Wikivoyage, for instance, has [[:wikivoyage:Wikivoyage:Be fair|no neutrality policy]]. It seems like being independent is really the principle here, related to being ad-free, and that actually extends to other things like not being reliant on a few major donors. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think being ad-free is ''something we think is really great'', but the relevant guiding principle is indeed independence. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Mm, it's a little more than "really great"; Sue, Jimmy, and other board members have repeatedly stated for the record that Wikipedia will never show ads. So it's not accurate to present this as merely a strong preference; it has long been a firm commitment. (All this not to contradict that the principle here ''is'' independence rather than ''no ads''.) [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 22:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::IMO a commitment to not put ads on the site is more of a ''position'' than a ''principle''. We certainly don't advocate against advertisement culture the way we advocate for free speech and access to information. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 23:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Agreed. (your first comment did not acknowledge it was a committed position.) [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 23:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::: Independence is the overall meta-principle, but ads come up ''so often'', even today, even after all the times we've said no. I think it's an artifact of our time and place and how every other internet service in the world gets funded, so I think it's worth focusing on ads specifically just to make the very clear point that: we are not the same as google, or facebook, etc. What we show people under our logos ''matters a lot'', and part of that is that no one can pay to control one square pixel of a Wikimedia project page. -- [[user:phoebe|phoebe]] | <small>[[user_talk:phoebe|talk]]</small> 00:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::Hilarious that I omitted anything about ads, considering I am asked about literally on a weekly basis. Ridiculous oversight, I'm glad it's been caught :-)<br />
:::::How about something like this (also now on the article page): <br />
:::::''Because the Wikimedia Foundation does not want to compromise the editorial integrity and independence of the projects, nor risk a perception that they have been compromised, we would be extremely reluctant to put advertising on the projects, or anything that might be perceived as advertising. We do not say that would never happen, because if it was a choice between shutting down the projects and accepting advertisements we would consider doing it, but we think it is highly unlikely to ever happen, and would only be considered in the gravest of circumstances.''<br />
:::::Let me know what you think -- thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 21:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Free speech ==<br />
<br />
"Another crack at alternative wording: We aim to balance appropriately between our goal of being active internationally and our desire to minimize legal risk to the projects."<br />
:^ I worry this version doesn't actually say anything about being pro-free speech or making information available to everyone. One way to improve our international activity and lower our risk profile would be to censor information for certain countries to comply with local censorship or blasphemy laws, but I think we wouldn't consider that acceptable. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 19:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Gah, good point Brion. You're right, it could be misread as supporting/allowing censorship, which of course is the opposite of what it's supposed to say. Clumsy writing. (By me.) I'll delete it from the page.<br />
::What about this version (copied from the article page): <br />
::''In making decisions, we will not allow censorship of our content as a means to facilitate other strategic goals: to the contrary, our strategic goal is to preserve content, and other initiatives must be consistent with that mission.''<br />
::Personally I never like use of the word "content" so I might rather word it as "censorship of the projects" and "to preserve the material in the projects," but that aside, do we think this works? <br />
::Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 21:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Thank you ==<br />
<br />
I just checked this page because I had a free moment (I am in an all-day annual planning meeting) and I want to say thank you to everyone who's contributing here -- this is a really useful conversation. Some of the language folks are proposing is really helpful, and there are a couple of places where the comments show that the existing language isn't nearly as clear as I thought it was. So this is good. I'll come back sometime over the next week, but please meanwhile continue to develop new needed language through discussion here -- it's very, very helpful. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]])<br />
<br />
== Wikimedia Brasil Statement of Principles ==<br />
Hi, I would like to suggest also the reading of the Statement of Principles made by the group of volunteers of Wikimedia in Brazil, in 2009, which has nice thoughts and can inspire a little those reading here:<br />
* [[:br:chapter:Wikimedia:Statement of Principles|Wikimedia Brasil - Statement of Principles]]<br />
I would like later, when I find time, to make comments on the internationalization section. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Tom]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 22:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Transparency: lack of IRS Form 990 ==<br />
<br />
Hello,<br />
<br />
The text mention we disclose the IRS form 990. The Financial page at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Financial_reports only shows the 2010-2011 form, thus we are missing the 2011-2012 form which should have been filled last year. [[User:Hashar|Ashar Voultoiz]] ([[User talk:Hashar|talk]]) 11:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:This isn't missing, just not there yet. :) The 2010-2011 form ([[:wmf:File:Form 990 - FY 10-11 - Public.pdf|here]]) was uploaded in May 2012. Previous years have been uploaded in [[:wmf::File:WMF 2009 2010 Form 990.pdf|April]], [[:wmf:File:WMF 2008 Form 990.pdf|May]], [[:wmf:File:WMF 2007 Form 990.pdf|May]] and [[:wmf:File:WMF 2006 Form 990.pdf|September]] of the year following the expiration of the fiscal year. Forms 990 are not due until the 15th day of the fifth month after the end of the fiscal year, with up to 180 days of extension if necessary. Last year's form 990 is still on schedule with previous years, and I'm sure it'll be uploaded sooner if ready. --[[User:Mdennis (WMF)|Maggie Dennis (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mdennis (WMF)|talk]]) 14:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Entities ==<br />
<br />
Thank you Sue for sharing and drafting this document in public! Reading the document – while understanding that it is aimed to describe current practice – I was a bit saddened to not see "movement entities" described in the context of partnership and cooperation in achieving the common goals. (There is some mention about giving movement entities money and freedom to do what they want, but I feel this does not live fully up to the [[mission]] statement, either in practice or at the level of principles.) –[[User:Bdamokos|Bence]] ([[User talk:Bdamokos|talk]]) 13:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== "Regardless of their title or position" ==<br />
<br />
"We aim to be careful with donors' money. We pay salaries that are fair but not lavish, and provide reasonable benefits (e.g., health and dental insurance) that are the same for all employees regardless of their title or position. We aim to incur only reasonable travel costs, and to keep work-related entertainment costs moderate."<br />
<br />
Hi. Is this recent? Was this envisioned when people were planning the catalyst programs? What about benefits as laptops and mobiles, how is the policy of WMF defined regading this? Best, --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Tom]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 18:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)</div>Sue Gardnerhttps://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resolution_talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles/Archive_1&diff=328111Resolution talk:Wikimedia Foundation Guiding Principles/Archive 12013-04-07T21:50:04Z<p>Sue Gardner: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Freedom and open source ==<br />
"As an organization, we strive to use open source tools over proprietary ones, although we use proprietary or closed tools (such as software, operating systems, etc.) where there is currently no open-source tool that will effectively meet our needs." - Is there a requirement and process in place which forces people to publish an evaluation which open-source tools were considered and tested for a task in order to identify which specific functionality was only provided by closed-source tools? --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 18:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:<br />
:Well, maybe that is my impression because I work remotely, but I've seen some proprietary files been shared and proprietary softwares being used when we could have free software. For instance, microsoft documents or apple softwares. And I've heard the wifi network in SF office works better with apple stuff, which is kind of weird - I've visited SF office only once and I checked that, but I've heard the same from other online meetings. For pragmatical reasons, sometimes I know using some closed softwares can deliver things faster tho. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Ezalvarenga]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 19:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:I agree we could use a little more discipline on this. e.g. I'm not ''convinced'' all Mac users in the office would truly be significantly less effective at their work on Ubuntu machines. I do acknowledge some may be. I think it warrants some nudging/pushing, though. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 20:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::I think there's a huge distinction between closed source tools for personal productivity, and closed source tools for supporting the projects. This should be clarified in the text of the principles, because the current state of affairs is that we require FOSS when it comes to what is actually necessary for the projects to run, and we obviously don't when it comes to the office IT. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 22:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Thanks. In my initial posting I had shared tools in production (servers, webservices, etc.) in mind, but did not mean to refer to personal computers of individuals - that would be under the "personal freedom" category, and a published evaluation feels like overkill for such private cases. --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::Hi, Aklapper, I don't have time today to make a longer comment, but for the personal freedom, if everybody begin to use closed formats, people who wants to use open formats will be forced to use also closed ones. If a person doesn't want to buy an apple computer, but the wifi network forces people to do so or make their lifes with other hardwares difficult, sorry, a serious policy about that should change. Yes, people can choose whatever they want on their personal computers, but if the majority is using what is fashion, a conscious minitority will not have freedom to choose what they want. As an example, I do use sometimes closed softwares, like skype, but only when really necessary, like a partner or co-worker that prefers to use it. And I know the pain it is sometimes to use only Linux since 1998. :) In Brazil, at least, in the government level, we are trying to [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/thackday/WCmyz2jltF8/sKDd0xCPQaQJ BURN ALL THE DOCS]! There are also [https://groups.google.com/group/thackday/browse_thread/thread/4f94fbf09e4b6f54 bills] under way. ;D P. S. I could not even imagine close softwares on the server side. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Ezalvarenga]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 12:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Responding to a couple of you here. No, AKlapper, AFAIK there is no formal documented requirement/process for evaluation of when the Wikimedia Foundation uses a proprietary tool instead of an open source one. To date we've been small enough, and had a sufficient proportion of the staff who're personally dedicated to open source values, such that evaluation has tended to happen informally on a case-by-case basis, and it's worked reasonably well. Like, we made an organizational commitment to use CiviCRM early and we've stuck with that, and similarly I know that Finance & Admin uses proprietary accounting tools because early on some research was done that determined there was no acceptable open-source tool. I think those were both reasonable outcomes. Over the years we've toyed with the idea of developing a formal evaluation policy, but we have not done it. If you're suggesting we should, I would generally agree, but I also wouldn't say it's the thing Office IT should prioritize as most important and most urgent.<br />
<br />
More generally, in response to Ezalvarenga and Ijon, yes, I'd agree that our actual practices are likely imperfect -- there are probably some people at the Wikimedia Foundation using proprietary tools for individual use that could be replaced by open source tools. For example, I know that Legal has at some times used Microsoft Word for documents shared with external firms, when they probably could've insisted on using OpenOffice or LibreOffice without too much of a productivity hit.<br />
<br />
Frankly, individuals using proprietary tools has been a pretty big pain point for the Wikimedia Foundation. It's understandable: individual staff have widely varying levels of personal commitment to FLOSS, people want to be effective at work and so they want to use the tools that support them best, and people's work, and their needs, vary. No-one wants to be told they have no choice but to use X, whether X is Ubuntu/Thunderbird/LibreOffice or IE/Outlook/Word. That's utterly reasonable. So it's complex, and we're not going to capture a lot of complexity in a short statement. <br />
<br />
StevenW had proposed we modify the language here to distinguish between site production tools and personal/individual tools. Can somebody propose language for that, and for anything else here that might need clarification or finetuning? Feel free to make a change and I'll revert it or finetune it if I feel I need to. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Related reading: [[FLOSS-Exchange]]. I think focusing on the ideal (and its rationale, which Erik sort of touched on with his "right to fork" [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5334873&oldid=5334652 addition]), instead of what individuals might do, is a reasonable compromise. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 07:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think the line should be what's shared by the organization (or teams within the organization) and personal. For anything shared, we should make it free software/open source unless it's really unworkable (and even then, we should always keep an eye out for moving to free software as it improves). But if you want to use MS Word on your personal machine to write PHP that fully meets our coding conventions, more power to you ;). This basically [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&oldid=5335910#Freedom_and_open_source matches] the current text. But there are some cases where free software is workable for shared tools but we're not currently using them; as I said, we should try to change that. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Agreed with SteveW and others above that there's some distinction between what we share, what we use personally, and what we require others to use. Apple users in the office? Who cares, they're mostly running FOSS on top of Apple -- most of our ops folks and engineers live in a terminal and use standard Unix tools. Adobe Photoshop and proprietary-format files for graphics work? Maybe we do care, because you can't always use the PSD files without it. (I always advocate for SVG format for graphics, especially anything we intend to use in software or on sites that may need to be revisioned in the future.) Google Apps for email? Who cares, email is interoperable. Google Hangouts for video conferencing internally? Who cares? Google Hangouts for video conferencing including open community participation? Runs on Linux, but requires a proprietary plugin; not ideal but we accept it as the best compromise of several options for now. Maybe we care but we can live with it. etc. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::So the text now reads like this: <br />
<br />
::''The Wikimedia Foundation is deeply rooted in the values of the free culture and free software movements. With the exception of "fair use" material, all information in Wikimedia projects can be freely shared, freely distributed, freely modified and freely used for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, in perpetuity.''<br />
::''All code written by the Wikimedia Foundation is licensed under an applicable open source license. We realize our obligations not just to share code, but to cultivate a healthy community of contributors around the source code, and to work with upstream projects and contribute back improvements to their code.''<br />
::''All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software.''<br />
::''Consistent with the above principles, we support the right of third parties to make and maintain licensing-compliant copies and forks of Wikimedia content and Wikimedia-developed code, regardless of motivation or purpose. While we are generally not able to directly assist such efforts, we enable them by making available copies of Wikimedia content in bulk, and avoiding critical dependencies on proprietary code or services for maintaining a largely functionally equivalent fork.''<br />
::''As an organization, we strive to use open source tools over proprietary ones, although we use proprietary or closed tools (such as software, operating systems, etc.) where there is currently no open-source tool that will effectively meet our needs.''<br />
<br />
::Does this work for everybody? I could add some language specifically around personal tool use, but I feel like "where there's no open-source tool that would effectively meet our needs" covers it. Like, you use Illustrator if Gimp isn't good enough for what you need. Let me know if anyone feels like this language isn't clear/accurate: otherwise I'll consider this thread resolved. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 21:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: As a very minor piece of word-smithing, I'd change "not able to directly assist such efforts" to "not able to individually assist such efforts" - we do directly help such efforts with data dumps and tools, we just don't have the resources to give human attention individually to such efforts. But yes, looks good to go otherwise. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 22:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::: Done -- thanks James :-) [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 17:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Quick suggestion... ==<br />
<br />
[https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASue_Gardner%2FWikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5332950&oldid=5331958 ], which I made before seeing the request to comment first. Anyway, "serving every human being" seems a bit disingenuous, since we really aim to serve every literate human being with access to data and a digital device. ;-) The goal of providing equal access to all seems fairer, and more in line the the section's comments about well, accessibility. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 00:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:"equal access to all" is, er, equally disingenuous, as, by your own phrase, we're providing equal access only to "every literate human being with access to data and a digital device".<br />
:Furthermore, I actually do think we ''strive'' to serve every human being. Remember the free knowledge the Wikimedia community creates and shares is consumed offline too, not to mention the huge value of secondary use -- the knowledge worked into presentations, newspapers, books, radio and TV programs -- all consumed by hundreds of millions ''more'' than the group consuming it directly from our Web sites. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 00:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Yeah, I agree with Ijon. The language is "aims to" and "endeavours to," so I think it's appropriately framed as aspirational. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Actually, it's not quite that limited. We do generally serve literate people, but there are actually readings of many articles (e.g. see [[:w:Template:Spoken Wikipedia|Template:Spoken Wikipedia]], I'm sure among others). There are also various mechanisms for printing Wikipedia (some in-house, some just people trying to make money by selling Wikipedia books), so you don't need a digital device. The fact that we've consistently used fully free licenses for our content (except fair use extracts) has facilitated all of that. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Commons serves non-literate people indirectly. {{Smiley}} —[[User:Tom Morris|Tom Morris]] ([[User talk:Tom Morris|talk]]) 19:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Getting rich ==<br />
<br />
On «nobody is getting rich by working at the Wikimedia Foundation»: define "rich". For instance, I'm a student but I'm very rich compared to most world population and richer than millions of Italians (so, when serving in my university board I raised tuition fees for myself/my income range). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Yeah obviously "getting rich" is relative. It's only when you compare [[:wiktionary:apples and oranges|apples to apples]] and look at other tech and nonprofit compensation schemes that you see what is meant. In any case, it's pretty awesome that we want to put that among our guiding principles, right? <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Edit conflict with StevenW! And yeah, Steven, I agree. I think the key word here is "getting." Nemo is correct of course that by world population standards, everybody who works at the Wikimedia Foundation is rich. But we were born rich, we did not "get" rich through our work at the Wikimedia Foundation. The point here is that working at the Wikimedia Foundation is not a path to dramatically improving one's personal wealth. Thanks. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::I tend to see those negative statements ("'''not''' getting rich") as putting things in people's head that you don't want there in the first place. You say "not getting rich" (and I am on par with both Steven's and your interpretation on this) and all people seem to read/hear is "rich". Maybe we should try to find a positive statement for this? I'm kind of stuck though for a good one. "If you want to get rich, go work somewhere else"? -- ok, that one is stupid, but maybe you get my point? [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 21:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::I suspected that the point was in ''getting'', however this is tricky. One may get "richer" by going to work in the WMF for career reasons, compared to the previous work (or country?), comparatively getting "poorer" than possible in some other place, however the latter is mostly impossible to prove. "Nobody is getting richer" would be clearer but is technically wrong.<br />
:::Maybe: "we aim at level of income not being an important [the most important? one of the most important?] motivation[s] for someone to stay at the WMF", which implies there are different/contrasting motivations (presumably honest ;) ) without getting lost in defining which, and that income may be sacrificed. This is probably what is meant hear; no idea if it is positive enough as per notafish. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC) <small>P.s.: Steven, personally I don't care that much if someone gets rich at the WMF, as long as it's not by fleeing with the cash. :) I just like clarity.</small><br />
::::Seems a bit "off" for Sue Gardner to be commenting on "not getting rich" when her salary exceeds that of about 99% of American wage earners. -- [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A|2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A]] 18:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
I've just removed the phrase about getting rich. I think "fair but not lavish" covers it :-) Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 22:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Reasonable travel costs==<br />
«We aim to incur only reasonable travel costs: the general policy is to travel economy class and stay in moderately-priced hotels»: were $225K for staff (and board) at Wikimania reasonable? [[Talk:Wikimedia budget#Wikimania travel question]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:How much is that per person sent to Wikimania that year? I think looking at the total for shock value is unfair. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Nemo we're not making a commitment here to reduce travel costs, or to minimize travel. (I wouldn't want to do that: with a growing staff that operates as part of a global community that stages many international events such as Wikimania, the chapters' meeting and various hackathons, it strikes me that a focus on reducing travel costs would be a net negative not a net plus. I expect travel costs to be a not-insubstantial chunk of the Wikimedia Foundation budget: that seems eminently reasonable to me given the nature of our work.) The point here is simply that when we travel, we aim to do it moderately not luxuriously. The nuts-and-bolts of how we do that are captured in [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Travel_policy the travel policy], but the purpose of this statement is simply to summarize the overall intent. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::So in short yes, you think it's reasonable. :) <small>I don't know if it was: while you do or can know all the details on the alternatives and other considerations, I can't judge — no opinion at all.</small> Given that "reasonable" conveys little, you may consider removing «to incur only reasonable travel costs: the general policy is » and leaving only the straightforward part of the statement.<br />
:::Ideally (IMHO), we'd include some other criteria, like the impact:cost ratio (which you hinted to), usage of cheapest means of transportation, miscellaneous synergies (dumb example: double rooms instead of single where possible? and other more impactful stuff), with the disclaimer that all this must be applied fairly (see other section on benefits/reimbursements). I have no idea what are the current practices on all this so I don't know where to start, but I'm confident a compact form is possible. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::Hey Nemo, please see my comment in Title and Position (the next section down). Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 17:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Title or position==<br />
«People at the Wikimedia Foundation get the same benefits regardless of their title or position». <br />
*Who's "people"? Are you including all managers, trustees and employees?<br />
*What's "benefits" and how do you measure if "salaries" are "fair"? Are you considering only accessories or also the actual wage, before or after taxes, pension contributions etc.?<br />
*What are you including in "title or position" (or other comparison for "fair")? For instance, remote worker vs. office worker, full time vs. part time, staff vs. contractor.<br />
--[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:*Well, people does include at least all staff if you read further "regardless of their title or position". This should include everyone. As for Trustees, you've got a point, "people" is not clear and should probably be changed to "Staff" when it comes to benefits. I do not believe Trustees get benefits, even though they might benefit from insurance and related stuff when it comes to their work for the Foundation. It might make sense here to differentiate between staff/volunteers or something along those lines. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 14:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::To be clear: yes, the statement's intended to refer to all staff, and I can change the word "people" to "staff." There is detail available in the document [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/2a/Wikimedia_Foundation_Compensation_Practices.pdf Wikimedia Foundation Compensation Practices]. And for Notafish, yes, the trustees don't get any benefits. Expenses they incur on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation are reimbursed as per the policies, but they receive no compensation in the form of salary or other benefits. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::I think Staff makes sense in that context, thanks for clarifying. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 21:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC) <small>(Sue, it's '''n'''otafish, with a small '''n''', and I'm stupidly particular about it. If you want a capital, go with Delphine ;)</small><br />
:::::Thank you, Sue, this clarifies the first point: only two left in this section. :)<br />
:::::On "benefits", the exact meaning of the word (or lexical equivalent) varies quite a lot across jurisdictions and fiscal systems, as far as I know, so it's not safe to assume everyone will get what you mean. I understand that reimbursements are a different matter, but it would be nice if they were fair and independent from title etc., too. (I suppose they already mostly are?) --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::: Yeah, in the U.S. "benefits" is generally understood not to include salary (people talk about "salary plus benefits") (it's basically everything ''but'' salary). However, that might not be true in other countries/languages. Also, the 401(k) maximum match is a fixed percentage of salary. While the percentage is the same across position, the amount (n% × salary) technically is not. However, it's true this is a fine distinction. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
*'Staff' is normally understood to mean Employees + Contractors, where contractors are afforded fewer benefits (if any at all). I'd suggest amending to specify 'Employees at...'. [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 23:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
**I'd kind of like us to provide fair benefits to all staff including international contractors, but of course jurisdictions make things.... difficult. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 19:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::: As per Oliver and others, I changed "staff" to "employees" for clarity. I do wish the WMF could provide equivalent benefits to everyone regardless of their official status (i.e., staff versus contractor) but Brion is right, it's very complex. Having said that, I'm pleased we do provide additional benefits to all U.S. employees beyond what's provided by the state. In many/most countries, the state provides the basics: in the United States it does not, and so employer-provided health insurance is critical. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 17:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::: Okay I just rewrote this section. <br />
<br />
::::''We aim to be careful with donors' money. We pay salaries that are fair but not lavish, and provide reasonable benefits (e.g., health and dental insurance) that are the same for all employees regardless of their title or position. We aim to incur only reasonable travel costs, and to keep work-related entertainment costs moderate.'' <br />
<br />
::::Purpose of the rewrite is just clarity/simplicity. Nemo, rather than expanding the travel-related part with more detail I made it higher-level. [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Travel_policy The full travel policy is here], and it's an official Board policy, so if it changes it would be updated on that page. Folks, let me know if aiming "to keep work-related entertainment costs moderate" is clear enough. Again, there is a [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Duty_entertainment_guidelines_policy more detailed policy on this]. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 17:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Accountable==<br />
«The Wikimedia Foundation wants to be accountable to [...]». Please clarify how the concept of accountability applies here: «responsible for your decisions or actions and expected to explain them when you are asked»[http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/accountable] (are there processes to be responsible of your actions in front of the readers, receive their questions and explain? etc.). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Sure, of course there are processes to be responsible to the readers of the projects. Reader surveys. User testing. OTRS. The blogs. The annual reports. The regular publication of activity reports, performance reports, financial statements. Social media. Engagement with charity watchdog groups. Public mailing lists. Bugzilla. Office hours on IRC. Events for donors. This page, and many other on-wiki consultations related to feature development, policy development, and so forth. There are probably lots I am forgetting :-) Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Shared power==<br />
This section seems entirely useless, in that it lists a lot of minor ephemeral details from the ''here and now'' and no actual "principles" that may "guide" any action. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:The purpose of this section is to explicitly acknowledge that the Wikimedia Foundation works in partnership with a global community of volunteers -- that the Wikimedia Foundation is not the sole or even primary actor in fulfilling the Wikimedia mission, and that it needs to conduct itself accordingly, by creating mechanisms and processes enabling the community to have influence on its actions. Because we are interdependent partners. I think this is a pretty fundamental and important point to make, because in this regard we are different from practically everybody else. (What I mean by that: eBay and Facebook and Yelp may also have a social purpose or utility, but their primary purpose is to make money, and "community members" are a resource to be managed by the company to that end. In our case, the primary purpose of the movement is to make knowledge freely available to everyone around the world, and the Wikimedia Foundation and the global community of volunteers play different and complementary roles in achieving that shared goal.) So I wonder if that's not clear -- if my wording is just mucky. If so, can someone help propose better, more useful language? Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]])<br />
:The shared power section does mention volunteer "developers". However, I would like to see more emphasis on this. Something like "The Wikimedia Foundation strives to continually increase its partnership with outside developers, project managers, and system adminstrators so we can technically improve the sites together". This is an area where we've had some success, but more can definitely be done. The reason I said "outside" not "volunteer" is that they may be paid to work on something like MediaWiki, just not paid ''by'' WMF. The Apache Software Foundation is an example of an organization where many (not all) developers are paid (by various companies organizations), but they partner together to get things done. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Hi Matt,<br />
<br />
:: Sue asked me to help her add to the section, and I've made an effort to do so [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5361354&oldid=5361335 here]. I think the "aligned with our interests" piece is an important qualifier.--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 21:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==United States==<br />
On «support successful job candidates in attaining the legal right to work in the United States»: why only USA? What if they want to move elsewhere? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Maybe this should become "...to work from a WMF office in the United States", in case that's what's meant here. --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Or rather: Support succesful job candidates in attaining the legal right to work in the US should the need arise". Or something along those lines. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 14:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Yeah -- you're correct, we also support remote workers when people don't want to relocate and the job doesn't require it. I will reword :-) [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Here's what I changed it too -- let me know if this is clearer. "We aim to recruit talented people regardless of where they live, and depending on their preferences and the needs of the job, we support them in working remotely or relocating to the United States." Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::Does the trick, as far as I'm concerned. :) [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 21:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::::Yes, much clearer, thanks. <br />
::::::Ideally you'd be completely nation-neutral and support them in relocating to another country of their choice too, if suitable for them, and you could remove the "to the United States" bit. However, I understand this is an edge case. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::::Relocations are done because the WMF feels the employee should be in-office. Up until we open an office somewhere else I can't imagine that spending donor funds moving people to a country 'because they want to live there' would be optimal. [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 23:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::::::Yeah, Oliver is right. We have once or twice had staff who wanted to relocate for personal reasons. We are okay with them doing it when it doesn't interfere with their work (like, if they are moving from one non-SF location to another non-SF location, or if they used to work from SF, want to move elsewhere, and working remotely wouldn't hurt their ability to do their work). But in those cases, when they are moving for personal reasons, the WMF wouldn't pay for the move, and wouldn't arrange or pay for any services related to the move, such as immigration-related legal fees. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 20:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Serving every human being==<br />
This section looks weird being 7 sections away from «Freedom and open source» with «All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software» etc. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The emphasis on the development of new features is undue and likely to grate on both engineering staff and community, in my opinion. It is out of step with the custodian role which many individuals in both groups identify with. We should express a stronger commitment to high availability and site performance. --[[User:Ori.livneh|Ori.livneh]] ([[User talk:Ori.livneh|talk]]) 10:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Oh ha, Ori.livneh I think that's just clumsy wording on my part. I can see how it's easy to misread, but what you think I said is not what I meant to be saying. I'll revise. I'll also move this chunk up to be nearer to Freedom and Open Source. Thanks to you both [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Also, it talks about these being directed at "readers", and hoping to support them in starting to contribute - but we should probably also talk about supporting existing contributors. :-) [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 20:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: On Sue's request, I've tried to address these points with [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5334886&oldid=5334873 this edit].--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 23:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: It's better (thanks, Sue, Erik, and James) but it's still not quite right, in my opinion: rather than rank engineering priorities (features, performance, availability) and then work backwards to explain the values that motivate them (access, participation), I think the section ought to lead with a statement of values, and then explain how our engineering priorities reflect our effort to realize these values maximally. --[[User:Ori.livneh|Ori.livneh]] ([[User talk:Ori.livneh|talk]]) 11:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::: Want to take a crack at drafting something on talk?--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 20:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::: How about:<br />
:::::: <div style="border:1px solid silver; background:#eee; margin:0.5em; padding:1em 2em;">The Wikimedia Foundation aims to make <span style="background: #d8ecff;">the</span> material in the Wikimedia projects broadly accessible to all. <span style="background: #d8ecff;">We work to enable for the world education from, entertainment by, and engagement with our projects' content, and participation in the communities and processes that create them.</span> Ensuring <span style="background: #d8ecff;">the</span> continued reliability, availability and responsiveness of all Wikimedia sites and services is our first priority. In prioritizing new products and features, our goal is to impact the largest-possible number of readers and contributors, and to eliminate barriers that could preclude people from accessing or contributing to our projects, such as poor usability, lack of language support, and limited access to technology. We endeavour to create the structural support and the necessary preconditions for bottom-up innovation by others. We do not form agreements in which one organization is given access to material or functionality that others are denied. Where possible, we aim to preserve and support frictionless use of the material in the projects, so that people can share it widely and easily.</div><br />
:::::: Thoughts? Please forgive the "power of threes" and running alliterations. :-) I worry that this section is now trying to say too much; possibly split after "technology"? I'm not particularly attached to my wording, so don't worry about offending. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 05:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Communication==<br />
Do you think https://xkcd.com/802/ [https://xkcd.com/802_large/] applies to the WMF? (In particular, the proportions in the two maps on the top <s>right</s> left being zoomed.) --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Nemo, could you clarify which proportions you refer to by naming them? Top right is "Unread Updates". --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Ouch. I meant left, of course. :) Thanks, [[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Right to fork==<br />
Again nothing. [[Talk:Terms of use/Archives/2011-12-06#Right to Fork]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
* Probably more of a Wikimedia principle than a Wikimedia Foundation principle. Perhaps we need a separate list? :-) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 09:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
*: I doubt it: «principles intended to guide the work of the Wikimedia Foundation». Who else do you suggest to task with ensuring the right to fork? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: Sue asked me to explore some language around this, so I've taken a first crack at it with [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5334873&oldid=5334652 this edit].--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 23:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::: Thanks! Much better. I'll let the experts comment on the specific wording and if it covers all the essential (people would like to have something more than page history dumps, but what exactly is tricky). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 23:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::: If this idea is developed any further could someone ping me? I'm interested for obvious reasons. Thanks. -- [[User:ArielGlenn|ArielGlenn]] ([[User talk:ArielGlenn|talk]]) 09:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think this is covered now by Erik's language, right? <br />
<br />
''Consistent with the above principles, we support the right of third parties to make and maintain licensing-compliant copies and forks of Wikimedia content and Wikimedia-developed code, regardless of motivation or purpose. While we are generally not able to individually assist such efforts, we enable them by making available copies of Wikimedia content in bulk, and avoiding critical dependencies on proprietary code or services for maintaining a largely functionally equivalent fork.''<br />
<br />
Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 20:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Internationalism ==<br />
<br />
«''When we consider the community'' as a whole, we aim to consider all its languages and geographies and to avoid global initiatives that favor communities speaking only our languages» (emphasis added).<br />
I note that you're only talking of how you consider the community; what about «initiatives that favor communities speaking only our languages» in general? For instance, roughly how much of the WMF spending goes on initiatives that favor only English-language people (projects, users etc., readers) or only the USA? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Right to influence ==<br />
<br />
«Their work has earned [...] financial support sustaining the Wikimedia Foundation [...] and the global community has therefore earned the right to influence the work of the organizations»: it ''seems'' that you're stating that the only reason why someone has the "right to influence" the work is that they bring in dollars. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Mm, Nemo, this is a good point. I was meaning to specifically talk about the financial aspect, but I realize from your comment that it reads wrong --- it *does* read like that's the only reason the community members matter, which is of course not true. I've taken a crack at rewording below, let me know what you think.<br />
<br />
''These are the people who build the projects, and they have earned the right to influence the development of the platform, and the work of organizations that receive funding from the movement.''<br />
<br />
Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 20:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Transparency ==<br />
<br />
This section says "including employee guidelines". What happened to the public sharing of the [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Employee_Handbook Employee Handbook]? -- [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A|2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A]] 18:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
: I asked about this recently. It doesn't really seem relevant to this kind of document, though. There's a thread on wikimedia-l, I think, if you want to follow up. :-) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 21:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:: It explicitly says "As a matter of general practice, unless there’s a particular reason not to, we aim to publish internal organizational policies and procedures, including employee guidelines, financial policies, etc." I think it does belong here, because what the employees do is relevant, particularly to the donors who are essentially paying us. I agree the current reality around such employee procedures, etc. is not quite consistent with the document. There is some stuff on Office Wiki (a private WMF wiki for employees) that does not need to be confidential. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 23:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::: If only there were someone with access to both wikis with the technical know-how to move the pages. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 03:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::I'm pretty sure the staff handbook contains (amongst other things) access info to our healthcare providers, and other non-public information which should be stripped. I think that if someone did have the access and technical know-how to move the pages and acted on it, they'd swiftly find themselves losing the access ;p. As a general statement, the document ''should'' be moved over - but I imagine they want to get it finished and stable before combing through it to identify elements inappropriate for public consumption (otherwise you end up having to do multiple sweeps). [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 03:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::There are also sections which have been vetted by Legal and should not be open for editing by the public. This is one of the problems.--[[User:Jorm (WMF)|Jorm (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jorm (WMF)|talk]]) 23:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::: The legal team has no issue creating redacted PDFs. They just did for the [[NDA]]s. But they shouldn't be releasing documents in this way, of course. I've started some notes at [[legal docs]] for anyone interested. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 06:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Independence ==<br />
<br />
"Skillsets" is not a proper word. -- [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A|2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A]] 18:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
: Context, "Similarly, our Board of Trustees selection process is designed to encourage representation of different voices and skillsets, rather than recognizing donors or celebrities."<br />
: What would you recommend instead? "skill sets"? Something else? (This level of minor word tweaking you can really just do yourself, but I'm happy to proxy the edit for you from the talk page, if you'd like.) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 20:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: "Skillsets" is a reasonable word, but if the IP objects strenuously, we could use "sets of skills", which is rather po-faced. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 05:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::"Skillsets" is a perfectly cromulent word, even if my spell checker doesn't like it. If you're picky, write it as "skill sets". :) --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Frictionless and copyleft ==<br />
<br />
You might want to clarify this does not mean abandoning copyleft. Though not all WMF wikis use copyleft, many do, and there is general understanding of its benefits. I want to ensure people don't come later and start arguing that e.g. all new wikis should be non-copyleft to avoid "friction". [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 23:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Surely by definition, 'avoiding friction in reuse' would be 'copyleft' - it's talking about freedom for others to reuse our work, not freedom for us to reuse the work of others. Which WMF wikis are non-copyleft? [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 04:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:: Wikinews and Wikidata, for two. Copyleft licences are overly restrictive for wider re-use in some contexts. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 05:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Aha, we're talking less- rather than more-restrictive; my mistake :). [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 05:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Duplicate of [[wmf:Values]]? ==<br />
<br />
Hi. I wonder if these guiding principles aren't in some ways a duplicate of (or perhaps an update to) [[wmf:Values]]. What's the purpose of this document? Is it going to live alongside the [[wmf:mission|mission statement]], [[wmf:vision|vision statement]], etc.? Or will it end up being a Board resolution? Or something else? --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 04:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:It is similar, but more detailed than the values statement. I think the guiding principles are pretty well done, and cover some additional ground. It is worth considering if they could supersede the values statement, but there is some value in having a shorter document too. The guiding principles draft says, "It is likely that these principles will be presented to the Board of Trustees for their approval, at a future Board meeting." [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 16:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Yeah, Superm401 is correct. This document isn't intended to supersede the Values document. It's actually intended to flesh out the values a little bit further, so it's more explicit how we live them on a day-to-day basis at the staff level. A word like "independence," for example, is very subject to interpretation, and so the purpose here is to lay out how (e.g.,) the value "independence" manifests on a day-to-day basis, in practice, e.g., in the realm of fundraising, our commitment to open source, etc. Thanks. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 21:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Free formats ==<br />
<br />
In re: ''All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software,'' can you clarify whether or not this is meant to mean that we will provide every file in free formats and thus not ''require'' the use of non-free software to view the file or does this mean that we will not provide the file in non-free formats at all? There seems to be some contention both internally and externally surrounding the possibility of providing non-free formats. I, personally, full appreciate having available to me free-formats, but when all of my devices have hardware-accelerated H.264 decoding, I would prefer to save cpu cycles and my battery when watching videos from commons. Similarly, there are some mobile devices that only support non-free formats and thus we currently do not support those users. -[[User:Pgehres (WMF)|Peter Gehres (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Pgehres (WMF)|talk]]) 05:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:We're working on that issue with legal internally... I'm certainly trying to push advocacy for explicit support of multi-format stack as officially acceptable, and would prefer clearer language on this as well. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Quality ==<br />
<br />
It strikes me that there is a glaring omission here. The current list of principles is a good set of ideologies, but surely the Wikimedia Foundation values high-quality content as much as it does the abstract principles like transparency and accountability. I understand that the Foundation does not generally (nor should) directly involve itself in the creation or judging of content on the projects, but certainly one of its core duties is encouraging or enabling the content creation, and one of the core implicit principles is that the content of the projects ought to be high-quality, comprehensive, authoritative, and so on (to the degree such quality descriptors are applicable to each project). To me, it seems like the omission of any principle that actually addresses the content of the projects is likely a matter of something being so obvious it didn't seem to need saying. I think it is important nonetheless, though. [[User:Dominic|Dominic]] ([[User talk:Dominic|talk]]) 06:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
: I agree. I think reiterating the [[wmf:mission statement|mission statement]] might be good here. (Related to the section above about [[wmf:values]], this page seems to be doing a bit of wheel reinvention....) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 06:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Ads? ==<br />
<br />
Is being ad-free a guiding principle? Relatedly, is being neutral? --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 07:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:On the neutrality issue... that seems perhaps too WIkipedia-specific? Wikivoyage, for instance, has [[:wikivoyage:Wikivoyage:Be fair|no neutrality policy]]. It seems like being independent is really the principle here, related to being ad-free, and that actually extends to other things like not being reliant on a few major donors. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think being ad-free is ''something we think is really great'', but the relevant guiding principle is indeed independence. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Mm, it's a little more than "really great"; Sue, Jimmy, and other board members have repeatedly stated for the record that Wikipedia will never show ads. So it's not accurate to present this as merely a strong preference; it has long been a firm commitment. (All this not to contradict that the principle here ''is'' independence rather than ''no ads''.) [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 22:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::IMO a commitment to not put ads on the site is more of a ''position'' than a ''principle''. We certainly don't advocate against advertisement culture the way we advocate for free speech and access to information. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 23:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Agreed. (your first comment did not acknowledge it was a committed position.) [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 23:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::: Independence is the overall meta-principle, but ads come up ''so often'', even today, even after all the times we've said no. I think it's an artifact of our time and place and how every other internet service in the world gets funded, so I think it's worth focusing on ads specifically just to make the very clear point that: we are not the same as google, or facebook, etc. What we show people under our logos ''matters a lot'', and part of that is that no one can pay to control one square pixel of a Wikimedia project page. -- [[user:phoebe|phoebe]] | <small>[[user_talk:phoebe|talk]]</small> 00:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Free speech ==<br />
<br />
"Another crack at alternative wording: We aim to balance appropriately between our goal of being active internationally and our desire to minimize legal risk to the projects."<br />
:^ I worry this version doesn't actually say anything about being pro-free speech or making information available to everyone. One way to improve our international activity and lower our risk profile would be to censor information for certain countries to comply with local censorship or blasphemy laws, but I think we wouldn't consider that acceptable. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 19:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Gah, good point Brion. You're right, it could be misread as supporting/allowing censorship, which of course is the opposite of what it's supposed to say. Clumsy writing. (By me.) I'll delete it from the page.<br />
::What about this version (copied from the article page): <br />
::''In making decisions, we will not allow censorship of our content as a means to facilitate other strategic goals: to the contrary, our strategic goal is to preserve content, and other initiatives must be consistent with that mission.''<br />
::Personally I never like use of the word "content" so I might rather word it as "censorship of the projects" and "to preserve the material in the projects," but that aside, do we think this works? <br />
::Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 21:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Thank you ==<br />
<br />
I just checked this page because I had a free moment (I am in an all-day annual planning meeting) and I want to say thank you to everyone who's contributing here -- this is a really useful conversation. Some of the language folks are proposing is really helpful, and there are a couple of places where the comments show that the existing language isn't nearly as clear as I thought it was. So this is good. I'll come back sometime over the next week, but please meanwhile continue to develop new needed language through discussion here -- it's very, very helpful. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]])<br />
<br />
== Wikimedia Brasil Statement of Principles ==<br />
Hi, I would like to suggest also the reading of the Statement of Principles made by the group of volunteers of Wikimedia in Brazil, in 2009, which has nice thoughts and can inspire a little those reading here:<br />
* [[:br:chapter:Wikimedia:Statement of Principles|Wikimedia Brasil - Statement of Principles]]<br />
I would like later, when I find time, to make comments on the internationalization section. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Tom]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 22:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Transparency: lack of IRS Form 990 ==<br />
<br />
Hello,<br />
<br />
The text mention we disclose the IRS form 990. The Financial page at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Financial_reports only shows the 2010-2011 form, thus we are missing the 2011-2012 form which should have been filled last year. [[User:Hashar|Ashar Voultoiz]] ([[User talk:Hashar|talk]]) 11:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:This isn't missing, just not there yet. :) The 2010-2011 form ([[:wmf:File:Form 990 - FY 10-11 - Public.pdf|here]]) was uploaded in May 2012. Previous years have been uploaded in [[:wmf::File:WMF 2009 2010 Form 990.pdf|April]], [[:wmf:File:WMF 2008 Form 990.pdf|May]], [[:wmf:File:WMF 2007 Form 990.pdf|May]] and [[:wmf:File:WMF 2006 Form 990.pdf|September]] of the year following the expiration of the fiscal year. Forms 990 are not due until the 15th day of the fifth month after the end of the fiscal year, with up to 180 days of extension if necessary. Last year's form 990 is still on schedule with previous years, and I'm sure it'll be uploaded sooner if ready. --[[User:Mdennis (WMF)|Maggie Dennis (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mdennis (WMF)|talk]]) 14:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Entities ==<br />
<br />
Thank you Sue for sharing and drafting this document in public! Reading the document – while understanding that it is aimed to describe current practice – I was a bit saddened to not see "movement entities" described in the context of partnership and cooperation in achieving the common goals. (There is some mention about giving movement entities money and freedom to do what they want, but I feel this does not live fully up to the [[mission]] statement, either in practice or at the level of principles.) –[[User:Bdamokos|Bence]] ([[User talk:Bdamokos|talk]]) 13:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== "Regardless of their title or position" ==<br />
<br />
"We aim to be careful with donors' money. We pay salaries that are fair but not lavish, and provide reasonable benefits (e.g., health and dental insurance) that are the same for all employees regardless of their title or position. We aim to incur only reasonable travel costs, and to keep work-related entertainment costs moderate."<br />
<br />
Hi. Is this recent? Was this envisioned when people were planning the catalyst programs? What about benefits as laptops and mobiles, how is the policy of WMF defined regading this? Best, --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Tom]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 18:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)</div>Sue Gardnerhttps://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resolution_talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles/Archive_1&diff=328106Resolution talk:Wikimedia Foundation Guiding Principles/Archive 12013-04-02T21:17:13Z<p>Sue Gardner: /* Free speech */ gah, Brion is right about terrible wording</p>
<hr />
<div>== Freedom and open source ==<br />
"As an organization, we strive to use open source tools over proprietary ones, although we use proprietary or closed tools (such as software, operating systems, etc.) where there is currently no open-source tool that will effectively meet our needs." - Is there a requirement and process in place which forces people to publish an evaluation which open-source tools were considered and tested for a task in order to identify which specific functionality was only provided by closed-source tools? --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 18:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:<br />
:Well, maybe that is my impression because I work remotely, but I've seen some proprietary files been shared and proprietary softwares being used when we could have free software. For instance, microsoft documents or apple softwares. And I've heard the wifi network in SF office works better with apple stuff, which is kind of weird - I've visited SF office only once and I checked that, but I've heard the same from other online meetings. For pragmatical reasons, sometimes I know using some closed softwares can deliver things faster tho. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Ezalvarenga]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 19:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:I agree we could use a little more discipline on this. e.g. I'm not ''convinced'' all Mac users in the office would truly be significantly less effective at their work on Ubuntu machines. I do acknowledge some may be. I think it warrants some nudging/pushing, though. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 20:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::I think there's a huge distinction between closed source tools for personal productivity, and closed source tools for supporting the projects. This should be clarified in the text of the principles, because the current state of affairs is that we require FOSS when it comes to what is actually necessary for the projects to run, and we obviously don't when it comes to the office IT. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 22:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Thanks. In my initial posting I had shared tools in production (servers, webservices, etc.) in mind, but did not mean to refer to personal computers of individuals - that would be under the "personal freedom" category, and a published evaluation feels like overkill for such private cases. --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::Hi, Aklapper, I don't have time today to make a longer comment, but for the personal freedom, if everybody begin to use closed formats, people who wants to use open formats will be forced to use also closed ones. If a person doesn't want to buy an apple computer, but the wifi network forces people to do so or make their lifes with other hardwares difficult, sorry, a serious policy about that should change. Yes, people can choose whatever they want on their personal computers, but if the majority is using what is fashion, a conscious minitority will not have freedom to choose what they want. As an example, I do use sometimes closed softwares, like skype, but only when really necessary, like a partner or co-worker that prefers to use it. And I know the pain it is sometimes to use only Linux since 1998. :) In Brazil, at least, in the government level, we are trying to [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/thackday/WCmyz2jltF8/sKDd0xCPQaQJ BURN ALL THE DOCS]! There are also [https://groups.google.com/group/thackday/browse_thread/thread/4f94fbf09e4b6f54 bills] under way. ;D P. S. I could not even imagine close softwares on the server side. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Ezalvarenga]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 12:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Responding to a couple of you here. No, AKlapper, AFAIK there is no formal documented requirement/process for evaluation of when the Wikimedia Foundation uses a proprietary tool instead of an open source one. To date we've been small enough, and had a sufficient proportion of the staff who're personally dedicated to open source values, such that evaluation has tended to happen informally on a case-by-case basis, and it's worked reasonably well. Like, we made an organizational commitment to use CiviCRM early and we've stuck with that, and similarly I know that Finance & Admin uses proprietary accounting tools because early on some research was done that determined there was no acceptable open-source tool. I think those were both reasonable outcomes. Over the years we've toyed with the idea of developing a formal evaluation policy, but we have not done it. If you're suggesting we should, I would generally agree, but I also wouldn't say it's the thing Office IT should prioritize as most important and most urgent.<br />
<br />
More generally, in response to Ezalvarenga and Ijon, yes, I'd agree that our actual practices are likely imperfect -- there are probably some people at the Wikimedia Foundation using proprietary tools for individual use that could be replaced by open source tools. For example, I know that Legal has at some times used Microsoft Word for documents shared with external firms, when they probably could've insisted on using OpenOffice or LibreOffice without too much of a productivity hit.<br />
<br />
Frankly, individuals using proprietary tools has been a pretty big pain point for the Wikimedia Foundation. It's understandable: individual staff have widely varying levels of personal commitment to FLOSS, people want to be effective at work and so they want to use the tools that support them best, and people's work, and their needs, vary. No-one wants to be told they have no choice but to use X, whether X is Ubuntu/Thunderbird/LibreOffice or IE/Outlook/Word. That's utterly reasonable. So it's complex, and we're not going to capture a lot of complexity in a short statement. <br />
<br />
StevenW had proposed we modify the language here to distinguish between site production tools and personal/individual tools. Can somebody propose language for that, and for anything else here that might need clarification or finetuning? Feel free to make a change and I'll revert it or finetune it if I feel I need to. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Related reading: [[FLOSS-Exchange]]. I think focusing on the ideal (and its rationale, which Erik sort of touched on with his "right to fork" [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5334873&oldid=5334652 addition]), instead of what individuals might do, is a reasonable compromise. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 07:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think the line should be what's shared by the organization (or teams within the organization) and personal. For anything shared, we should make it free software/open source unless it's really unworkable (and even then, we should always keep an eye out for moving to free software as it improves). But if you want to use MS Word on your personal machine to write PHP that fully meets our coding conventions, more power to you ;). This basically [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&oldid=5335910#Freedom_and_open_source matches] the current text. But there are some cases where free software is workable for shared tools but we're not currently using them; as I said, we should try to change that. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Agreed with SteveW and others above that there's some distinction between what we share, what we use personally, and what we require others to use. Apple users in the office? Who cares, they're mostly running FOSS on top of Apple -- most of our ops folks and engineers live in a terminal and use standard Unix tools. Adobe Photoshop and proprietary-format files for graphics work? Maybe we do care, because you can't always use the PSD files without it. (I always advocate for SVG format for graphics, especially anything we intend to use in software or on sites that may need to be revisioned in the future.) Google Apps for email? Who cares, email is interoperable. Google Hangouts for video conferencing internally? Who cares? Google Hangouts for video conferencing including open community participation? Runs on Linux, but requires a proprietary plugin; not ideal but we accept it as the best compromise of several options for now. Maybe we care but we can live with it. etc. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::So the text now reads like this: <br />
<br />
::''The Wikimedia Foundation is deeply rooted in the values of the free culture and free software movements. With the exception of "fair use" material, all information in Wikimedia projects can be freely shared, freely distributed, freely modified and freely used for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, in perpetuity.''<br />
::''All code written by the Wikimedia Foundation is licensed under an applicable open source license. We realize our obligations not just to share code, but to cultivate a healthy community of contributors around the source code, and to work with upstream projects and contribute back improvements to their code.''<br />
::''All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software.''<br />
::''Consistent with the above principles, we support the right of third parties to make and maintain licensing-compliant copies and forks of Wikimedia content and Wikimedia-developed code, regardless of motivation or purpose. While we are generally not able to directly assist such efforts, we enable them by making available copies of Wikimedia content in bulk, and avoiding critical dependencies on proprietary code or services for maintaining a largely functionally equivalent fork.''<br />
::''As an organization, we strive to use open source tools over proprietary ones, although we use proprietary or closed tools (such as software, operating systems, etc.) where there is currently no open-source tool that will effectively meet our needs.''<br />
<br />
::Does this work for everybody? I could add some language specifically around personal tool use, but I feel like "where there's no open-source tool that would effectively meet our needs" covers it. Like, you use Illustrator if Gimp isn't good enough for what you need. Let me know if anyone feels like this language isn't clear/accurate: otherwise I'll consider this thread resolved. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 21:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: As a very minor piece of word-smithing, I'd change "not able to directly assist such efforts" to "not able to individually assist such efforts" - we do directly help such efforts with data dumps and tools, we just don't have the resources to give human attention individually to such efforts. But yes, looks good to go otherwise. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 22:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::: Done -- thanks James :-) [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 17:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Quick suggestion... ==<br />
<br />
[https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASue_Gardner%2FWikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5332950&oldid=5331958 ], which I made before seeing the request to comment first. Anyway, "serving every human being" seems a bit disingenuous, since we really aim to serve every literate human being with access to data and a digital device. ;-) The goal of providing equal access to all seems fairer, and more in line the the section's comments about well, accessibility. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 00:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:"equal access to all" is, er, equally disingenuous, as, by your own phrase, we're providing equal access only to "every literate human being with access to data and a digital device".<br />
:Furthermore, I actually do think we ''strive'' to serve every human being. Remember the free knowledge the Wikimedia community creates and shares is consumed offline too, not to mention the huge value of secondary use -- the knowledge worked into presentations, newspapers, books, radio and TV programs -- all consumed by hundreds of millions ''more'' than the group consuming it directly from our Web sites. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 00:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Yeah, I agree with Ijon. The language is "aims to" and "endeavours to," so I think it's appropriately framed as aspirational. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Actually, it's not quite that limited. We do generally serve literate people, but there are actually readings of many articles (e.g. see [[:w:Template:Spoken Wikipedia|Template:Spoken Wikipedia]], I'm sure among others). There are also various mechanisms for printing Wikipedia (some in-house, some just people trying to make money by selling Wikipedia books), so you don't need a digital device. The fact that we've consistently used fully free licenses for our content (except fair use extracts) has facilitated all of that. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Commons serves non-literate people indirectly. {{Smiley}} —[[User:Tom Morris|Tom Morris]] ([[User talk:Tom Morris|talk]]) 19:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Getting rich ==<br />
<br />
On «nobody is getting rich by working at the Wikimedia Foundation»: define "rich". For instance, I'm a student but I'm very rich compared to most world population and richer than millions of Italians (so, when serving in my university board I raised tuition fees for myself/my income range). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Yeah obviously "getting rich" is relative. It's only when you compare [[:wiktionary:apples and oranges|apples to apples]] and look at other tech and nonprofit compensation schemes that you see what is meant. In any case, it's pretty awesome that we want to put that among our guiding principles, right? <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Edit conflict with StevenW! And yeah, Steven, I agree. I think the key word here is "getting." Nemo is correct of course that by world population standards, everybody who works at the Wikimedia Foundation is rich. But we were born rich, we did not "get" rich through our work at the Wikimedia Foundation. The point here is that working at the Wikimedia Foundation is not a path to dramatically improving one's personal wealth. Thanks. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::I tend to see those negative statements ("'''not''' getting rich") as putting things in people's head that you don't want there in the first place. You say "not getting rich" (and I am on par with both Steven's and your interpretation on this) and all people seem to read/hear is "rich". Maybe we should try to find a positive statement for this? I'm kind of stuck though for a good one. "If you want to get rich, go work somewhere else"? -- ok, that one is stupid, but maybe you get my point? [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 21:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::I suspected that the point was in ''getting'', however this is tricky. One may get "richer" by going to work in the WMF for career reasons, compared to the previous work (or country?), comparatively getting "poorer" than possible in some other place, however the latter is mostly impossible to prove. "Nobody is getting richer" would be clearer but is technically wrong.<br />
:::Maybe: "we aim at level of income not being an important [the most important? one of the most important?] motivation[s] for someone to stay at the WMF", which implies there are different/contrasting motivations (presumably honest ;) ) without getting lost in defining which, and that income may be sacrificed. This is probably what is meant hear; no idea if it is positive enough as per notafish. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC) <small>P.s.: Steven, personally I don't care that much if someone gets rich at the WMF, as long as it's not by fleeing with the cash. :) I just like clarity.</small><br />
::::Seems a bit "off" for Sue Gardner to be commenting on "not getting rich" when her salary exceeds that of about 99% of American wage earners. -- [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A|2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A]] 18:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
I've just removed the phrase about getting rich. I think "fair but not lavish" covers it :-) Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 22:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Reasonable travel costs==<br />
«We aim to incur only reasonable travel costs: the general policy is to travel economy class and stay in moderately-priced hotels»: were $225K for staff (and board) at Wikimania reasonable? [[Talk:Wikimedia budget#Wikimania travel question]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:How much is that per person sent to Wikimania that year? I think looking at the total for shock value is unfair. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Nemo we're not making a commitment here to reduce travel costs, or to minimize travel. (I wouldn't want to do that: with a growing staff that operates as part of a global community that stages many international events such as Wikimania, the chapters' meeting and various hackathons, it strikes me that a focus on reducing travel costs would be a net negative not a net plus. I expect travel costs to be a not-insubstantial chunk of the Wikimedia Foundation budget: that seems eminently reasonable to me given the nature of our work.) The point here is simply that when we travel, we aim to do it moderately not luxuriously. The nuts-and-bolts of how we do that are captured in [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Travel_policy the travel policy], but the purpose of this statement is simply to summarize the overall intent. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::So in short yes, you think it's reasonable. :) <small>I don't know if it was: while you do or can know all the details on the alternatives and other considerations, I can't judge — no opinion at all.</small> Given that "reasonable" conveys little, you may consider removing «to incur only reasonable travel costs: the general policy is » and leaving only the straightforward part of the statement.<br />
:::Ideally (IMHO), we'd include some other criteria, like the impact:cost ratio (which you hinted to), usage of cheapest means of transportation, miscellaneous synergies (dumb example: double rooms instead of single where possible? and other more impactful stuff), with the disclaimer that all this must be applied fairly (see other section on benefits/reimbursements). I have no idea what are the current practices on all this so I don't know where to start, but I'm confident a compact form is possible. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::Hey Nemo, please see my comment in Title and Position (the next section down). Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 17:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Title or position==<br />
«People at the Wikimedia Foundation get the same benefits regardless of their title or position». <br />
*Who's "people"? Are you including all managers, trustees and employees?<br />
*What's "benefits" and how do you measure if "salaries" are "fair"? Are you considering only accessories or also the actual wage, before or after taxes, pension contributions etc.?<br />
*What are you including in "title or position" (or other comparison for "fair")? For instance, remote worker vs. office worker, full time vs. part time, staff vs. contractor.<br />
--[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:*Well, people does include at least all staff if you read further "regardless of their title or position". This should include everyone. As for Trustees, you've got a point, "people" is not clear and should probably be changed to "Staff" when it comes to benefits. I do not believe Trustees get benefits, even though they might benefit from insurance and related stuff when it comes to their work for the Foundation. It might make sense here to differentiate between staff/volunteers or something along those lines. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 14:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::To be clear: yes, the statement's intended to refer to all staff, and I can change the word "people" to "staff." There is detail available in the document [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/2a/Wikimedia_Foundation_Compensation_Practices.pdf Wikimedia Foundation Compensation Practices]. And for Notafish, yes, the trustees don't get any benefits. Expenses they incur on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation are reimbursed as per the policies, but they receive no compensation in the form of salary or other benefits. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::I think Staff makes sense in that context, thanks for clarifying. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 21:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC) <small>(Sue, it's '''n'''otafish, with a small '''n''', and I'm stupidly particular about it. If you want a capital, go with Delphine ;)</small><br />
:::::Thank you, Sue, this clarifies the first point: only two left in this section. :)<br />
:::::On "benefits", the exact meaning of the word (or lexical equivalent) varies quite a lot across jurisdictions and fiscal systems, as far as I know, so it's not safe to assume everyone will get what you mean. I understand that reimbursements are a different matter, but it would be nice if they were fair and independent from title etc., too. (I suppose they already mostly are?) --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::: Yeah, in the U.S. "benefits" is generally understood not to include salary (people talk about "salary plus benefits") (it's basically everything ''but'' salary). However, that might not be true in other countries/languages. Also, the 401(k) maximum match is a fixed percentage of salary. While the percentage is the same across position, the amount (n% × salary) technically is not. However, it's true this is a fine distinction. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
*'Staff' is normally understood to mean Employees + Contractors, where contractors are afforded fewer benefits (if any at all). I'd suggest amending to specify 'Employees at...'. [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 23:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
**I'd kind of like us to provide fair benefits to all staff including international contractors, but of course jurisdictions make things.... difficult. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 19:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::: As per Oliver and others, I changed "staff" to "employees" for clarity. I do wish the WMF could provide equivalent benefits to everyone regardless of their official status (i.e., staff versus contractor) but Brion is right, it's very complex. Having said that, I'm pleased we do provide additional benefits to all U.S. employees beyond what's provided by the state. In many/most countries, the state provides the basics: in the United States it does not, and so employer-provided health insurance is critical. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 17:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::: Okay I just rewrote this section. <br />
<br />
::::''We aim to be careful with donors' money. We pay salaries that are fair but not lavish, and provide reasonable benefits (e.g., health and dental insurance) that are the same for all employees regardless of their title or position. We aim to incur only reasonable travel costs, and to keep work-related entertainment costs moderate.'' <br />
<br />
::::Purpose of the rewrite is just clarity/simplicity. Nemo, rather than expanding the travel-related part with more detail I made it higher-level. [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Travel_policy The full travel policy is here], and it's an official Board policy, so if it changes it would be updated on that page. Folks, let me know if aiming "to keep work-related entertainment costs moderate" is clear enough. Again, there is a [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Duty_entertainment_guidelines_policy more detailed policy on this]. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 17:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Accountable==<br />
«The Wikimedia Foundation wants to be accountable to [...]». Please clarify how the concept of accountability applies here: «responsible for your decisions or actions and expected to explain them when you are asked»[http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/accountable] (are there processes to be responsible of your actions in front of the readers, receive their questions and explain? etc.). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Sure, of course there are processes to be responsible to the readers of the projects. Reader surveys. User testing. OTRS. The blogs. The annual reports. The regular publication of activity reports, performance reports, financial statements. Social media. Engagement with charity watchdog groups. Public mailing lists. Bugzilla. Office hours on IRC. Events for donors. This page, and many other on-wiki consultations related to feature development, policy development, and so forth. There are probably lots I am forgetting :-) Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Shared power==<br />
This section seems entirely useless, in that it lists a lot of minor ephemeral details from the ''here and now'' and no actual "principles" that may "guide" any action. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:The purpose of this section is to explicitly acknowledge that the Wikimedia Foundation works in partnership with a global community of volunteers -- that the Wikimedia Foundation is not the sole or even primary actor in fulfilling the Wikimedia mission, and that it needs to conduct itself accordingly, by creating mechanisms and processes enabling the community to have influence on its actions. Because we are interdependent partners. I think this is a pretty fundamental and important point to make, because in this regard we are different from practically everybody else. (What I mean by that: eBay and Facebook and Yelp may also have a social purpose or utility, but their primary purpose is to make money, and "community members" are a resource to be managed by the company to that end. In our case, the primary purpose of the movement is to make knowledge freely available to everyone around the world, and the Wikimedia Foundation and the global community of volunteers play different and complementary roles in achieving that shared goal.) So I wonder if that's not clear -- if my wording is just mucky. If so, can someone help propose better, more useful language? Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]])<br />
:The shared power section does mention volunteer "developers". However, I would like to see more emphasis on this. Something like "The Wikimedia Foundation strives to continually increase its partnership with outside developers, project managers, and system adminstrators so we can technically improve the sites together". This is an area where we've had some success, but more can definitely be done. The reason I said "outside" not "volunteer" is that they may be paid to work on something like MediaWiki, just not paid ''by'' WMF. The Apache Software Foundation is an example of an organization where many (not all) developers are paid (by various companies organizations), but they partner together to get things done. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==United States==<br />
On «support successful job candidates in attaining the legal right to work in the United States»: why only USA? What if they want to move elsewhere? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Maybe this should become "...to work from a WMF office in the United States", in case that's what's meant here. --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Or rather: Support succesful job candidates in attaining the legal right to work in the US should the need arise". Or something along those lines. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 14:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Yeah -- you're correct, we also support remote workers when people don't want to relocate and the job doesn't require it. I will reword :-) [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Here's what I changed it too -- let me know if this is clearer. "We aim to recruit talented people regardless of where they live, and depending on their preferences and the needs of the job, we support them in working remotely or relocating to the United States." Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::Does the trick, as far as I'm concerned. :) [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 21:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::::Yes, much clearer, thanks. <br />
::::::Ideally you'd be completely nation-neutral and support them in relocating to another country of their choice too, if suitable for them, and you could remove the "to the United States" bit. However, I understand this is an edge case. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::::Relocations are done because the WMF feels the employee should be in-office. Up until we open an office somewhere else I can't imagine that spending donor funds moving people to a country 'because they want to live there' would be optimal. [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 23:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::::::Yeah, Oliver is right. We have once or twice had staff who wanted to relocate for personal reasons. We are okay with them doing it when it doesn't interfere with their work (like, if they are moving from one non-SF location to another non-SF location, or if they used to work from SF, want to move elsewhere, and working remotely wouldn't hurt their ability to do their work). But in those cases, when they are moving for personal reasons, the WMF wouldn't pay for the move, and wouldn't arrange or pay for any services related to the move, such as immigration-related legal fees. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 20:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Serving every human being==<br />
This section looks weird being 7 sections away from «Freedom and open source» with «All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software» etc. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The emphasis on the development of new features is undue and likely to grate on both engineering staff and community, in my opinion. It is out of step with the custodian role which many individuals in both groups identify with. We should express a stronger commitment to high availability and site performance. --[[User:Ori.livneh|Ori.livneh]] ([[User talk:Ori.livneh|talk]]) 10:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Oh ha, Ori.livneh I think that's just clumsy wording on my part. I can see how it's easy to misread, but what you think I said is not what I meant to be saying. I'll revise. I'll also move this chunk up to be nearer to Freedom and Open Source. Thanks to you both [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Also, it talks about these being directed at "readers", and hoping to support them in starting to contribute - but we should probably also talk about supporting existing contributors. :-) [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 20:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: On Sue's request, I've tried to address these points with [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5334886&oldid=5334873 this edit].--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 23:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: It's better (thanks, Sue, Erik, and James) but it's still not quite right, in my opinion: rather than rank engineering priorities (features, performance, availability) and then work backwards to explain the values that motivate them (access, participation), I think the section ought to lead with a statement of values, and then explain how our engineering priorities reflect our effort to realize these values maximally. --[[User:Ori.livneh|Ori.livneh]] ([[User talk:Ori.livneh|talk]]) 11:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::: Want to take a crack at drafting something on talk?--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 20:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::: How about:<br />
:::::: <div style="border:1px solid silver; background:#eee; margin:0.5em; padding:1em 2em;">The Wikimedia Foundation aims to make <span style="background: #d8ecff;">the</span> material in the Wikimedia projects broadly accessible to all. <span style="background: #d8ecff;">We work to enable for the world education from, entertainment by, and engagement with our projects' content, and participation in the communities and processes that create them.</span> Ensuring <span style="background: #d8ecff;">the</span> continued reliability, availability and responsiveness of all Wikimedia sites and services is our first priority. In prioritizing new products and features, our goal is to impact the largest-possible number of readers and contributors, and to eliminate barriers that could preclude people from accessing or contributing to our projects, such as poor usability, lack of language support, and limited access to technology. We endeavour to create the structural support and the necessary preconditions for bottom-up innovation by others. We do not form agreements in which one organization is given access to material or functionality that others are denied. Where possible, we aim to preserve and support frictionless use of the material in the projects, so that people can share it widely and easily.</div><br />
:::::: Thoughts? Please forgive the "power of threes" and running alliterations. :-) I worry that this section is now trying to say too much; possibly split after "technology"? I'm not particularly attached to my wording, so don't worry about offending. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 05:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Communication==<br />
Do you think https://xkcd.com/802/ [https://xkcd.com/802_large/] applies to the WMF? (In particular, the proportions in the two maps on the top <s>right</s> left being zoomed.) --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Nemo, could you clarify which proportions you refer to by naming them? Top right is "Unread Updates". --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Ouch. I meant left, of course. :) Thanks, [[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Right to fork==<br />
Again nothing. [[Talk:Terms of use/Archives/2011-12-06#Right to Fork]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
* Probably more of a Wikimedia principle than a Wikimedia Foundation principle. Perhaps we need a separate list? :-) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 09:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
*: I doubt it: «principles intended to guide the work of the Wikimedia Foundation». Who else do you suggest to task with ensuring the right to fork? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: Sue asked me to explore some language around this, so I've taken a first crack at it with [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5334873&oldid=5334652 this edit].--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 23:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::: Thanks! Much better. I'll let the experts comment on the specific wording and if it covers all the essential (people would like to have something more than page history dumps, but what exactly is tricky). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 23:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::: If this idea is developed any further could someone ping me? I'm interested for obvious reasons. Thanks. -- [[User:ArielGlenn|ArielGlenn]] ([[User talk:ArielGlenn|talk]]) 09:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think this is covered now by Erik's language, right? <br />
<br />
''Consistent with the above principles, we support the right of third parties to make and maintain licensing-compliant copies and forks of Wikimedia content and Wikimedia-developed code, regardless of motivation or purpose. While we are generally not able to individually assist such efforts, we enable them by making available copies of Wikimedia content in bulk, and avoiding critical dependencies on proprietary code or services for maintaining a largely functionally equivalent fork.''<br />
<br />
Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 20:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Internationalism ==<br />
<br />
«''When we consider the community'' as a whole, we aim to consider all its languages and geographies and to avoid global initiatives that favor communities speaking only our languages» (emphasis added).<br />
I note that you're only talking of how you consider the community; what about «initiatives that favor communities speaking only our languages» in general? For instance, roughly how much of the WMF spending goes on initiatives that favor only English-language people (projects, users etc., readers) or only the USA? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Right to influence ==<br />
<br />
«Their work has earned [...] financial support sustaining the Wikimedia Foundation [...] and the global community has therefore earned the right to influence the work of the organizations»: it ''seems'' that you're stating that the only reason why someone has the "right to influence" the work is that they bring in dollars. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Mm, Nemo, this is a good point. I was meaning to specifically talk about the financial aspect, but I realize from your comment that it reads wrong --- it *does* read like that's the only reason the community members matter, which is of course not true. I've taken a crack at rewording below, let me know what you think.<br />
<br />
''These are the people who build the projects, and they have earned the right to influence the development of the platform, and the work of organizations that receive funding from the movement.''<br />
<br />
Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 20:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Transparency ==<br />
<br />
This section says "including employee guidelines". What happened to the public sharing of the [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Employee_Handbook Employee Handbook]? -- [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A|2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A]] 18:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
: I asked about this recently. It doesn't really seem relevant to this kind of document, though. There's a thread on wikimedia-l, I think, if you want to follow up. :-) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 21:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:: It explicitly says "As a matter of general practice, unless there’s a particular reason not to, we aim to publish internal organizational policies and procedures, including employee guidelines, financial policies, etc." I think it does belong here, because what the employees do is relevant, particularly to the donors who are essentially paying us. I agree the current reality around such employee procedures, etc. is not quite consistent with the document. There is some stuff on Office Wiki (a private WMF wiki for employees) that does not need to be confidential. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 23:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::: If only there were someone with access to both wikis with the technical know-how to move the pages. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 03:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::I'm pretty sure the staff handbook contains (amongst other things) access info to our healthcare providers, and other non-public information which should be stripped. I think that if someone did have the access and technical know-how to move the pages and acted on it, they'd swiftly find themselves losing the access ;p. As a general statement, the document ''should'' be moved over - but I imagine they want to get it finished and stable before combing through it to identify elements inappropriate for public consumption (otherwise you end up having to do multiple sweeps). [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 03:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::There are also sections which have been vetted by Legal and should not be open for editing by the public. This is one of the problems.--[[User:Jorm (WMF)|Jorm (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jorm (WMF)|talk]]) 23:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::: The legal team has no issue creating redacted PDFs. They just did for the [[NDA]]s. But they shouldn't be releasing documents in this way, of course. I've started some notes at [[legal docs]] for anyone interested. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 06:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Independence ==<br />
<br />
"Skillsets" is not a proper word. -- [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A|2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A]] 18:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
: Context, "Similarly, our Board of Trustees selection process is designed to encourage representation of different voices and skillsets, rather than recognizing donors or celebrities."<br />
: What would you recommend instead? "skill sets"? Something else? (This level of minor word tweaking you can really just do yourself, but I'm happy to proxy the edit for you from the talk page, if you'd like.) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 20:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: "Skillsets" is a reasonable word, but if the IP objects strenuously, we could use "sets of skills", which is rather po-faced. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 05:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::"Skillsets" is a perfectly cromulent word, even if my spell checker doesn't like it. If you're picky, write it as "skill sets". :) --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Frictionless and copyleft ==<br />
<br />
You might want to clarify this does not mean abandoning copyleft. Though not all WMF wikis use copyleft, many do, and there is general understanding of its benefits. I want to ensure people don't come later and start arguing that e.g. all new wikis should be non-copyleft to avoid "friction". [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 23:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Surely by definition, 'avoiding friction in reuse' would be 'copyleft' - it's talking about freedom for others to reuse our work, not freedom for us to reuse the work of others. Which WMF wikis are non-copyleft? [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 04:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:: Wikinews and Wikidata, for two. Copyleft licences are overly restrictive for wider re-use in some contexts. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 05:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Aha, we're talking less- rather than more-restrictive; my mistake :). [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 05:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Duplicate of [[wmf:Values]]? ==<br />
<br />
Hi. I wonder if these guiding principles aren't in some ways a duplicate of (or perhaps an update to) [[wmf:Values]]. What's the purpose of this document? Is it going to live alongside the [[wmf:mission|mission statement]], [[wmf:vision|vision statement]], etc.? Or will it end up being a Board resolution? Or something else? --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 04:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:It is similar, but more detailed than the values statement. I think the guiding principles are pretty well done, and cover some additional ground. It is worth considering if they could supersede the values statement, but there is some value in having a shorter document too. The guiding principles draft says, "It is likely that these principles will be presented to the Board of Trustees for their approval, at a future Board meeting." [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 16:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Free formats ==<br />
<br />
In re: ''All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software,'' can you clarify whether or not this is meant to mean that we will provide every file in free formats and thus not ''require'' the use of non-free software to view the file or does this mean that we will not provide the file in non-free formats at all? There seems to be some contention both internally and externally surrounding the possibility of providing non-free formats. I, personally, full appreciate having available to me free-formats, but when all of my devices have hardware-accelerated H.264 decoding, I would prefer to save cpu cycles and my battery when watching videos from commons. Similarly, there are some mobile devices that only support non-free formats and thus we currently do not support those users. -[[User:Pgehres (WMF)|Peter Gehres (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Pgehres (WMF)|talk]]) 05:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:We're working on that issue with legal internally... I'm certainly trying to push advocacy for explicit support of multi-format stack as officially acceptable, and would prefer clearer language on this as well. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Quality ==<br />
<br />
It strikes me that there is a glaring omission here. The current list of principles is a good set of ideologies, but surely the Wikimedia Foundation values high-quality content as much as it does the abstract principles like transparency and accountability. I understand that the Foundation does not generally (nor should) directly involve itself in the creation or judging of content on the projects, but certainly one of its core duties is encouraging or enabling the content creation, and one of the core implicit principles is that the content of the projects ought to be high-quality, comprehensive, authoritative, and so on (to the degree such quality descriptors are applicable to each project). To me, it seems like the omission of any principle that actually addresses the content of the projects is likely a matter of something being so obvious it didn't seem to need saying. I think it is important nonetheless, though. [[User:Dominic|Dominic]] ([[User talk:Dominic|talk]]) 06:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
: I agree. I think reiterating the [[wmf:mission statement|mission statement]] might be good here. (Related to the section above about [[wmf:values]], this page seems to be doing a bit of wheel reinvention....) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 06:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Ads? ==<br />
<br />
Is being ad-free a guiding principle? Relatedly, is being neutral? --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 07:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:On the neutrality issue... that seems perhaps too WIkipedia-specific? Wikivoyage, for instance, has [[:wikivoyage:Wikivoyage:Be fair|no neutrality policy]]. It seems like being independent is really the principle here, related to being ad-free, and that actually extends to other things like not being reliant on a few major donors. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think being ad-free is ''something we think is really great'', but the relevant guiding principle is indeed independence. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Mm, it's a little more than "really great"; Sue, Jimmy, and other board members have repeatedly stated for the record that Wikipedia will never show ads. So it's not accurate to present this as merely a strong preference; it has long been a firm commitment. (All this not to contradict that the principle here ''is'' independence rather than ''no ads''.) [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 22:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::IMO a commitment to not put ads on the site is more of a ''position'' than a ''principle''. We certainly don't advocate against advertisement culture the way we advocate for free speech and access to information. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 23:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Agreed. (your first comment did not acknowledge it was a committed position.) [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 23:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Free speech ==<br />
<br />
"Another crack at alternative wording: We aim to balance appropriately between our goal of being active internationally and our desire to minimize legal risk to the projects."<br />
:^ I worry this version doesn't actually say anything about being pro-free speech or making information available to everyone. One way to improve our international activity and lower our risk profile would be to censor information for certain countries to comply with local censorship or blasphemy laws, but I think we wouldn't consider that acceptable. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 19:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Gah, good point Brion. You're right, it could be misread as supporting/allowing censorship, which of course is the opposite of what it's supposed to say. Clumsy writing. (By me.) I'll delete it from the page.<br />
::What about this version (copied from the article page): <br />
::''In making decisions, we will not allow censorship of our content as a means to facilitate other strategic goals: to the contrary, our strategic goal is to preserve content, and other initiatives must be consistent with that mission.''<br />
::Personally I never like use of the word "content" so I might rather word it as "censorship of the projects" and "to preserve the material in the projects," but that aside, do we think this works? <br />
::Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 21:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Thank you ==<br />
<br />
I just checked this page because I had a free moment (I am in an all-day annual planning meeting) and I want to say thank you to everyone who's contributing here -- this is a really useful conversation. Some of the language folks are proposing is really helpful, and there are a couple of places where the comments show that the existing language isn't nearly as clear as I thought it was. So this is good. I'll come back sometime over the next week, but please meanwhile continue to develop new needed language through discussion here -- it's very, very helpful. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]])<br />
<br />
== Wikimedia Brasil Statement of Principles ==<br />
Hi, I would like to suggest also the reading of the Statement of Principles made by the group of volunteers of Wikimedia in Brazil, in 2009, which has nice thoughts and can inspire a little those reading here:<br />
* [[:br:chapter:Wikimedia:Statement of Principles|Wikimedia Brasil - Statement of Principles]]<br />
I would like later, when I find time, to make comments on the internationalization section. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Tom]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 22:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Transparency: lack of IRS Form 990 ==<br />
<br />
Hello,<br />
<br />
The text mention we disclose the IRS form 990. The Financial page at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Financial_reports only shows the 2010-2011 form, thus we are missing the 2011-2012 form which should have been filled last year. [[User:Hashar|Ashar Voultoiz]] ([[User talk:Hashar|talk]]) 11:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:This isn't missing, just not there yet. :) The 2010-2011 form ([[:wmf:File:Form 990 - FY 10-11 - Public.pdf|here]]) was uploaded in May 2012. Previous years have been uploaded in [[:wmf::File:WMF 2009 2010 Form 990.pdf|April]], [[:wmf:File:WMF 2008 Form 990.pdf|May]], [[:wmf:File:WMF 2007 Form 990.pdf|May]] and [[:wmf:File:WMF 2006 Form 990.pdf|September]] of the year following the expiration of the fiscal year. Forms 990 are not due until the 15th day of the fifth month after the end of the fiscal year, with up to 180 days of extension if necessary. Last year's form 990 is still on schedule with previous years, and I'm sure it'll be uploaded sooner if ready. --[[User:Mdennis (WMF)|Maggie Dennis (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mdennis (WMF)|talk]]) 14:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Entities ==<br />
<br />
Thank you Sue for sharing and drafting this document in public! Reading the document – while understanding that it is aimed to describe current practice – I was a bit saddened to not see "movement entities" described in the context of partnership and cooperation in achieving the common goals. (There is some mention about giving movement entities money and freedom to do what they want, but I feel this does not live fully up to the [[mission]] statement, either in practice or at the level of principles.) –[[User:Bdamokos|Bence]] ([[User talk:Bdamokos|talk]]) 13:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== "Regardless of their title or position" ==<br />
<br />
"We aim to be careful with donors' money. We pay salaries that are fair but not lavish, and provide reasonable benefits (e.g., health and dental insurance) that are the same for all employees regardless of their title or position. We aim to incur only reasonable travel costs, and to keep work-related entertainment costs moderate."<br />
<br />
Hi. Is this recent? Was this envisioned when people were planning the catalyst programs? What about benefits as laptops and mobiles, how is the policy of WMF defined regading this? Best, --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Tom]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 18:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)</div>Sue Gardnerhttps://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resolution_talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles/Archive_1&diff=328105Resolution talk:Wikimedia Foundation Guiding Principles/Archive 12013-04-02T20:32:04Z<p>Sue Gardner: /* Right to influence */ modified language as per Nemo</p>
<hr />
<div>== Freedom and open source ==<br />
"As an organization, we strive to use open source tools over proprietary ones, although we use proprietary or closed tools (such as software, operating systems, etc.) where there is currently no open-source tool that will effectively meet our needs." - Is there a requirement and process in place which forces people to publish an evaluation which open-source tools were considered and tested for a task in order to identify which specific functionality was only provided by closed-source tools? --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 18:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:<br />
:Well, maybe that is my impression because I work remotely, but I've seen some proprietary files been shared and proprietary softwares being used when we could have free software. For instance, microsoft documents or apple softwares. And I've heard the wifi network in SF office works better with apple stuff, which is kind of weird - I've visited SF office only once and I checked that, but I've heard the same from other online meetings. For pragmatical reasons, sometimes I know using some closed softwares can deliver things faster tho. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Ezalvarenga]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 19:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:I agree we could use a little more discipline on this. e.g. I'm not ''convinced'' all Mac users in the office would truly be significantly less effective at their work on Ubuntu machines. I do acknowledge some may be. I think it warrants some nudging/pushing, though. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 20:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::I think there's a huge distinction between closed source tools for personal productivity, and closed source tools for supporting the projects. This should be clarified in the text of the principles, because the current state of affairs is that we require FOSS when it comes to what is actually necessary for the projects to run, and we obviously don't when it comes to the office IT. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 22:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Thanks. In my initial posting I had shared tools in production (servers, webservices, etc.) in mind, but did not mean to refer to personal computers of individuals - that would be under the "personal freedom" category, and a published evaluation feels like overkill for such private cases. --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::Hi, Aklapper, I don't have time today to make a longer comment, but for the personal freedom, if everybody begin to use closed formats, people who wants to use open formats will be forced to use also closed ones. If a person doesn't want to buy an apple computer, but the wifi network forces people to do so or make their lifes with other hardwares difficult, sorry, a serious policy about that should change. Yes, people can choose whatever they want on their personal computers, but if the majority is using what is fashion, a conscious minitority will not have freedom to choose what they want. As an example, I do use sometimes closed softwares, like skype, but only when really necessary, like a partner or co-worker that prefers to use it. And I know the pain it is sometimes to use only Linux since 1998. :) In Brazil, at least, in the government level, we are trying to [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/thackday/WCmyz2jltF8/sKDd0xCPQaQJ BURN ALL THE DOCS]! There are also [https://groups.google.com/group/thackday/browse_thread/thread/4f94fbf09e4b6f54 bills] under way. ;D P. S. I could not even imagine close softwares on the server side. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Ezalvarenga]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 12:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Responding to a couple of you here. No, AKlapper, AFAIK there is no formal documented requirement/process for evaluation of when the Wikimedia Foundation uses a proprietary tool instead of an open source one. To date we've been small enough, and had a sufficient proportion of the staff who're personally dedicated to open source values, such that evaluation has tended to happen informally on a case-by-case basis, and it's worked reasonably well. Like, we made an organizational commitment to use CiviCRM early and we've stuck with that, and similarly I know that Finance & Admin uses proprietary accounting tools because early on some research was done that determined there was no acceptable open-source tool. I think those were both reasonable outcomes. Over the years we've toyed with the idea of developing a formal evaluation policy, but we have not done it. If you're suggesting we should, I would generally agree, but I also wouldn't say it's the thing Office IT should prioritize as most important and most urgent.<br />
<br />
More generally, in response to Ezalvarenga and Ijon, yes, I'd agree that our actual practices are likely imperfect -- there are probably some people at the Wikimedia Foundation using proprietary tools for individual use that could be replaced by open source tools. For example, I know that Legal has at some times used Microsoft Word for documents shared with external firms, when they probably could've insisted on using OpenOffice or LibreOffice without too much of a productivity hit.<br />
<br />
Frankly, individuals using proprietary tools has been a pretty big pain point for the Wikimedia Foundation. It's understandable: individual staff have widely varying levels of personal commitment to FLOSS, people want to be effective at work and so they want to use the tools that support them best, and people's work, and their needs, vary. No-one wants to be told they have no choice but to use X, whether X is Ubuntu/Thunderbird/LibreOffice or IE/Outlook/Word. That's utterly reasonable. So it's complex, and we're not going to capture a lot of complexity in a short statement. <br />
<br />
StevenW had proposed we modify the language here to distinguish between site production tools and personal/individual tools. Can somebody propose language for that, and for anything else here that might need clarification or finetuning? Feel free to make a change and I'll revert it or finetune it if I feel I need to. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Related reading: [[FLOSS-Exchange]]. I think focusing on the ideal (and its rationale, which Erik sort of touched on with his "right to fork" [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5334873&oldid=5334652 addition]), instead of what individuals might do, is a reasonable compromise. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 07:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think the line should be what's shared by the organization (or teams within the organization) and personal. For anything shared, we should make it free software/open source unless it's really unworkable (and even then, we should always keep an eye out for moving to free software as it improves). But if you want to use MS Word on your personal machine to write PHP that fully meets our coding conventions, more power to you ;). This basically [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&oldid=5335910#Freedom_and_open_source matches] the current text. But there are some cases where free software is workable for shared tools but we're not currently using them; as I said, we should try to change that. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Agreed with SteveW and others above that there's some distinction between what we share, what we use personally, and what we require others to use. Apple users in the office? Who cares, they're mostly running FOSS on top of Apple -- most of our ops folks and engineers live in a terminal and use standard Unix tools. Adobe Photoshop and proprietary-format files for graphics work? Maybe we do care, because you can't always use the PSD files without it. (I always advocate for SVG format for graphics, especially anything we intend to use in software or on sites that may need to be revisioned in the future.) Google Apps for email? Who cares, email is interoperable. Google Hangouts for video conferencing internally? Who cares? Google Hangouts for video conferencing including open community participation? Runs on Linux, but requires a proprietary plugin; not ideal but we accept it as the best compromise of several options for now. Maybe we care but we can live with it. etc. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::So the text now reads like this: <br />
<br />
::''The Wikimedia Foundation is deeply rooted in the values of the free culture and free software movements. With the exception of "fair use" material, all information in Wikimedia projects can be freely shared, freely distributed, freely modified and freely used for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, in perpetuity.''<br />
::''All code written by the Wikimedia Foundation is licensed under an applicable open source license. We realize our obligations not just to share code, but to cultivate a healthy community of contributors around the source code, and to work with upstream projects and contribute back improvements to their code.''<br />
::''All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software.''<br />
::''Consistent with the above principles, we support the right of third parties to make and maintain licensing-compliant copies and forks of Wikimedia content and Wikimedia-developed code, regardless of motivation or purpose. While we are generally not able to directly assist such efforts, we enable them by making available copies of Wikimedia content in bulk, and avoiding critical dependencies on proprietary code or services for maintaining a largely functionally equivalent fork.''<br />
::''As an organization, we strive to use open source tools over proprietary ones, although we use proprietary or closed tools (such as software, operating systems, etc.) where there is currently no open-source tool that will effectively meet our needs.''<br />
<br />
::Does this work for everybody? I could add some language specifically around personal tool use, but I feel like "where there's no open-source tool that would effectively meet our needs" covers it. Like, you use Illustrator if Gimp isn't good enough for what you need. Let me know if anyone feels like this language isn't clear/accurate: otherwise I'll consider this thread resolved. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 21:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: As a very minor piece of word-smithing, I'd change "not able to directly assist such efforts" to "not able to individually assist such efforts" - we do directly help such efforts with data dumps and tools, we just don't have the resources to give human attention individually to such efforts. But yes, looks good to go otherwise. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 22:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::: Done -- thanks James :-) [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 17:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Quick suggestion... ==<br />
<br />
[https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASue_Gardner%2FWikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5332950&oldid=5331958 ], which I made before seeing the request to comment first. Anyway, "serving every human being" seems a bit disingenuous, since we really aim to serve every literate human being with access to data and a digital device. ;-) The goal of providing equal access to all seems fairer, and more in line the the section's comments about well, accessibility. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 00:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:"equal access to all" is, er, equally disingenuous, as, by your own phrase, we're providing equal access only to "every literate human being with access to data and a digital device".<br />
:Furthermore, I actually do think we ''strive'' to serve every human being. Remember the free knowledge the Wikimedia community creates and shares is consumed offline too, not to mention the huge value of secondary use -- the knowledge worked into presentations, newspapers, books, radio and TV programs -- all consumed by hundreds of millions ''more'' than the group consuming it directly from our Web sites. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 00:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Yeah, I agree with Ijon. The language is "aims to" and "endeavours to," so I think it's appropriately framed as aspirational. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Actually, it's not quite that limited. We do generally serve literate people, but there are actually readings of many articles (e.g. see [[:w:Template:Spoken Wikipedia|Template:Spoken Wikipedia]], I'm sure among others). There are also various mechanisms for printing Wikipedia (some in-house, some just people trying to make money by selling Wikipedia books), so you don't need a digital device. The fact that we've consistently used fully free licenses for our content (except fair use extracts) has facilitated all of that. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Commons serves non-literate people indirectly. {{Smiley}} —[[User:Tom Morris|Tom Morris]] ([[User talk:Tom Morris|talk]]) 19:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Getting rich ==<br />
<br />
On «nobody is getting rich by working at the Wikimedia Foundation»: define "rich". For instance, I'm a student but I'm very rich compared to most world population and richer than millions of Italians (so, when serving in my university board I raised tuition fees for myself/my income range). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Yeah obviously "getting rich" is relative. It's only when you compare [[:wiktionary:apples and oranges|apples to apples]] and look at other tech and nonprofit compensation schemes that you see what is meant. In any case, it's pretty awesome that we want to put that among our guiding principles, right? <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Edit conflict with StevenW! And yeah, Steven, I agree. I think the key word here is "getting." Nemo is correct of course that by world population standards, everybody who works at the Wikimedia Foundation is rich. But we were born rich, we did not "get" rich through our work at the Wikimedia Foundation. The point here is that working at the Wikimedia Foundation is not a path to dramatically improving one's personal wealth. Thanks. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::I tend to see those negative statements ("'''not''' getting rich") as putting things in people's head that you don't want there in the first place. You say "not getting rich" (and I am on par with both Steven's and your interpretation on this) and all people seem to read/hear is "rich". Maybe we should try to find a positive statement for this? I'm kind of stuck though for a good one. "If you want to get rich, go work somewhere else"? -- ok, that one is stupid, but maybe you get my point? [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 21:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::I suspected that the point was in ''getting'', however this is tricky. One may get "richer" by going to work in the WMF for career reasons, compared to the previous work (or country?), comparatively getting "poorer" than possible in some other place, however the latter is mostly impossible to prove. "Nobody is getting richer" would be clearer but is technically wrong.<br />
:::Maybe: "we aim at level of income not being an important [the most important? one of the most important?] motivation[s] for someone to stay at the WMF", which implies there are different/contrasting motivations (presumably honest ;) ) without getting lost in defining which, and that income may be sacrificed. This is probably what is meant hear; no idea if it is positive enough as per notafish. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC) <small>P.s.: Steven, personally I don't care that much if someone gets rich at the WMF, as long as it's not by fleeing with the cash. :) I just like clarity.</small><br />
::::Seems a bit "off" for Sue Gardner to be commenting on "not getting rich" when her salary exceeds that of about 99% of American wage earners. -- [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A|2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A]] 18:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
I've just removed the phrase about getting rich. I think "fair but not lavish" covers it :-) Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 22:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Reasonable travel costs==<br />
«We aim to incur only reasonable travel costs: the general policy is to travel economy class and stay in moderately-priced hotels»: were $225K for staff (and board) at Wikimania reasonable? [[Talk:Wikimedia budget#Wikimania travel question]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:How much is that per person sent to Wikimania that year? I think looking at the total for shock value is unfair. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Nemo we're not making a commitment here to reduce travel costs, or to minimize travel. (I wouldn't want to do that: with a growing staff that operates as part of a global community that stages many international events such as Wikimania, the chapters' meeting and various hackathons, it strikes me that a focus on reducing travel costs would be a net negative not a net plus. I expect travel costs to be a not-insubstantial chunk of the Wikimedia Foundation budget: that seems eminently reasonable to me given the nature of our work.) The point here is simply that when we travel, we aim to do it moderately not luxuriously. The nuts-and-bolts of how we do that are captured in [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Travel_policy the travel policy], but the purpose of this statement is simply to summarize the overall intent. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::So in short yes, you think it's reasonable. :) <small>I don't know if it was: while you do or can know all the details on the alternatives and other considerations, I can't judge — no opinion at all.</small> Given that "reasonable" conveys little, you may consider removing «to incur only reasonable travel costs: the general policy is » and leaving only the straightforward part of the statement.<br />
:::Ideally (IMHO), we'd include some other criteria, like the impact:cost ratio (which you hinted to), usage of cheapest means of transportation, miscellaneous synergies (dumb example: double rooms instead of single where possible? and other more impactful stuff), with the disclaimer that all this must be applied fairly (see other section on benefits/reimbursements). I have no idea what are the current practices on all this so I don't know where to start, but I'm confident a compact form is possible. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::Hey Nemo, please see my comment in Title and Position (the next section down). Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 17:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Title or position==<br />
«People at the Wikimedia Foundation get the same benefits regardless of their title or position». <br />
*Who's "people"? Are you including all managers, trustees and employees?<br />
*What's "benefits" and how do you measure if "salaries" are "fair"? Are you considering only accessories or also the actual wage, before or after taxes, pension contributions etc.?<br />
*What are you including in "title or position" (or other comparison for "fair")? For instance, remote worker vs. office worker, full time vs. part time, staff vs. contractor.<br />
--[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:*Well, people does include at least all staff if you read further "regardless of their title or position". This should include everyone. As for Trustees, you've got a point, "people" is not clear and should probably be changed to "Staff" when it comes to benefits. I do not believe Trustees get benefits, even though they might benefit from insurance and related stuff when it comes to their work for the Foundation. It might make sense here to differentiate between staff/volunteers or something along those lines. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 14:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::To be clear: yes, the statement's intended to refer to all staff, and I can change the word "people" to "staff." There is detail available in the document [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/2a/Wikimedia_Foundation_Compensation_Practices.pdf Wikimedia Foundation Compensation Practices]. And for Notafish, yes, the trustees don't get any benefits. Expenses they incur on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation are reimbursed as per the policies, but they receive no compensation in the form of salary or other benefits. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::I think Staff makes sense in that context, thanks for clarifying. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 21:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC) <small>(Sue, it's '''n'''otafish, with a small '''n''', and I'm stupidly particular about it. If you want a capital, go with Delphine ;)</small><br />
:::::Thank you, Sue, this clarifies the first point: only two left in this section. :)<br />
:::::On "benefits", the exact meaning of the word (or lexical equivalent) varies quite a lot across jurisdictions and fiscal systems, as far as I know, so it's not safe to assume everyone will get what you mean. I understand that reimbursements are a different matter, but it would be nice if they were fair and independent from title etc., too. (I suppose they already mostly are?) --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::: Yeah, in the U.S. "benefits" is generally understood not to include salary (people talk about "salary plus benefits") (it's basically everything ''but'' salary). However, that might not be true in other countries/languages. Also, the 401(k) maximum match is a fixed percentage of salary. While the percentage is the same across position, the amount (n% × salary) technically is not. However, it's true this is a fine distinction. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
*'Staff' is normally understood to mean Employees + Contractors, where contractors are afforded fewer benefits (if any at all). I'd suggest amending to specify 'Employees at...'. [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 23:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
**I'd kind of like us to provide fair benefits to all staff including international contractors, but of course jurisdictions make things.... difficult. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 19:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::: As per Oliver and others, I changed "staff" to "employees" for clarity. I do wish the WMF could provide equivalent benefits to everyone regardless of their official status (i.e., staff versus contractor) but Brion is right, it's very complex. Having said that, I'm pleased we do provide additional benefits to all U.S. employees beyond what's provided by the state. In many/most countries, the state provides the basics: in the United States it does not, and so employer-provided health insurance is critical. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 17:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::: Okay I just rewrote this section. <br />
<br />
::::''We aim to be careful with donors' money. We pay salaries that are fair but not lavish, and provide reasonable benefits (e.g., health and dental insurance) that are the same for all employees regardless of their title or position. We aim to incur only reasonable travel costs, and to keep work-related entertainment costs moderate.'' <br />
<br />
::::Purpose of the rewrite is just clarity/simplicity. Nemo, rather than expanding the travel-related part with more detail I made it higher-level. [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Travel_policy The full travel policy is here], and it's an official Board policy, so if it changes it would be updated on that page. Folks, let me know if aiming "to keep work-related entertainment costs moderate" is clear enough. Again, there is a [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Duty_entertainment_guidelines_policy more detailed policy on this]. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 17:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Accountable==<br />
«The Wikimedia Foundation wants to be accountable to [...]». Please clarify how the concept of accountability applies here: «responsible for your decisions or actions and expected to explain them when you are asked»[http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/accountable] (are there processes to be responsible of your actions in front of the readers, receive their questions and explain? etc.). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Sure, of course there are processes to be responsible to the readers of the projects. Reader surveys. User testing. OTRS. The blogs. The annual reports. The regular publication of activity reports, performance reports, financial statements. Social media. Engagement with charity watchdog groups. Public mailing lists. Bugzilla. Office hours on IRC. Events for donors. This page, and many other on-wiki consultations related to feature development, policy development, and so forth. There are probably lots I am forgetting :-) Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Shared power==<br />
This section seems entirely useless, in that it lists a lot of minor ephemeral details from the ''here and now'' and no actual "principles" that may "guide" any action. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:The purpose of this section is to explicitly acknowledge that the Wikimedia Foundation works in partnership with a global community of volunteers -- that the Wikimedia Foundation is not the sole or even primary actor in fulfilling the Wikimedia mission, and that it needs to conduct itself accordingly, by creating mechanisms and processes enabling the community to have influence on its actions. Because we are interdependent partners. I think this is a pretty fundamental and important point to make, because in this regard we are different from practically everybody else. (What I mean by that: eBay and Facebook and Yelp may also have a social purpose or utility, but their primary purpose is to make money, and "community members" are a resource to be managed by the company to that end. In our case, the primary purpose of the movement is to make knowledge freely available to everyone around the world, and the Wikimedia Foundation and the global community of volunteers play different and complementary roles in achieving that shared goal.) So I wonder if that's not clear -- if my wording is just mucky. If so, can someone help propose better, more useful language? Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]])<br />
:The shared power section does mention volunteer "developers". However, I would like to see more emphasis on this. Something like "The Wikimedia Foundation strives to continually increase its partnership with outside developers, project managers, and system adminstrators so we can technically improve the sites together". This is an area where we've had some success, but more can definitely be done. The reason I said "outside" not "volunteer" is that they may be paid to work on something like MediaWiki, just not paid ''by'' WMF. The Apache Software Foundation is an example of an organization where many (not all) developers are paid (by various companies organizations), but they partner together to get things done. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==United States==<br />
On «support successful job candidates in attaining the legal right to work in the United States»: why only USA? What if they want to move elsewhere? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Maybe this should become "...to work from a WMF office in the United States", in case that's what's meant here. --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Or rather: Support succesful job candidates in attaining the legal right to work in the US should the need arise". Or something along those lines. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 14:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Yeah -- you're correct, we also support remote workers when people don't want to relocate and the job doesn't require it. I will reword :-) [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Here's what I changed it too -- let me know if this is clearer. "We aim to recruit talented people regardless of where they live, and depending on their preferences and the needs of the job, we support them in working remotely or relocating to the United States." Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::Does the trick, as far as I'm concerned. :) [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 21:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::::Yes, much clearer, thanks. <br />
::::::Ideally you'd be completely nation-neutral and support them in relocating to another country of their choice too, if suitable for them, and you could remove the "to the United States" bit. However, I understand this is an edge case. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::::Relocations are done because the WMF feels the employee should be in-office. Up until we open an office somewhere else I can't imagine that spending donor funds moving people to a country 'because they want to live there' would be optimal. [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 23:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::::::Yeah, Oliver is right. We have once or twice had staff who wanted to relocate for personal reasons. We are okay with them doing it when it doesn't interfere with their work (like, if they are moving from one non-SF location to another non-SF location, or if they used to work from SF, want to move elsewhere, and working remotely wouldn't hurt their ability to do their work). But in those cases, when they are moving for personal reasons, the WMF wouldn't pay for the move, and wouldn't arrange or pay for any services related to the move, such as immigration-related legal fees. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 20:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Serving every human being==<br />
This section looks weird being 7 sections away from «Freedom and open source» with «All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software» etc. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The emphasis on the development of new features is undue and likely to grate on both engineering staff and community, in my opinion. It is out of step with the custodian role which many individuals in both groups identify with. We should express a stronger commitment to high availability and site performance. --[[User:Ori.livneh|Ori.livneh]] ([[User talk:Ori.livneh|talk]]) 10:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Oh ha, Ori.livneh I think that's just clumsy wording on my part. I can see how it's easy to misread, but what you think I said is not what I meant to be saying. I'll revise. I'll also move this chunk up to be nearer to Freedom and Open Source. Thanks to you both [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Also, it talks about these being directed at "readers", and hoping to support them in starting to contribute - but we should probably also talk about supporting existing contributors. :-) [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 20:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: On Sue's request, I've tried to address these points with [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5334886&oldid=5334873 this edit].--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 23:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: It's better (thanks, Sue, Erik, and James) but it's still not quite right, in my opinion: rather than rank engineering priorities (features, performance, availability) and then work backwards to explain the values that motivate them (access, participation), I think the section ought to lead with a statement of values, and then explain how our engineering priorities reflect our effort to realize these values maximally. --[[User:Ori.livneh|Ori.livneh]] ([[User talk:Ori.livneh|talk]]) 11:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::: Want to take a crack at drafting something on talk?--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 20:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::: How about:<br />
:::::: <div style="border:1px solid silver; background:#eee; margin:0.5em; padding:1em 2em;">The Wikimedia Foundation aims to make <span style="background: #d8ecff;">the</span> material in the Wikimedia projects broadly accessible to all. <span style="background: #d8ecff;">We work to enable for the world education from, entertainment by, and engagement with our projects' content, and participation in the communities and processes that create them.</span> Ensuring <span style="background: #d8ecff;">the</span> continued reliability, availability and responsiveness of all Wikimedia sites and services is our first priority. In prioritizing new products and features, our goal is to impact the largest-possible number of readers and contributors, and to eliminate barriers that could preclude people from accessing or contributing to our projects, such as poor usability, lack of language support, and limited access to technology. We endeavour to create the structural support and the necessary preconditions for bottom-up innovation by others. We do not form agreements in which one organization is given access to material or functionality that others are denied. Where possible, we aim to preserve and support frictionless use of the material in the projects, so that people can share it widely and easily.</div><br />
:::::: Thoughts? Please forgive the "power of threes" and running alliterations. :-) I worry that this section is now trying to say too much; possibly split after "technology"? I'm not particularly attached to my wording, so don't worry about offending. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 05:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Communication==<br />
Do you think https://xkcd.com/802/ [https://xkcd.com/802_large/] applies to the WMF? (In particular, the proportions in the two maps on the top <s>right</s> left being zoomed.) --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Nemo, could you clarify which proportions you refer to by naming them? Top right is "Unread Updates". --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Ouch. I meant left, of course. :) Thanks, [[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Right to fork==<br />
Again nothing. [[Talk:Terms of use/Archives/2011-12-06#Right to Fork]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
* Probably more of a Wikimedia principle than a Wikimedia Foundation principle. Perhaps we need a separate list? :-) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 09:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
*: I doubt it: «principles intended to guide the work of the Wikimedia Foundation». Who else do you suggest to task with ensuring the right to fork? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: Sue asked me to explore some language around this, so I've taken a first crack at it with [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5334873&oldid=5334652 this edit].--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 23:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::: Thanks! Much better. I'll let the experts comment on the specific wording and if it covers all the essential (people would like to have something more than page history dumps, but what exactly is tricky). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 23:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::: If this idea is developed any further could someone ping me? I'm interested for obvious reasons. Thanks. -- [[User:ArielGlenn|ArielGlenn]] ([[User talk:ArielGlenn|talk]]) 09:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think this is covered now by Erik's language, right? <br />
<br />
''Consistent with the above principles, we support the right of third parties to make and maintain licensing-compliant copies and forks of Wikimedia content and Wikimedia-developed code, regardless of motivation or purpose. While we are generally not able to individually assist such efforts, we enable them by making available copies of Wikimedia content in bulk, and avoiding critical dependencies on proprietary code or services for maintaining a largely functionally equivalent fork.''<br />
<br />
Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 20:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Internationalism ==<br />
<br />
«''When we consider the community'' as a whole, we aim to consider all its languages and geographies and to avoid global initiatives that favor communities speaking only our languages» (emphasis added).<br />
I note that you're only talking of how you consider the community; what about «initiatives that favor communities speaking only our languages» in general? For instance, roughly how much of the WMF spending goes on initiatives that favor only English-language people (projects, users etc., readers) or only the USA? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Right to influence ==<br />
<br />
«Their work has earned [...] financial support sustaining the Wikimedia Foundation [...] and the global community has therefore earned the right to influence the work of the organizations»: it ''seems'' that you're stating that the only reason why someone has the "right to influence" the work is that they bring in dollars. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Mm, Nemo, this is a good point. I was meaning to specifically talk about the financial aspect, but I realize from your comment that it reads wrong --- it *does* read like that's the only reason the community members matter, which is of course not true. I've taken a crack at rewording below, let me know what you think.<br />
<br />
''These are the people who build the projects, and they have earned the right to influence the development of the platform, and the work of organizations that receive funding from the movement.''<br />
<br />
Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 20:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Transparency ==<br />
<br />
This section says "including employee guidelines". What happened to the public sharing of the [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Employee_Handbook Employee Handbook]? -- [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A|2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A]] 18:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
: I asked about this recently. It doesn't really seem relevant to this kind of document, though. There's a thread on wikimedia-l, I think, if you want to follow up. :-) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 21:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:: It explicitly says "As a matter of general practice, unless there’s a particular reason not to, we aim to publish internal organizational policies and procedures, including employee guidelines, financial policies, etc." I think it does belong here, because what the employees do is relevant, particularly to the donors who are essentially paying us. I agree the current reality around such employee procedures, etc. is not quite consistent with the document. There is some stuff on Office Wiki (a private WMF wiki for employees) that does not need to be confidential. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 23:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::: If only there were someone with access to both wikis with the technical know-how to move the pages. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 03:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::I'm pretty sure the staff handbook contains (amongst other things) access info to our healthcare providers, and other non-public information which should be stripped. I think that if someone did have the access and technical know-how to move the pages and acted on it, they'd swiftly find themselves losing the access ;p. As a general statement, the document ''should'' be moved over - but I imagine they want to get it finished and stable before combing through it to identify elements inappropriate for public consumption (otherwise you end up having to do multiple sweeps). [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 03:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::There are also sections which have been vetted by Legal and should not be open for editing by the public. This is one of the problems.--[[User:Jorm (WMF)|Jorm (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jorm (WMF)|talk]]) 23:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::: The legal team has no issue creating redacted PDFs. They just did for the [[NDA]]s. But they shouldn't be releasing documents in this way, of course. I've started some notes at [[legal docs]] for anyone interested. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 06:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Independence ==<br />
<br />
"Skillsets" is not a proper word. -- [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A|2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A]] 18:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
: Context, "Similarly, our Board of Trustees selection process is designed to encourage representation of different voices and skillsets, rather than recognizing donors or celebrities."<br />
: What would you recommend instead? "skill sets"? Something else? (This level of minor word tweaking you can really just do yourself, but I'm happy to proxy the edit for you from the talk page, if you'd like.) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 20:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: "Skillsets" is a reasonable word, but if the IP objects strenuously, we could use "sets of skills", which is rather po-faced. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 05:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::"Skillsets" is a perfectly cromulent word, even if my spell checker doesn't like it. If you're picky, write it as "skill sets". :) --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Frictionless and copyleft ==<br />
<br />
You might want to clarify this does not mean abandoning copyleft. Though not all WMF wikis use copyleft, many do, and there is general understanding of its benefits. I want to ensure people don't come later and start arguing that e.g. all new wikis should be non-copyleft to avoid "friction". [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 23:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Surely by definition, 'avoiding friction in reuse' would be 'copyleft' - it's talking about freedom for others to reuse our work, not freedom for us to reuse the work of others. Which WMF wikis are non-copyleft? [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 04:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:: Wikinews and Wikidata, for two. Copyleft licences are overly restrictive for wider re-use in some contexts. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 05:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Aha, we're talking less- rather than more-restrictive; my mistake :). [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 05:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Duplicate of [[wmf:Values]]? ==<br />
<br />
Hi. I wonder if these guiding principles aren't in some ways a duplicate of (or perhaps an update to) [[wmf:Values]]. What's the purpose of this document? Is it going to live alongside the [[wmf:mission|mission statement]], [[wmf:vision|vision statement]], etc.? Or will it end up being a Board resolution? Or something else? --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 04:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:It is similar, but more detailed than the values statement. I think the guiding principles are pretty well done, and cover some additional ground. It is worth considering if they could supersede the values statement, but there is some value in having a shorter document too. The guiding principles draft says, "It is likely that these principles will be presented to the Board of Trustees for their approval, at a future Board meeting." [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 16:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Free formats ==<br />
<br />
In re: ''All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software,'' can you clarify whether or not this is meant to mean that we will provide every file in free formats and thus not ''require'' the use of non-free software to view the file or does this mean that we will not provide the file in non-free formats at all? There seems to be some contention both internally and externally surrounding the possibility of providing non-free formats. I, personally, full appreciate having available to me free-formats, but when all of my devices have hardware-accelerated H.264 decoding, I would prefer to save cpu cycles and my battery when watching videos from commons. Similarly, there are some mobile devices that only support non-free formats and thus we currently do not support those users. -[[User:Pgehres (WMF)|Peter Gehres (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Pgehres (WMF)|talk]]) 05:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:We're working on that issue with legal internally... I'm certainly trying to push advocacy for explicit support of multi-format stack as officially acceptable, and would prefer clearer language on this as well. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Quality ==<br />
<br />
It strikes me that there is a glaring omission here. The current list of principles is a good set of ideologies, but surely the Wikimedia Foundation values high-quality content as much as it does the abstract principles like transparency and accountability. I understand that the Foundation does not generally (nor should) directly involve itself in the creation or judging of content on the projects, but certainly one of its core duties is encouraging or enabling the content creation, and one of the core implicit principles is that the content of the projects ought to be high-quality, comprehensive, authoritative, and so on (to the degree such quality descriptors are applicable to each project). To me, it seems like the omission of any principle that actually addresses the content of the projects is likely a matter of something being so obvious it didn't seem to need saying. I think it is important nonetheless, though. [[User:Dominic|Dominic]] ([[User talk:Dominic|talk]]) 06:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
: I agree. I think reiterating the [[wmf:mission statement|mission statement]] might be good here. (Related to the section above about [[wmf:values]], this page seems to be doing a bit of wheel reinvention....) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 06:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Ads? ==<br />
<br />
Is being ad-free a guiding principle? Relatedly, is being neutral? --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 07:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:On the neutrality issue... that seems perhaps too WIkipedia-specific? Wikivoyage, for instance, has [[:wikivoyage:Wikivoyage:Be fair|no neutrality policy]]. It seems like being independent is really the principle here, related to being ad-free, and that actually extends to other things like not being reliant on a few major donors. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think being ad-free is ''something we think is really great'', but the relevant guiding principle is indeed independence. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Mm, it's a little more than "really great"; Sue, Jimmy, and other board members have repeatedly stated for the record that Wikipedia will never show ads. So it's not accurate to present this as merely a strong preference; it has long been a firm commitment. (All this not to contradict that the principle here ''is'' independence rather than ''no ads''.) [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 22:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::IMO a commitment to not put ads on the site is more of a ''position'' than a ''principle''. We certainly don't advocate against advertisement culture the way we advocate for free speech and access to information. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 23:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Agreed. (your first comment did not acknowledge it was a committed position.) [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 23:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Free speech ==<br />
<br />
"Another crack at alternative wording: We aim to balance appropriately between our goal of being active internationally and our desire to minimize legal risk to the projects."<br />
:^ I worry this version doesn't actually say anything about being pro-free speech or making information available to everyone. One way to improve our international activity and lower our risk profile would be to censor information for certain countries to comply with local censorship or blasphemy laws, but I think we wouldn't consider that acceptable. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 19:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Thank you ==<br />
<br />
I just checked this page because I had a free moment (I am in an all-day annual planning meeting) and I want to say thank you to everyone who's contributing here -- this is a really useful conversation. Some of the language folks are proposing is really helpful, and there are a couple of places where the comments show that the existing language isn't nearly as clear as I thought it was. So this is good. I'll come back sometime over the next week, but please meanwhile continue to develop new needed language through discussion here -- it's very, very helpful. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]])<br />
<br />
== Wikimedia Brasil Statement of Principles ==<br />
Hi, I would like to suggest also the reading of the Statement of Principles made by the group of volunteers of Wikimedia in Brazil, in 2009, which has nice thoughts and can inspire a little those reading here:<br />
* [[:br:chapter:Wikimedia:Statement of Principles|Wikimedia Brasil - Statement of Principles]]<br />
I would like later, when I find time, to make comments on the internationalization section. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Tom]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 22:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Transparency: lack of IRS Form 990 ==<br />
<br />
Hello,<br />
<br />
The text mention we disclose the IRS form 990. The Financial page at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Financial_reports only shows the 2010-2011 form, thus we are missing the 2011-2012 form which should have been filled last year. [[User:Hashar|Ashar Voultoiz]] ([[User talk:Hashar|talk]]) 11:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:This isn't missing, just not there yet. :) The 2010-2011 form ([[:wmf:File:Form 990 - FY 10-11 - Public.pdf|here]]) was uploaded in May 2012. Previous years have been uploaded in [[:wmf::File:WMF 2009 2010 Form 990.pdf|April]], [[:wmf:File:WMF 2008 Form 990.pdf|May]], [[:wmf:File:WMF 2007 Form 990.pdf|May]] and [[:wmf:File:WMF 2006 Form 990.pdf|September]] of the year following the expiration of the fiscal year. Forms 990 are not due until the 15th day of the fifth month after the end of the fiscal year, with up to 180 days of extension if necessary. Last year's form 990 is still on schedule with previous years, and I'm sure it'll be uploaded sooner if ready. --[[User:Mdennis (WMF)|Maggie Dennis (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mdennis (WMF)|talk]]) 14:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Entities ==<br />
<br />
Thank you Sue for sharing and drafting this document in public! Reading the document – while understanding that it is aimed to describe current practice – I was a bit saddened to not see "movement entities" described in the context of partnership and cooperation in achieving the common goals. (There is some mention about giving movement entities money and freedom to do what they want, but I feel this does not live fully up to the [[mission]] statement, either in practice or at the level of principles.) –[[User:Bdamokos|Bence]] ([[User talk:Bdamokos|talk]]) 13:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== "Regardless of their title or position" ==<br />
<br />
"We aim to be careful with donors' money. We pay salaries that are fair but not lavish, and provide reasonable benefits (e.g., health and dental insurance) that are the same for all employees regardless of their title or position. We aim to incur only reasonable travel costs, and to keep work-related entertainment costs moderate."<br />
<br />
Hi. Is this recent? Was this envisioned when people were planning the catalyst programs? What about benefits as laptops and mobiles, how is the policy of WMF defined regading this? Best, --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Tom]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 18:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)</div>Sue Gardnerhttps://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resolution_talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles/Archive_1&diff=328104Resolution talk:Wikimedia Foundation Guiding Principles/Archive 12013-04-02T20:25:14Z<p>Sue Gardner: /* Right to fork */ (I'm considering "right to fork" resolved)</p>
<hr />
<div>== Freedom and open source ==<br />
"As an organization, we strive to use open source tools over proprietary ones, although we use proprietary or closed tools (such as software, operating systems, etc.) where there is currently no open-source tool that will effectively meet our needs." - Is there a requirement and process in place which forces people to publish an evaluation which open-source tools were considered and tested for a task in order to identify which specific functionality was only provided by closed-source tools? --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 18:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:<br />
:Well, maybe that is my impression because I work remotely, but I've seen some proprietary files been shared and proprietary softwares being used when we could have free software. For instance, microsoft documents or apple softwares. And I've heard the wifi network in SF office works better with apple stuff, which is kind of weird - I've visited SF office only once and I checked that, but I've heard the same from other online meetings. For pragmatical reasons, sometimes I know using some closed softwares can deliver things faster tho. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Ezalvarenga]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 19:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:I agree we could use a little more discipline on this. e.g. I'm not ''convinced'' all Mac users in the office would truly be significantly less effective at their work on Ubuntu machines. I do acknowledge some may be. I think it warrants some nudging/pushing, though. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 20:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::I think there's a huge distinction between closed source tools for personal productivity, and closed source tools for supporting the projects. This should be clarified in the text of the principles, because the current state of affairs is that we require FOSS when it comes to what is actually necessary for the projects to run, and we obviously don't when it comes to the office IT. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 22:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Thanks. In my initial posting I had shared tools in production (servers, webservices, etc.) in mind, but did not mean to refer to personal computers of individuals - that would be under the "personal freedom" category, and a published evaluation feels like overkill for such private cases. --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::Hi, Aklapper, I don't have time today to make a longer comment, but for the personal freedom, if everybody begin to use closed formats, people who wants to use open formats will be forced to use also closed ones. If a person doesn't want to buy an apple computer, but the wifi network forces people to do so or make their lifes with other hardwares difficult, sorry, a serious policy about that should change. Yes, people can choose whatever they want on their personal computers, but if the majority is using what is fashion, a conscious minitority will not have freedom to choose what they want. As an example, I do use sometimes closed softwares, like skype, but only when really necessary, like a partner or co-worker that prefers to use it. And I know the pain it is sometimes to use only Linux since 1998. :) In Brazil, at least, in the government level, we are trying to [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/thackday/WCmyz2jltF8/sKDd0xCPQaQJ BURN ALL THE DOCS]! There are also [https://groups.google.com/group/thackday/browse_thread/thread/4f94fbf09e4b6f54 bills] under way. ;D P. S. I could not even imagine close softwares on the server side. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Ezalvarenga]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 12:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Responding to a couple of you here. No, AKlapper, AFAIK there is no formal documented requirement/process for evaluation of when the Wikimedia Foundation uses a proprietary tool instead of an open source one. To date we've been small enough, and had a sufficient proportion of the staff who're personally dedicated to open source values, such that evaluation has tended to happen informally on a case-by-case basis, and it's worked reasonably well. Like, we made an organizational commitment to use CiviCRM early and we've stuck with that, and similarly I know that Finance & Admin uses proprietary accounting tools because early on some research was done that determined there was no acceptable open-source tool. I think those were both reasonable outcomes. Over the years we've toyed with the idea of developing a formal evaluation policy, but we have not done it. If you're suggesting we should, I would generally agree, but I also wouldn't say it's the thing Office IT should prioritize as most important and most urgent.<br />
<br />
More generally, in response to Ezalvarenga and Ijon, yes, I'd agree that our actual practices are likely imperfect -- there are probably some people at the Wikimedia Foundation using proprietary tools for individual use that could be replaced by open source tools. For example, I know that Legal has at some times used Microsoft Word for documents shared with external firms, when they probably could've insisted on using OpenOffice or LibreOffice without too much of a productivity hit.<br />
<br />
Frankly, individuals using proprietary tools has been a pretty big pain point for the Wikimedia Foundation. It's understandable: individual staff have widely varying levels of personal commitment to FLOSS, people want to be effective at work and so they want to use the tools that support them best, and people's work, and their needs, vary. No-one wants to be told they have no choice but to use X, whether X is Ubuntu/Thunderbird/LibreOffice or IE/Outlook/Word. That's utterly reasonable. So it's complex, and we're not going to capture a lot of complexity in a short statement. <br />
<br />
StevenW had proposed we modify the language here to distinguish between site production tools and personal/individual tools. Can somebody propose language for that, and for anything else here that might need clarification or finetuning? Feel free to make a change and I'll revert it or finetune it if I feel I need to. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Related reading: [[FLOSS-Exchange]]. I think focusing on the ideal (and its rationale, which Erik sort of touched on with his "right to fork" [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5334873&oldid=5334652 addition]), instead of what individuals might do, is a reasonable compromise. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 07:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think the line should be what's shared by the organization (or teams within the organization) and personal. For anything shared, we should make it free software/open source unless it's really unworkable (and even then, we should always keep an eye out for moving to free software as it improves). But if you want to use MS Word on your personal machine to write PHP that fully meets our coding conventions, more power to you ;). This basically [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&oldid=5335910#Freedom_and_open_source matches] the current text. But there are some cases where free software is workable for shared tools but we're not currently using them; as I said, we should try to change that. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Agreed with SteveW and others above that there's some distinction between what we share, what we use personally, and what we require others to use. Apple users in the office? Who cares, they're mostly running FOSS on top of Apple -- most of our ops folks and engineers live in a terminal and use standard Unix tools. Adobe Photoshop and proprietary-format files for graphics work? Maybe we do care, because you can't always use the PSD files without it. (I always advocate for SVG format for graphics, especially anything we intend to use in software or on sites that may need to be revisioned in the future.) Google Apps for email? Who cares, email is interoperable. Google Hangouts for video conferencing internally? Who cares? Google Hangouts for video conferencing including open community participation? Runs on Linux, but requires a proprietary plugin; not ideal but we accept it as the best compromise of several options for now. Maybe we care but we can live with it. etc. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::So the text now reads like this: <br />
<br />
::''The Wikimedia Foundation is deeply rooted in the values of the free culture and free software movements. With the exception of "fair use" material, all information in Wikimedia projects can be freely shared, freely distributed, freely modified and freely used for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, in perpetuity.''<br />
::''All code written by the Wikimedia Foundation is licensed under an applicable open source license. We realize our obligations not just to share code, but to cultivate a healthy community of contributors around the source code, and to work with upstream projects and contribute back improvements to their code.''<br />
::''All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software.''<br />
::''Consistent with the above principles, we support the right of third parties to make and maintain licensing-compliant copies and forks of Wikimedia content and Wikimedia-developed code, regardless of motivation or purpose. While we are generally not able to directly assist such efforts, we enable them by making available copies of Wikimedia content in bulk, and avoiding critical dependencies on proprietary code or services for maintaining a largely functionally equivalent fork.''<br />
::''As an organization, we strive to use open source tools over proprietary ones, although we use proprietary or closed tools (such as software, operating systems, etc.) where there is currently no open-source tool that will effectively meet our needs.''<br />
<br />
::Does this work for everybody? I could add some language specifically around personal tool use, but I feel like "where there's no open-source tool that would effectively meet our needs" covers it. Like, you use Illustrator if Gimp isn't good enough for what you need. Let me know if anyone feels like this language isn't clear/accurate: otherwise I'll consider this thread resolved. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 21:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: As a very minor piece of word-smithing, I'd change "not able to directly assist such efforts" to "not able to individually assist such efforts" - we do directly help such efforts with data dumps and tools, we just don't have the resources to give human attention individually to such efforts. But yes, looks good to go otherwise. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 22:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::: Done -- thanks James :-) [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 17:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Quick suggestion... ==<br />
<br />
[https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASue_Gardner%2FWikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5332950&oldid=5331958 ], which I made before seeing the request to comment first. Anyway, "serving every human being" seems a bit disingenuous, since we really aim to serve every literate human being with access to data and a digital device. ;-) The goal of providing equal access to all seems fairer, and more in line the the section's comments about well, accessibility. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 00:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:"equal access to all" is, er, equally disingenuous, as, by your own phrase, we're providing equal access only to "every literate human being with access to data and a digital device".<br />
:Furthermore, I actually do think we ''strive'' to serve every human being. Remember the free knowledge the Wikimedia community creates and shares is consumed offline too, not to mention the huge value of secondary use -- the knowledge worked into presentations, newspapers, books, radio and TV programs -- all consumed by hundreds of millions ''more'' than the group consuming it directly from our Web sites. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 00:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Yeah, I agree with Ijon. The language is "aims to" and "endeavours to," so I think it's appropriately framed as aspirational. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Actually, it's not quite that limited. We do generally serve literate people, but there are actually readings of many articles (e.g. see [[:w:Template:Spoken Wikipedia|Template:Spoken Wikipedia]], I'm sure among others). There are also various mechanisms for printing Wikipedia (some in-house, some just people trying to make money by selling Wikipedia books), so you don't need a digital device. The fact that we've consistently used fully free licenses for our content (except fair use extracts) has facilitated all of that. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Commons serves non-literate people indirectly. {{Smiley}} —[[User:Tom Morris|Tom Morris]] ([[User talk:Tom Morris|talk]]) 19:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Getting rich ==<br />
<br />
On «nobody is getting rich by working at the Wikimedia Foundation»: define "rich". For instance, I'm a student but I'm very rich compared to most world population and richer than millions of Italians (so, when serving in my university board I raised tuition fees for myself/my income range). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Yeah obviously "getting rich" is relative. It's only when you compare [[:wiktionary:apples and oranges|apples to apples]] and look at other tech and nonprofit compensation schemes that you see what is meant. In any case, it's pretty awesome that we want to put that among our guiding principles, right? <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Edit conflict with StevenW! And yeah, Steven, I agree. I think the key word here is "getting." Nemo is correct of course that by world population standards, everybody who works at the Wikimedia Foundation is rich. But we were born rich, we did not "get" rich through our work at the Wikimedia Foundation. The point here is that working at the Wikimedia Foundation is not a path to dramatically improving one's personal wealth. Thanks. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::I tend to see those negative statements ("'''not''' getting rich") as putting things in people's head that you don't want there in the first place. You say "not getting rich" (and I am on par with both Steven's and your interpretation on this) and all people seem to read/hear is "rich". Maybe we should try to find a positive statement for this? I'm kind of stuck though for a good one. "If you want to get rich, go work somewhere else"? -- ok, that one is stupid, but maybe you get my point? [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 21:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::I suspected that the point was in ''getting'', however this is tricky. One may get "richer" by going to work in the WMF for career reasons, compared to the previous work (or country?), comparatively getting "poorer" than possible in some other place, however the latter is mostly impossible to prove. "Nobody is getting richer" would be clearer but is technically wrong.<br />
:::Maybe: "we aim at level of income not being an important [the most important? one of the most important?] motivation[s] for someone to stay at the WMF", which implies there are different/contrasting motivations (presumably honest ;) ) without getting lost in defining which, and that income may be sacrificed. This is probably what is meant hear; no idea if it is positive enough as per notafish. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC) <small>P.s.: Steven, personally I don't care that much if someone gets rich at the WMF, as long as it's not by fleeing with the cash. :) I just like clarity.</small><br />
::::Seems a bit "off" for Sue Gardner to be commenting on "not getting rich" when her salary exceeds that of about 99% of American wage earners. -- [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A|2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A]] 18:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
I've just removed the phrase about getting rich. I think "fair but not lavish" covers it :-) Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 22:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Reasonable travel costs==<br />
«We aim to incur only reasonable travel costs: the general policy is to travel economy class and stay in moderately-priced hotels»: were $225K for staff (and board) at Wikimania reasonable? [[Talk:Wikimedia budget#Wikimania travel question]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:How much is that per person sent to Wikimania that year? I think looking at the total for shock value is unfair. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Nemo we're not making a commitment here to reduce travel costs, or to minimize travel. (I wouldn't want to do that: with a growing staff that operates as part of a global community that stages many international events such as Wikimania, the chapters' meeting and various hackathons, it strikes me that a focus on reducing travel costs would be a net negative not a net plus. I expect travel costs to be a not-insubstantial chunk of the Wikimedia Foundation budget: that seems eminently reasonable to me given the nature of our work.) The point here is simply that when we travel, we aim to do it moderately not luxuriously. The nuts-and-bolts of how we do that are captured in [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Travel_policy the travel policy], but the purpose of this statement is simply to summarize the overall intent. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::So in short yes, you think it's reasonable. :) <small>I don't know if it was: while you do or can know all the details on the alternatives and other considerations, I can't judge — no opinion at all.</small> Given that "reasonable" conveys little, you may consider removing «to incur only reasonable travel costs: the general policy is » and leaving only the straightforward part of the statement.<br />
:::Ideally (IMHO), we'd include some other criteria, like the impact:cost ratio (which you hinted to), usage of cheapest means of transportation, miscellaneous synergies (dumb example: double rooms instead of single where possible? and other more impactful stuff), with the disclaimer that all this must be applied fairly (see other section on benefits/reimbursements). I have no idea what are the current practices on all this so I don't know where to start, but I'm confident a compact form is possible. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::Hey Nemo, please see my comment in Title and Position (the next section down). Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 17:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Title or position==<br />
«People at the Wikimedia Foundation get the same benefits regardless of their title or position». <br />
*Who's "people"? Are you including all managers, trustees and employees?<br />
*What's "benefits" and how do you measure if "salaries" are "fair"? Are you considering only accessories or also the actual wage, before or after taxes, pension contributions etc.?<br />
*What are you including in "title or position" (or other comparison for "fair")? For instance, remote worker vs. office worker, full time vs. part time, staff vs. contractor.<br />
--[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:*Well, people does include at least all staff if you read further "regardless of their title or position". This should include everyone. As for Trustees, you've got a point, "people" is not clear and should probably be changed to "Staff" when it comes to benefits. I do not believe Trustees get benefits, even though they might benefit from insurance and related stuff when it comes to their work for the Foundation. It might make sense here to differentiate between staff/volunteers or something along those lines. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 14:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::To be clear: yes, the statement's intended to refer to all staff, and I can change the word "people" to "staff." There is detail available in the document [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/2a/Wikimedia_Foundation_Compensation_Practices.pdf Wikimedia Foundation Compensation Practices]. And for Notafish, yes, the trustees don't get any benefits. Expenses they incur on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation are reimbursed as per the policies, but they receive no compensation in the form of salary or other benefits. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::I think Staff makes sense in that context, thanks for clarifying. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 21:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC) <small>(Sue, it's '''n'''otafish, with a small '''n''', and I'm stupidly particular about it. If you want a capital, go with Delphine ;)</small><br />
:::::Thank you, Sue, this clarifies the first point: only two left in this section. :)<br />
:::::On "benefits", the exact meaning of the word (or lexical equivalent) varies quite a lot across jurisdictions and fiscal systems, as far as I know, so it's not safe to assume everyone will get what you mean. I understand that reimbursements are a different matter, but it would be nice if they were fair and independent from title etc., too. (I suppose they already mostly are?) --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::: Yeah, in the U.S. "benefits" is generally understood not to include salary (people talk about "salary plus benefits") (it's basically everything ''but'' salary). However, that might not be true in other countries/languages. Also, the 401(k) maximum match is a fixed percentage of salary. While the percentage is the same across position, the amount (n% × salary) technically is not. However, it's true this is a fine distinction. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
*'Staff' is normally understood to mean Employees + Contractors, where contractors are afforded fewer benefits (if any at all). I'd suggest amending to specify 'Employees at...'. [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 23:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
**I'd kind of like us to provide fair benefits to all staff including international contractors, but of course jurisdictions make things.... difficult. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 19:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::: As per Oliver and others, I changed "staff" to "employees" for clarity. I do wish the WMF could provide equivalent benefits to everyone regardless of their official status (i.e., staff versus contractor) but Brion is right, it's very complex. Having said that, I'm pleased we do provide additional benefits to all U.S. employees beyond what's provided by the state. In many/most countries, the state provides the basics: in the United States it does not, and so employer-provided health insurance is critical. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 17:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::: Okay I just rewrote this section. <br />
<br />
::::''We aim to be careful with donors' money. We pay salaries that are fair but not lavish, and provide reasonable benefits (e.g., health and dental insurance) that are the same for all employees regardless of their title or position. We aim to incur only reasonable travel costs, and to keep work-related entertainment costs moderate.'' <br />
<br />
::::Purpose of the rewrite is just clarity/simplicity. Nemo, rather than expanding the travel-related part with more detail I made it higher-level. [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Travel_policy The full travel policy is here], and it's an official Board policy, so if it changes it would be updated on that page. Folks, let me know if aiming "to keep work-related entertainment costs moderate" is clear enough. Again, there is a [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Duty_entertainment_guidelines_policy more detailed policy on this]. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 17:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Accountable==<br />
«The Wikimedia Foundation wants to be accountable to [...]». Please clarify how the concept of accountability applies here: «responsible for your decisions or actions and expected to explain them when you are asked»[http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/accountable] (are there processes to be responsible of your actions in front of the readers, receive their questions and explain? etc.). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Sure, of course there are processes to be responsible to the readers of the projects. Reader surveys. User testing. OTRS. The blogs. The annual reports. The regular publication of activity reports, performance reports, financial statements. Social media. Engagement with charity watchdog groups. Public mailing lists. Bugzilla. Office hours on IRC. Events for donors. This page, and many other on-wiki consultations related to feature development, policy development, and so forth. There are probably lots I am forgetting :-) Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Shared power==<br />
This section seems entirely useless, in that it lists a lot of minor ephemeral details from the ''here and now'' and no actual "principles" that may "guide" any action. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:The purpose of this section is to explicitly acknowledge that the Wikimedia Foundation works in partnership with a global community of volunteers -- that the Wikimedia Foundation is not the sole or even primary actor in fulfilling the Wikimedia mission, and that it needs to conduct itself accordingly, by creating mechanisms and processes enabling the community to have influence on its actions. Because we are interdependent partners. I think this is a pretty fundamental and important point to make, because in this regard we are different from practically everybody else. (What I mean by that: eBay and Facebook and Yelp may also have a social purpose or utility, but their primary purpose is to make money, and "community members" are a resource to be managed by the company to that end. In our case, the primary purpose of the movement is to make knowledge freely available to everyone around the world, and the Wikimedia Foundation and the global community of volunteers play different and complementary roles in achieving that shared goal.) So I wonder if that's not clear -- if my wording is just mucky. If so, can someone help propose better, more useful language? Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]])<br />
:The shared power section does mention volunteer "developers". However, I would like to see more emphasis on this. Something like "The Wikimedia Foundation strives to continually increase its partnership with outside developers, project managers, and system adminstrators so we can technically improve the sites together". This is an area where we've had some success, but more can definitely be done. The reason I said "outside" not "volunteer" is that they may be paid to work on something like MediaWiki, just not paid ''by'' WMF. The Apache Software Foundation is an example of an organization where many (not all) developers are paid (by various companies organizations), but they partner together to get things done. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==United States==<br />
On «support successful job candidates in attaining the legal right to work in the United States»: why only USA? What if they want to move elsewhere? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Maybe this should become "...to work from a WMF office in the United States", in case that's what's meant here. --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Or rather: Support succesful job candidates in attaining the legal right to work in the US should the need arise". Or something along those lines. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 14:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Yeah -- you're correct, we also support remote workers when people don't want to relocate and the job doesn't require it. I will reword :-) [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Here's what I changed it too -- let me know if this is clearer. "We aim to recruit talented people regardless of where they live, and depending on their preferences and the needs of the job, we support them in working remotely or relocating to the United States." Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::Does the trick, as far as I'm concerned. :) [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 21:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::::Yes, much clearer, thanks. <br />
::::::Ideally you'd be completely nation-neutral and support them in relocating to another country of their choice too, if suitable for them, and you could remove the "to the United States" bit. However, I understand this is an edge case. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::::Relocations are done because the WMF feels the employee should be in-office. Up until we open an office somewhere else I can't imagine that spending donor funds moving people to a country 'because they want to live there' would be optimal. [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 23:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::::::Yeah, Oliver is right. We have once or twice had staff who wanted to relocate for personal reasons. We are okay with them doing it when it doesn't interfere with their work (like, if they are moving from one non-SF location to another non-SF location, or if they used to work from SF, want to move elsewhere, and working remotely wouldn't hurt their ability to do their work). But in those cases, when they are moving for personal reasons, the WMF wouldn't pay for the move, and wouldn't arrange or pay for any services related to the move, such as immigration-related legal fees. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 20:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Serving every human being==<br />
This section looks weird being 7 sections away from «Freedom and open source» with «All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software» etc. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The emphasis on the development of new features is undue and likely to grate on both engineering staff and community, in my opinion. It is out of step with the custodian role which many individuals in both groups identify with. We should express a stronger commitment to high availability and site performance. --[[User:Ori.livneh|Ori.livneh]] ([[User talk:Ori.livneh|talk]]) 10:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Oh ha, Ori.livneh I think that's just clumsy wording on my part. I can see how it's easy to misread, but what you think I said is not what I meant to be saying. I'll revise. I'll also move this chunk up to be nearer to Freedom and Open Source. Thanks to you both [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Also, it talks about these being directed at "readers", and hoping to support them in starting to contribute - but we should probably also talk about supporting existing contributors. :-) [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 20:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: On Sue's request, I've tried to address these points with [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5334886&oldid=5334873 this edit].--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 23:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: It's better (thanks, Sue, Erik, and James) but it's still not quite right, in my opinion: rather than rank engineering priorities (features, performance, availability) and then work backwards to explain the values that motivate them (access, participation), I think the section ought to lead with a statement of values, and then explain how our engineering priorities reflect our effort to realize these values maximally. --[[User:Ori.livneh|Ori.livneh]] ([[User talk:Ori.livneh|talk]]) 11:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::: Want to take a crack at drafting something on talk?--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 20:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::: How about:<br />
:::::: <div style="border:1px solid silver; background:#eee; margin:0.5em; padding:1em 2em;">The Wikimedia Foundation aims to make <span style="background: #d8ecff;">the</span> material in the Wikimedia projects broadly accessible to all. <span style="background: #d8ecff;">We work to enable for the world education from, entertainment by, and engagement with our projects' content, and participation in the communities and processes that create them.</span> Ensuring <span style="background: #d8ecff;">the</span> continued reliability, availability and responsiveness of all Wikimedia sites and services is our first priority. In prioritizing new products and features, our goal is to impact the largest-possible number of readers and contributors, and to eliminate barriers that could preclude people from accessing or contributing to our projects, such as poor usability, lack of language support, and limited access to technology. We endeavour to create the structural support and the necessary preconditions for bottom-up innovation by others. We do not form agreements in which one organization is given access to material or functionality that others are denied. Where possible, we aim to preserve and support frictionless use of the material in the projects, so that people can share it widely and easily.</div><br />
:::::: Thoughts? Please forgive the "power of threes" and running alliterations. :-) I worry that this section is now trying to say too much; possibly split after "technology"? I'm not particularly attached to my wording, so don't worry about offending. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 05:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Communication==<br />
Do you think https://xkcd.com/802/ [https://xkcd.com/802_large/] applies to the WMF? (In particular, the proportions in the two maps on the top <s>right</s> left being zoomed.) --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Nemo, could you clarify which proportions you refer to by naming them? Top right is "Unread Updates". --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Ouch. I meant left, of course. :) Thanks, [[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Right to fork==<br />
Again nothing. [[Talk:Terms of use/Archives/2011-12-06#Right to Fork]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
* Probably more of a Wikimedia principle than a Wikimedia Foundation principle. Perhaps we need a separate list? :-) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 09:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
*: I doubt it: «principles intended to guide the work of the Wikimedia Foundation». Who else do you suggest to task with ensuring the right to fork? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: Sue asked me to explore some language around this, so I've taken a first crack at it with [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5334873&oldid=5334652 this edit].--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 23:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::: Thanks! Much better. I'll let the experts comment on the specific wording and if it covers all the essential (people would like to have something more than page history dumps, but what exactly is tricky). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 23:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::: If this idea is developed any further could someone ping me? I'm interested for obvious reasons. Thanks. -- [[User:ArielGlenn|ArielGlenn]] ([[User talk:ArielGlenn|talk]]) 09:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think this is covered now by Erik's language, right? <br />
<br />
''Consistent with the above principles, we support the right of third parties to make and maintain licensing-compliant copies and forks of Wikimedia content and Wikimedia-developed code, regardless of motivation or purpose. While we are generally not able to individually assist such efforts, we enable them by making available copies of Wikimedia content in bulk, and avoiding critical dependencies on proprietary code or services for maintaining a largely functionally equivalent fork.''<br />
<br />
Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 20:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Internationalism ==<br />
<br />
«''When we consider the community'' as a whole, we aim to consider all its languages and geographies and to avoid global initiatives that favor communities speaking only our languages» (emphasis added).<br />
I note that you're only talking of how you consider the community; what about «initiatives that favor communities speaking only our languages» in general? For instance, roughly how much of the WMF spending goes on initiatives that favor only English-language people (projects, users etc., readers) or only the USA? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Right to influence ==<br />
<br />
«Their work has earned [...] financial support sustaining the Wikimedia Foundation [...] and the global community has therefore earned the right to influence the work of the organizations»: it ''seems'' that you're stating that the only reason why someone has the "right to influence" the work is that they bring in dollars. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Transparency ==<br />
<br />
This section says "including employee guidelines". What happened to the public sharing of the [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Employee_Handbook Employee Handbook]? -- [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A|2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A]] 18:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
: I asked about this recently. It doesn't really seem relevant to this kind of document, though. There's a thread on wikimedia-l, I think, if you want to follow up. :-) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 21:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:: It explicitly says "As a matter of general practice, unless there’s a particular reason not to, we aim to publish internal organizational policies and procedures, including employee guidelines, financial policies, etc." I think it does belong here, because what the employees do is relevant, particularly to the donors who are essentially paying us. I agree the current reality around such employee procedures, etc. is not quite consistent with the document. There is some stuff on Office Wiki (a private WMF wiki for employees) that does not need to be confidential. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 23:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::: If only there were someone with access to both wikis with the technical know-how to move the pages. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 03:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::I'm pretty sure the staff handbook contains (amongst other things) access info to our healthcare providers, and other non-public information which should be stripped. I think that if someone did have the access and technical know-how to move the pages and acted on it, they'd swiftly find themselves losing the access ;p. As a general statement, the document ''should'' be moved over - but I imagine they want to get it finished and stable before combing through it to identify elements inappropriate for public consumption (otherwise you end up having to do multiple sweeps). [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 03:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::There are also sections which have been vetted by Legal and should not be open for editing by the public. This is one of the problems.--[[User:Jorm (WMF)|Jorm (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jorm (WMF)|talk]]) 23:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::: The legal team has no issue creating redacted PDFs. They just did for the [[NDA]]s. But they shouldn't be releasing documents in this way, of course. I've started some notes at [[legal docs]] for anyone interested. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 06:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Independence ==<br />
<br />
"Skillsets" is not a proper word. -- [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A|2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A]] 18:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
: Context, "Similarly, our Board of Trustees selection process is designed to encourage representation of different voices and skillsets, rather than recognizing donors or celebrities."<br />
: What would you recommend instead? "skill sets"? Something else? (This level of minor word tweaking you can really just do yourself, but I'm happy to proxy the edit for you from the talk page, if you'd like.) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 20:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: "Skillsets" is a reasonable word, but if the IP objects strenuously, we could use "sets of skills", which is rather po-faced. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 05:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::"Skillsets" is a perfectly cromulent word, even if my spell checker doesn't like it. If you're picky, write it as "skill sets". :) --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Frictionless and copyleft ==<br />
<br />
You might want to clarify this does not mean abandoning copyleft. Though not all WMF wikis use copyleft, many do, and there is general understanding of its benefits. I want to ensure people don't come later and start arguing that e.g. all new wikis should be non-copyleft to avoid "friction". [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 23:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Surely by definition, 'avoiding friction in reuse' would be 'copyleft' - it's talking about freedom for others to reuse our work, not freedom for us to reuse the work of others. Which WMF wikis are non-copyleft? [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 04:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:: Wikinews and Wikidata, for two. Copyleft licences are overly restrictive for wider re-use in some contexts. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 05:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Aha, we're talking less- rather than more-restrictive; my mistake :). [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 05:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Duplicate of [[wmf:Values]]? ==<br />
<br />
Hi. I wonder if these guiding principles aren't in some ways a duplicate of (or perhaps an update to) [[wmf:Values]]. What's the purpose of this document? Is it going to live alongside the [[wmf:mission|mission statement]], [[wmf:vision|vision statement]], etc.? Or will it end up being a Board resolution? Or something else? --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 04:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:It is similar, but more detailed than the values statement. I think the guiding principles are pretty well done, and cover some additional ground. It is worth considering if they could supersede the values statement, but there is some value in having a shorter document too. The guiding principles draft says, "It is likely that these principles will be presented to the Board of Trustees for their approval, at a future Board meeting." [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 16:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Free formats ==<br />
<br />
In re: ''All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software,'' can you clarify whether or not this is meant to mean that we will provide every file in free formats and thus not ''require'' the use of non-free software to view the file or does this mean that we will not provide the file in non-free formats at all? There seems to be some contention both internally and externally surrounding the possibility of providing non-free formats. I, personally, full appreciate having available to me free-formats, but when all of my devices have hardware-accelerated H.264 decoding, I would prefer to save cpu cycles and my battery when watching videos from commons. Similarly, there are some mobile devices that only support non-free formats and thus we currently do not support those users. -[[User:Pgehres (WMF)|Peter Gehres (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Pgehres (WMF)|talk]]) 05:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:We're working on that issue with legal internally... I'm certainly trying to push advocacy for explicit support of multi-format stack as officially acceptable, and would prefer clearer language on this as well. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Quality ==<br />
<br />
It strikes me that there is a glaring omission here. The current list of principles is a good set of ideologies, but surely the Wikimedia Foundation values high-quality content as much as it does the abstract principles like transparency and accountability. I understand that the Foundation does not generally (nor should) directly involve itself in the creation or judging of content on the projects, but certainly one of its core duties is encouraging or enabling the content creation, and one of the core implicit principles is that the content of the projects ought to be high-quality, comprehensive, authoritative, and so on (to the degree such quality descriptors are applicable to each project). To me, it seems like the omission of any principle that actually addresses the content of the projects is likely a matter of something being so obvious it didn't seem to need saying. I think it is important nonetheless, though. [[User:Dominic|Dominic]] ([[User talk:Dominic|talk]]) 06:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
: I agree. I think reiterating the [[wmf:mission statement|mission statement]] might be good here. (Related to the section above about [[wmf:values]], this page seems to be doing a bit of wheel reinvention....) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 06:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Ads? ==<br />
<br />
Is being ad-free a guiding principle? Relatedly, is being neutral? --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 07:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:On the neutrality issue... that seems perhaps too WIkipedia-specific? Wikivoyage, for instance, has [[:wikivoyage:Wikivoyage:Be fair|no neutrality policy]]. It seems like being independent is really the principle here, related to being ad-free, and that actually extends to other things like not being reliant on a few major donors. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think being ad-free is ''something we think is really great'', but the relevant guiding principle is indeed independence. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Mm, it's a little more than "really great"; Sue, Jimmy, and other board members have repeatedly stated for the record that Wikipedia will never show ads. So it's not accurate to present this as merely a strong preference; it has long been a firm commitment. (All this not to contradict that the principle here ''is'' independence rather than ''no ads''.) [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 22:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::IMO a commitment to not put ads on the site is more of a ''position'' than a ''principle''. We certainly don't advocate against advertisement culture the way we advocate for free speech and access to information. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 23:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Agreed. (your first comment did not acknowledge it was a committed position.) [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 23:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Free speech ==<br />
<br />
"Another crack at alternative wording: We aim to balance appropriately between our goal of being active internationally and our desire to minimize legal risk to the projects."<br />
:^ I worry this version doesn't actually say anything about being pro-free speech or making information available to everyone. One way to improve our international activity and lower our risk profile would be to censor information for certain countries to comply with local censorship or blasphemy laws, but I think we wouldn't consider that acceptable. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 19:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Thank you ==<br />
<br />
I just checked this page because I had a free moment (I am in an all-day annual planning meeting) and I want to say thank you to everyone who's contributing here -- this is a really useful conversation. Some of the language folks are proposing is really helpful, and there are a couple of places where the comments show that the existing language isn't nearly as clear as I thought it was. So this is good. I'll come back sometime over the next week, but please meanwhile continue to develop new needed language through discussion here -- it's very, very helpful. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]])<br />
<br />
== Wikimedia Brasil Statement of Principles ==<br />
Hi, I would like to suggest also the reading of the Statement of Principles made by the group of volunteers of Wikimedia in Brazil, in 2009, which has nice thoughts and can inspire a little those reading here:<br />
* [[:br:chapter:Wikimedia:Statement of Principles|Wikimedia Brasil - Statement of Principles]]<br />
I would like later, when I find time, to make comments on the internationalization section. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Tom]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 22:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Transparency: lack of IRS Form 990 ==<br />
<br />
Hello,<br />
<br />
The text mention we disclose the IRS form 990. The Financial page at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Financial_reports only shows the 2010-2011 form, thus we are missing the 2011-2012 form which should have been filled last year. [[User:Hashar|Ashar Voultoiz]] ([[User talk:Hashar|talk]]) 11:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:This isn't missing, just not there yet. :) The 2010-2011 form ([[:wmf:File:Form 990 - FY 10-11 - Public.pdf|here]]) was uploaded in May 2012. Previous years have been uploaded in [[:wmf::File:WMF 2009 2010 Form 990.pdf|April]], [[:wmf:File:WMF 2008 Form 990.pdf|May]], [[:wmf:File:WMF 2007 Form 990.pdf|May]] and [[:wmf:File:WMF 2006 Form 990.pdf|September]] of the year following the expiration of the fiscal year. Forms 990 are not due until the 15th day of the fifth month after the end of the fiscal year, with up to 180 days of extension if necessary. Last year's form 990 is still on schedule with previous years, and I'm sure it'll be uploaded sooner if ready. --[[User:Mdennis (WMF)|Maggie Dennis (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mdennis (WMF)|talk]]) 14:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Entities ==<br />
<br />
Thank you Sue for sharing and drafting this document in public! Reading the document – while understanding that it is aimed to describe current practice – I was a bit saddened to not see "movement entities" described in the context of partnership and cooperation in achieving the common goals. (There is some mention about giving movement entities money and freedom to do what they want, but I feel this does not live fully up to the [[mission]] statement, either in practice or at the level of principles.) –[[User:Bdamokos|Bence]] ([[User talk:Bdamokos|talk]]) 13:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== "Regardless of their title or position" ==<br />
<br />
"We aim to be careful with donors' money. We pay salaries that are fair but not lavish, and provide reasonable benefits (e.g., health and dental insurance) that are the same for all employees regardless of their title or position. We aim to incur only reasonable travel costs, and to keep work-related entertainment costs moderate."<br />
<br />
Hi. Is this recent? Was this envisioned when people were planning the catalyst programs? What about benefits as laptops and mobiles, how is the policy of WMF defined regading this? Best, --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Tom]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 18:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)</div>Sue Gardnerhttps://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resolution_talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles/Archive_1&diff=328103Resolution talk:Wikimedia Foundation Guiding Principles/Archive 12013-04-02T20:23:22Z<p>Sue Gardner: /* United States */ (WMF only pays for costs associated with relocation that benefits the WMF)</p>
<hr />
<div>== Freedom and open source ==<br />
"As an organization, we strive to use open source tools over proprietary ones, although we use proprietary or closed tools (such as software, operating systems, etc.) where there is currently no open-source tool that will effectively meet our needs." - Is there a requirement and process in place which forces people to publish an evaluation which open-source tools were considered and tested for a task in order to identify which specific functionality was only provided by closed-source tools? --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 18:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:<br />
:Well, maybe that is my impression because I work remotely, but I've seen some proprietary files been shared and proprietary softwares being used when we could have free software. For instance, microsoft documents or apple softwares. And I've heard the wifi network in SF office works better with apple stuff, which is kind of weird - I've visited SF office only once and I checked that, but I've heard the same from other online meetings. For pragmatical reasons, sometimes I know using some closed softwares can deliver things faster tho. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Ezalvarenga]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 19:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:I agree we could use a little more discipline on this. e.g. I'm not ''convinced'' all Mac users in the office would truly be significantly less effective at their work on Ubuntu machines. I do acknowledge some may be. I think it warrants some nudging/pushing, though. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 20:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::I think there's a huge distinction between closed source tools for personal productivity, and closed source tools for supporting the projects. This should be clarified in the text of the principles, because the current state of affairs is that we require FOSS when it comes to what is actually necessary for the projects to run, and we obviously don't when it comes to the office IT. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 22:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Thanks. In my initial posting I had shared tools in production (servers, webservices, etc.) in mind, but did not mean to refer to personal computers of individuals - that would be under the "personal freedom" category, and a published evaluation feels like overkill for such private cases. --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::Hi, Aklapper, I don't have time today to make a longer comment, but for the personal freedom, if everybody begin to use closed formats, people who wants to use open formats will be forced to use also closed ones. If a person doesn't want to buy an apple computer, but the wifi network forces people to do so or make their lifes with other hardwares difficult, sorry, a serious policy about that should change. Yes, people can choose whatever they want on their personal computers, but if the majority is using what is fashion, a conscious minitority will not have freedom to choose what they want. As an example, I do use sometimes closed softwares, like skype, but only when really necessary, like a partner or co-worker that prefers to use it. And I know the pain it is sometimes to use only Linux since 1998. :) In Brazil, at least, in the government level, we are trying to [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/thackday/WCmyz2jltF8/sKDd0xCPQaQJ BURN ALL THE DOCS]! There are also [https://groups.google.com/group/thackday/browse_thread/thread/4f94fbf09e4b6f54 bills] under way. ;D P. S. I could not even imagine close softwares on the server side. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Ezalvarenga]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 12:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Responding to a couple of you here. No, AKlapper, AFAIK there is no formal documented requirement/process for evaluation of when the Wikimedia Foundation uses a proprietary tool instead of an open source one. To date we've been small enough, and had a sufficient proportion of the staff who're personally dedicated to open source values, such that evaluation has tended to happen informally on a case-by-case basis, and it's worked reasonably well. Like, we made an organizational commitment to use CiviCRM early and we've stuck with that, and similarly I know that Finance & Admin uses proprietary accounting tools because early on some research was done that determined there was no acceptable open-source tool. I think those were both reasonable outcomes. Over the years we've toyed with the idea of developing a formal evaluation policy, but we have not done it. If you're suggesting we should, I would generally agree, but I also wouldn't say it's the thing Office IT should prioritize as most important and most urgent.<br />
<br />
More generally, in response to Ezalvarenga and Ijon, yes, I'd agree that our actual practices are likely imperfect -- there are probably some people at the Wikimedia Foundation using proprietary tools for individual use that could be replaced by open source tools. For example, I know that Legal has at some times used Microsoft Word for documents shared with external firms, when they probably could've insisted on using OpenOffice or LibreOffice without too much of a productivity hit.<br />
<br />
Frankly, individuals using proprietary tools has been a pretty big pain point for the Wikimedia Foundation. It's understandable: individual staff have widely varying levels of personal commitment to FLOSS, people want to be effective at work and so they want to use the tools that support them best, and people's work, and their needs, vary. No-one wants to be told they have no choice but to use X, whether X is Ubuntu/Thunderbird/LibreOffice or IE/Outlook/Word. That's utterly reasonable. So it's complex, and we're not going to capture a lot of complexity in a short statement. <br />
<br />
StevenW had proposed we modify the language here to distinguish between site production tools and personal/individual tools. Can somebody propose language for that, and for anything else here that might need clarification or finetuning? Feel free to make a change and I'll revert it or finetune it if I feel I need to. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Related reading: [[FLOSS-Exchange]]. I think focusing on the ideal (and its rationale, which Erik sort of touched on with his "right to fork" [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5334873&oldid=5334652 addition]), instead of what individuals might do, is a reasonable compromise. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 07:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think the line should be what's shared by the organization (or teams within the organization) and personal. For anything shared, we should make it free software/open source unless it's really unworkable (and even then, we should always keep an eye out for moving to free software as it improves). But if you want to use MS Word on your personal machine to write PHP that fully meets our coding conventions, more power to you ;). This basically [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&oldid=5335910#Freedom_and_open_source matches] the current text. But there are some cases where free software is workable for shared tools but we're not currently using them; as I said, we should try to change that. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Agreed with SteveW and others above that there's some distinction between what we share, what we use personally, and what we require others to use. Apple users in the office? Who cares, they're mostly running FOSS on top of Apple -- most of our ops folks and engineers live in a terminal and use standard Unix tools. Adobe Photoshop and proprietary-format files for graphics work? Maybe we do care, because you can't always use the PSD files without it. (I always advocate for SVG format for graphics, especially anything we intend to use in software or on sites that may need to be revisioned in the future.) Google Apps for email? Who cares, email is interoperable. Google Hangouts for video conferencing internally? Who cares? Google Hangouts for video conferencing including open community participation? Runs on Linux, but requires a proprietary plugin; not ideal but we accept it as the best compromise of several options for now. Maybe we care but we can live with it. etc. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::So the text now reads like this: <br />
<br />
::''The Wikimedia Foundation is deeply rooted in the values of the free culture and free software movements. With the exception of "fair use" material, all information in Wikimedia projects can be freely shared, freely distributed, freely modified and freely used for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, in perpetuity.''<br />
::''All code written by the Wikimedia Foundation is licensed under an applicable open source license. We realize our obligations not just to share code, but to cultivate a healthy community of contributors around the source code, and to work with upstream projects and contribute back improvements to their code.''<br />
::''All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software.''<br />
::''Consistent with the above principles, we support the right of third parties to make and maintain licensing-compliant copies and forks of Wikimedia content and Wikimedia-developed code, regardless of motivation or purpose. While we are generally not able to directly assist such efforts, we enable them by making available copies of Wikimedia content in bulk, and avoiding critical dependencies on proprietary code or services for maintaining a largely functionally equivalent fork.''<br />
::''As an organization, we strive to use open source tools over proprietary ones, although we use proprietary or closed tools (such as software, operating systems, etc.) where there is currently no open-source tool that will effectively meet our needs.''<br />
<br />
::Does this work for everybody? I could add some language specifically around personal tool use, but I feel like "where there's no open-source tool that would effectively meet our needs" covers it. Like, you use Illustrator if Gimp isn't good enough for what you need. Let me know if anyone feels like this language isn't clear/accurate: otherwise I'll consider this thread resolved. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 21:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: As a very minor piece of word-smithing, I'd change "not able to directly assist such efforts" to "not able to individually assist such efforts" - we do directly help such efforts with data dumps and tools, we just don't have the resources to give human attention individually to such efforts. But yes, looks good to go otherwise. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 22:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::: Done -- thanks James :-) [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 17:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Quick suggestion... ==<br />
<br />
[https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASue_Gardner%2FWikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5332950&oldid=5331958 ], which I made before seeing the request to comment first. Anyway, "serving every human being" seems a bit disingenuous, since we really aim to serve every literate human being with access to data and a digital device. ;-) The goal of providing equal access to all seems fairer, and more in line the the section's comments about well, accessibility. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 00:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:"equal access to all" is, er, equally disingenuous, as, by your own phrase, we're providing equal access only to "every literate human being with access to data and a digital device".<br />
:Furthermore, I actually do think we ''strive'' to serve every human being. Remember the free knowledge the Wikimedia community creates and shares is consumed offline too, not to mention the huge value of secondary use -- the knowledge worked into presentations, newspapers, books, radio and TV programs -- all consumed by hundreds of millions ''more'' than the group consuming it directly from our Web sites. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 00:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Yeah, I agree with Ijon. The language is "aims to" and "endeavours to," so I think it's appropriately framed as aspirational. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Actually, it's not quite that limited. We do generally serve literate people, but there are actually readings of many articles (e.g. see [[:w:Template:Spoken Wikipedia|Template:Spoken Wikipedia]], I'm sure among others). There are also various mechanisms for printing Wikipedia (some in-house, some just people trying to make money by selling Wikipedia books), so you don't need a digital device. The fact that we've consistently used fully free licenses for our content (except fair use extracts) has facilitated all of that. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Commons serves non-literate people indirectly. {{Smiley}} —[[User:Tom Morris|Tom Morris]] ([[User talk:Tom Morris|talk]]) 19:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Getting rich ==<br />
<br />
On «nobody is getting rich by working at the Wikimedia Foundation»: define "rich". For instance, I'm a student but I'm very rich compared to most world population and richer than millions of Italians (so, when serving in my university board I raised tuition fees for myself/my income range). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Yeah obviously "getting rich" is relative. It's only when you compare [[:wiktionary:apples and oranges|apples to apples]] and look at other tech and nonprofit compensation schemes that you see what is meant. In any case, it's pretty awesome that we want to put that among our guiding principles, right? <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Edit conflict with StevenW! And yeah, Steven, I agree. I think the key word here is "getting." Nemo is correct of course that by world population standards, everybody who works at the Wikimedia Foundation is rich. But we were born rich, we did not "get" rich through our work at the Wikimedia Foundation. The point here is that working at the Wikimedia Foundation is not a path to dramatically improving one's personal wealth. Thanks. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::I tend to see those negative statements ("'''not''' getting rich") as putting things in people's head that you don't want there in the first place. You say "not getting rich" (and I am on par with both Steven's and your interpretation on this) and all people seem to read/hear is "rich". Maybe we should try to find a positive statement for this? I'm kind of stuck though for a good one. "If you want to get rich, go work somewhere else"? -- ok, that one is stupid, but maybe you get my point? [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 21:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::I suspected that the point was in ''getting'', however this is tricky. One may get "richer" by going to work in the WMF for career reasons, compared to the previous work (or country?), comparatively getting "poorer" than possible in some other place, however the latter is mostly impossible to prove. "Nobody is getting richer" would be clearer but is technically wrong.<br />
:::Maybe: "we aim at level of income not being an important [the most important? one of the most important?] motivation[s] for someone to stay at the WMF", which implies there are different/contrasting motivations (presumably honest ;) ) without getting lost in defining which, and that income may be sacrificed. This is probably what is meant hear; no idea if it is positive enough as per notafish. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC) <small>P.s.: Steven, personally I don't care that much if someone gets rich at the WMF, as long as it's not by fleeing with the cash. :) I just like clarity.</small><br />
::::Seems a bit "off" for Sue Gardner to be commenting on "not getting rich" when her salary exceeds that of about 99% of American wage earners. -- [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A|2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A]] 18:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
I've just removed the phrase about getting rich. I think "fair but not lavish" covers it :-) Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 22:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Reasonable travel costs==<br />
«We aim to incur only reasonable travel costs: the general policy is to travel economy class and stay in moderately-priced hotels»: were $225K for staff (and board) at Wikimania reasonable? [[Talk:Wikimedia budget#Wikimania travel question]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:How much is that per person sent to Wikimania that year? I think looking at the total for shock value is unfair. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Nemo we're not making a commitment here to reduce travel costs, or to minimize travel. (I wouldn't want to do that: with a growing staff that operates as part of a global community that stages many international events such as Wikimania, the chapters' meeting and various hackathons, it strikes me that a focus on reducing travel costs would be a net negative not a net plus. I expect travel costs to be a not-insubstantial chunk of the Wikimedia Foundation budget: that seems eminently reasonable to me given the nature of our work.) The point here is simply that when we travel, we aim to do it moderately not luxuriously. The nuts-and-bolts of how we do that are captured in [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Travel_policy the travel policy], but the purpose of this statement is simply to summarize the overall intent. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::So in short yes, you think it's reasonable. :) <small>I don't know if it was: while you do or can know all the details on the alternatives and other considerations, I can't judge — no opinion at all.</small> Given that "reasonable" conveys little, you may consider removing «to incur only reasonable travel costs: the general policy is » and leaving only the straightforward part of the statement.<br />
:::Ideally (IMHO), we'd include some other criteria, like the impact:cost ratio (which you hinted to), usage of cheapest means of transportation, miscellaneous synergies (dumb example: double rooms instead of single where possible? and other more impactful stuff), with the disclaimer that all this must be applied fairly (see other section on benefits/reimbursements). I have no idea what are the current practices on all this so I don't know where to start, but I'm confident a compact form is possible. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::Hey Nemo, please see my comment in Title and Position (the next section down). Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 17:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Title or position==<br />
«People at the Wikimedia Foundation get the same benefits regardless of their title or position». <br />
*Who's "people"? Are you including all managers, trustees and employees?<br />
*What's "benefits" and how do you measure if "salaries" are "fair"? Are you considering only accessories or also the actual wage, before or after taxes, pension contributions etc.?<br />
*What are you including in "title or position" (or other comparison for "fair")? For instance, remote worker vs. office worker, full time vs. part time, staff vs. contractor.<br />
--[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:*Well, people does include at least all staff if you read further "regardless of their title or position". This should include everyone. As for Trustees, you've got a point, "people" is not clear and should probably be changed to "Staff" when it comes to benefits. I do not believe Trustees get benefits, even though they might benefit from insurance and related stuff when it comes to their work for the Foundation. It might make sense here to differentiate between staff/volunteers or something along those lines. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 14:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::To be clear: yes, the statement's intended to refer to all staff, and I can change the word "people" to "staff." There is detail available in the document [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/2a/Wikimedia_Foundation_Compensation_Practices.pdf Wikimedia Foundation Compensation Practices]. And for Notafish, yes, the trustees don't get any benefits. Expenses they incur on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation are reimbursed as per the policies, but they receive no compensation in the form of salary or other benefits. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::I think Staff makes sense in that context, thanks for clarifying. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 21:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC) <small>(Sue, it's '''n'''otafish, with a small '''n''', and I'm stupidly particular about it. If you want a capital, go with Delphine ;)</small><br />
:::::Thank you, Sue, this clarifies the first point: only two left in this section. :)<br />
:::::On "benefits", the exact meaning of the word (or lexical equivalent) varies quite a lot across jurisdictions and fiscal systems, as far as I know, so it's not safe to assume everyone will get what you mean. I understand that reimbursements are a different matter, but it would be nice if they were fair and independent from title etc., too. (I suppose they already mostly are?) --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::: Yeah, in the U.S. "benefits" is generally understood not to include salary (people talk about "salary plus benefits") (it's basically everything ''but'' salary). However, that might not be true in other countries/languages. Also, the 401(k) maximum match is a fixed percentage of salary. While the percentage is the same across position, the amount (n% × salary) technically is not. However, it's true this is a fine distinction. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
*'Staff' is normally understood to mean Employees + Contractors, where contractors are afforded fewer benefits (if any at all). I'd suggest amending to specify 'Employees at...'. [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 23:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
**I'd kind of like us to provide fair benefits to all staff including international contractors, but of course jurisdictions make things.... difficult. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 19:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::: As per Oliver and others, I changed "staff" to "employees" for clarity. I do wish the WMF could provide equivalent benefits to everyone regardless of their official status (i.e., staff versus contractor) but Brion is right, it's very complex. Having said that, I'm pleased we do provide additional benefits to all U.S. employees beyond what's provided by the state. In many/most countries, the state provides the basics: in the United States it does not, and so employer-provided health insurance is critical. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 17:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::: Okay I just rewrote this section. <br />
<br />
::::''We aim to be careful with donors' money. We pay salaries that are fair but not lavish, and provide reasonable benefits (e.g., health and dental insurance) that are the same for all employees regardless of their title or position. We aim to incur only reasonable travel costs, and to keep work-related entertainment costs moderate.'' <br />
<br />
::::Purpose of the rewrite is just clarity/simplicity. Nemo, rather than expanding the travel-related part with more detail I made it higher-level. [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Travel_policy The full travel policy is here], and it's an official Board policy, so if it changes it would be updated on that page. Folks, let me know if aiming "to keep work-related entertainment costs moderate" is clear enough. Again, there is a [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Duty_entertainment_guidelines_policy more detailed policy on this]. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 17:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Accountable==<br />
«The Wikimedia Foundation wants to be accountable to [...]». Please clarify how the concept of accountability applies here: «responsible for your decisions or actions and expected to explain them when you are asked»[http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/accountable] (are there processes to be responsible of your actions in front of the readers, receive their questions and explain? etc.). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Sure, of course there are processes to be responsible to the readers of the projects. Reader surveys. User testing. OTRS. The blogs. The annual reports. The regular publication of activity reports, performance reports, financial statements. Social media. Engagement with charity watchdog groups. Public mailing lists. Bugzilla. Office hours on IRC. Events for donors. This page, and many other on-wiki consultations related to feature development, policy development, and so forth. There are probably lots I am forgetting :-) Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Shared power==<br />
This section seems entirely useless, in that it lists a lot of minor ephemeral details from the ''here and now'' and no actual "principles" that may "guide" any action. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:The purpose of this section is to explicitly acknowledge that the Wikimedia Foundation works in partnership with a global community of volunteers -- that the Wikimedia Foundation is not the sole or even primary actor in fulfilling the Wikimedia mission, and that it needs to conduct itself accordingly, by creating mechanisms and processes enabling the community to have influence on its actions. Because we are interdependent partners. I think this is a pretty fundamental and important point to make, because in this regard we are different from practically everybody else. (What I mean by that: eBay and Facebook and Yelp may also have a social purpose or utility, but their primary purpose is to make money, and "community members" are a resource to be managed by the company to that end. In our case, the primary purpose of the movement is to make knowledge freely available to everyone around the world, and the Wikimedia Foundation and the global community of volunteers play different and complementary roles in achieving that shared goal.) So I wonder if that's not clear -- if my wording is just mucky. If so, can someone help propose better, more useful language? Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]])<br />
:The shared power section does mention volunteer "developers". However, I would like to see more emphasis on this. Something like "The Wikimedia Foundation strives to continually increase its partnership with outside developers, project managers, and system adminstrators so we can technically improve the sites together". This is an area where we've had some success, but more can definitely be done. The reason I said "outside" not "volunteer" is that they may be paid to work on something like MediaWiki, just not paid ''by'' WMF. The Apache Software Foundation is an example of an organization where many (not all) developers are paid (by various companies organizations), but they partner together to get things done. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==United States==<br />
On «support successful job candidates in attaining the legal right to work in the United States»: why only USA? What if they want to move elsewhere? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Maybe this should become "...to work from a WMF office in the United States", in case that's what's meant here. --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Or rather: Support succesful job candidates in attaining the legal right to work in the US should the need arise". Or something along those lines. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 14:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Yeah -- you're correct, we also support remote workers when people don't want to relocate and the job doesn't require it. I will reword :-) [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Here's what I changed it too -- let me know if this is clearer. "We aim to recruit talented people regardless of where they live, and depending on their preferences and the needs of the job, we support them in working remotely or relocating to the United States." Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::Does the trick, as far as I'm concerned. :) [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 21:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::::Yes, much clearer, thanks. <br />
::::::Ideally you'd be completely nation-neutral and support them in relocating to another country of their choice too, if suitable for them, and you could remove the "to the United States" bit. However, I understand this is an edge case. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::::Relocations are done because the WMF feels the employee should be in-office. Up until we open an office somewhere else I can't imagine that spending donor funds moving people to a country 'because they want to live there' would be optimal. [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 23:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::::::Yeah, Oliver is right. We have once or twice had staff who wanted to relocate for personal reasons. We are okay with them doing it when it doesn't interfere with their work (like, if they are moving from one non-SF location to another non-SF location, or if they used to work from SF, want to move elsewhere, and working remotely wouldn't hurt their ability to do their work). But in those cases, when they are moving for personal reasons, the WMF wouldn't pay for the move, and wouldn't arrange or pay for any services related to the move, such as immigration-related legal fees. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 20:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Serving every human being==<br />
This section looks weird being 7 sections away from «Freedom and open source» with «All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software» etc. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The emphasis on the development of new features is undue and likely to grate on both engineering staff and community, in my opinion. It is out of step with the custodian role which many individuals in both groups identify with. We should express a stronger commitment to high availability and site performance. --[[User:Ori.livneh|Ori.livneh]] ([[User talk:Ori.livneh|talk]]) 10:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Oh ha, Ori.livneh I think that's just clumsy wording on my part. I can see how it's easy to misread, but what you think I said is not what I meant to be saying. I'll revise. I'll also move this chunk up to be nearer to Freedom and Open Source. Thanks to you both [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Also, it talks about these being directed at "readers", and hoping to support them in starting to contribute - but we should probably also talk about supporting existing contributors. :-) [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 20:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: On Sue's request, I've tried to address these points with [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5334886&oldid=5334873 this edit].--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 23:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: It's better (thanks, Sue, Erik, and James) but it's still not quite right, in my opinion: rather than rank engineering priorities (features, performance, availability) and then work backwards to explain the values that motivate them (access, participation), I think the section ought to lead with a statement of values, and then explain how our engineering priorities reflect our effort to realize these values maximally. --[[User:Ori.livneh|Ori.livneh]] ([[User talk:Ori.livneh|talk]]) 11:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::: Want to take a crack at drafting something on talk?--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 20:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::: How about:<br />
:::::: <div style="border:1px solid silver; background:#eee; margin:0.5em; padding:1em 2em;">The Wikimedia Foundation aims to make <span style="background: #d8ecff;">the</span> material in the Wikimedia projects broadly accessible to all. <span style="background: #d8ecff;">We work to enable for the world education from, entertainment by, and engagement with our projects' content, and participation in the communities and processes that create them.</span> Ensuring <span style="background: #d8ecff;">the</span> continued reliability, availability and responsiveness of all Wikimedia sites and services is our first priority. In prioritizing new products and features, our goal is to impact the largest-possible number of readers and contributors, and to eliminate barriers that could preclude people from accessing or contributing to our projects, such as poor usability, lack of language support, and limited access to technology. We endeavour to create the structural support and the necessary preconditions for bottom-up innovation by others. We do not form agreements in which one organization is given access to material or functionality that others are denied. Where possible, we aim to preserve and support frictionless use of the material in the projects, so that people can share it widely and easily.</div><br />
:::::: Thoughts? Please forgive the "power of threes" and running alliterations. :-) I worry that this section is now trying to say too much; possibly split after "technology"? I'm not particularly attached to my wording, so don't worry about offending. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 05:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Communication==<br />
Do you think https://xkcd.com/802/ [https://xkcd.com/802_large/] applies to the WMF? (In particular, the proportions in the two maps on the top <s>right</s> left being zoomed.) --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Nemo, could you clarify which proportions you refer to by naming them? Top right is "Unread Updates". --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Ouch. I meant left, of course. :) Thanks, [[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Right to fork==<br />
Again nothing. [[Talk:Terms of use/Archives/2011-12-06#Right to Fork]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
* Probably more of a Wikimedia principle than a Wikimedia Foundation principle. Perhaps we need a separate list? :-) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 09:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
*: I doubt it: «principles intended to guide the work of the Wikimedia Foundation». Who else do you suggest to task with ensuring the right to fork? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: Sue asked me to explore some language around this, so I've taken a first crack at it with [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5334873&oldid=5334652 this edit].--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 23:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::: Thanks! Much better. I'll let the experts comment on the specific wording and if it covers all the essential (people would like to have something more than page history dumps, but what exactly is tricky). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 23:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::: If this idea is developed any further could someone ping me? I'm interested for obvious reasons. Thanks. -- [[User:ArielGlenn|ArielGlenn]] ([[User talk:ArielGlenn|talk]]) 09:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Internationalism ==<br />
<br />
«''When we consider the community'' as a whole, we aim to consider all its languages and geographies and to avoid global initiatives that favor communities speaking only our languages» (emphasis added).<br />
I note that you're only talking of how you consider the community; what about «initiatives that favor communities speaking only our languages» in general? For instance, roughly how much of the WMF spending goes on initiatives that favor only English-language people (projects, users etc., readers) or only the USA? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Right to influence ==<br />
<br />
«Their work has earned [...] financial support sustaining the Wikimedia Foundation [...] and the global community has therefore earned the right to influence the work of the organizations»: it ''seems'' that you're stating that the only reason why someone has the "right to influence" the work is that they bring in dollars. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Transparency ==<br />
<br />
This section says "including employee guidelines". What happened to the public sharing of the [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Employee_Handbook Employee Handbook]? -- [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A|2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A]] 18:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
: I asked about this recently. It doesn't really seem relevant to this kind of document, though. There's a thread on wikimedia-l, I think, if you want to follow up. :-) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 21:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:: It explicitly says "As a matter of general practice, unless there’s a particular reason not to, we aim to publish internal organizational policies and procedures, including employee guidelines, financial policies, etc." I think it does belong here, because what the employees do is relevant, particularly to the donors who are essentially paying us. I agree the current reality around such employee procedures, etc. is not quite consistent with the document. There is some stuff on Office Wiki (a private WMF wiki for employees) that does not need to be confidential. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 23:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::: If only there were someone with access to both wikis with the technical know-how to move the pages. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 03:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::I'm pretty sure the staff handbook contains (amongst other things) access info to our healthcare providers, and other non-public information which should be stripped. I think that if someone did have the access and technical know-how to move the pages and acted on it, they'd swiftly find themselves losing the access ;p. As a general statement, the document ''should'' be moved over - but I imagine they want to get it finished and stable before combing through it to identify elements inappropriate for public consumption (otherwise you end up having to do multiple sweeps). [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 03:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::There are also sections which have been vetted by Legal and should not be open for editing by the public. This is one of the problems.--[[User:Jorm (WMF)|Jorm (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jorm (WMF)|talk]]) 23:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::: The legal team has no issue creating redacted PDFs. They just did for the [[NDA]]s. But they shouldn't be releasing documents in this way, of course. I've started some notes at [[legal docs]] for anyone interested. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 06:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Independence ==<br />
<br />
"Skillsets" is not a proper word. -- [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A|2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A]] 18:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
: Context, "Similarly, our Board of Trustees selection process is designed to encourage representation of different voices and skillsets, rather than recognizing donors or celebrities."<br />
: What would you recommend instead? "skill sets"? Something else? (This level of minor word tweaking you can really just do yourself, but I'm happy to proxy the edit for you from the talk page, if you'd like.) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 20:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: "Skillsets" is a reasonable word, but if the IP objects strenuously, we could use "sets of skills", which is rather po-faced. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 05:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::"Skillsets" is a perfectly cromulent word, even if my spell checker doesn't like it. If you're picky, write it as "skill sets". :) --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Frictionless and copyleft ==<br />
<br />
You might want to clarify this does not mean abandoning copyleft. Though not all WMF wikis use copyleft, many do, and there is general understanding of its benefits. I want to ensure people don't come later and start arguing that e.g. all new wikis should be non-copyleft to avoid "friction". [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 23:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Surely by definition, 'avoiding friction in reuse' would be 'copyleft' - it's talking about freedom for others to reuse our work, not freedom for us to reuse the work of others. Which WMF wikis are non-copyleft? [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 04:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:: Wikinews and Wikidata, for two. Copyleft licences are overly restrictive for wider re-use in some contexts. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 05:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Aha, we're talking less- rather than more-restrictive; my mistake :). [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 05:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Duplicate of [[wmf:Values]]? ==<br />
<br />
Hi. I wonder if these guiding principles aren't in some ways a duplicate of (or perhaps an update to) [[wmf:Values]]. What's the purpose of this document? Is it going to live alongside the [[wmf:mission|mission statement]], [[wmf:vision|vision statement]], etc.? Or will it end up being a Board resolution? Or something else? --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 04:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:It is similar, but more detailed than the values statement. I think the guiding principles are pretty well done, and cover some additional ground. It is worth considering if they could supersede the values statement, but there is some value in having a shorter document too. The guiding principles draft says, "It is likely that these principles will be presented to the Board of Trustees for their approval, at a future Board meeting." [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 16:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Free formats ==<br />
<br />
In re: ''All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software,'' can you clarify whether or not this is meant to mean that we will provide every file in free formats and thus not ''require'' the use of non-free software to view the file or does this mean that we will not provide the file in non-free formats at all? There seems to be some contention both internally and externally surrounding the possibility of providing non-free formats. I, personally, full appreciate having available to me free-formats, but when all of my devices have hardware-accelerated H.264 decoding, I would prefer to save cpu cycles and my battery when watching videos from commons. Similarly, there are some mobile devices that only support non-free formats and thus we currently do not support those users. -[[User:Pgehres (WMF)|Peter Gehres (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Pgehres (WMF)|talk]]) 05:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:We're working on that issue with legal internally... I'm certainly trying to push advocacy for explicit support of multi-format stack as officially acceptable, and would prefer clearer language on this as well. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Quality ==<br />
<br />
It strikes me that there is a glaring omission here. The current list of principles is a good set of ideologies, but surely the Wikimedia Foundation values high-quality content as much as it does the abstract principles like transparency and accountability. I understand that the Foundation does not generally (nor should) directly involve itself in the creation or judging of content on the projects, but certainly one of its core duties is encouraging or enabling the content creation, and one of the core implicit principles is that the content of the projects ought to be high-quality, comprehensive, authoritative, and so on (to the degree such quality descriptors are applicable to each project). To me, it seems like the omission of any principle that actually addresses the content of the projects is likely a matter of something being so obvious it didn't seem to need saying. I think it is important nonetheless, though. [[User:Dominic|Dominic]] ([[User talk:Dominic|talk]]) 06:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
: I agree. I think reiterating the [[wmf:mission statement|mission statement]] might be good here. (Related to the section above about [[wmf:values]], this page seems to be doing a bit of wheel reinvention....) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 06:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Ads? ==<br />
<br />
Is being ad-free a guiding principle? Relatedly, is being neutral? --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 07:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:On the neutrality issue... that seems perhaps too WIkipedia-specific? Wikivoyage, for instance, has [[:wikivoyage:Wikivoyage:Be fair|no neutrality policy]]. It seems like being independent is really the principle here, related to being ad-free, and that actually extends to other things like not being reliant on a few major donors. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think being ad-free is ''something we think is really great'', but the relevant guiding principle is indeed independence. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Mm, it's a little more than "really great"; Sue, Jimmy, and other board members have repeatedly stated for the record that Wikipedia will never show ads. So it's not accurate to present this as merely a strong preference; it has long been a firm commitment. (All this not to contradict that the principle here ''is'' independence rather than ''no ads''.) [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 22:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::IMO a commitment to not put ads on the site is more of a ''position'' than a ''principle''. We certainly don't advocate against advertisement culture the way we advocate for free speech and access to information. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 23:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Agreed. (your first comment did not acknowledge it was a committed position.) [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 23:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Free speech ==<br />
<br />
"Another crack at alternative wording: We aim to balance appropriately between our goal of being active internationally and our desire to minimize legal risk to the projects."<br />
:^ I worry this version doesn't actually say anything about being pro-free speech or making information available to everyone. One way to improve our international activity and lower our risk profile would be to censor information for certain countries to comply with local censorship or blasphemy laws, but I think we wouldn't consider that acceptable. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 19:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Thank you ==<br />
<br />
I just checked this page because I had a free moment (I am in an all-day annual planning meeting) and I want to say thank you to everyone who's contributing here -- this is a really useful conversation. Some of the language folks are proposing is really helpful, and there are a couple of places where the comments show that the existing language isn't nearly as clear as I thought it was. So this is good. I'll come back sometime over the next week, but please meanwhile continue to develop new needed language through discussion here -- it's very, very helpful. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]])<br />
<br />
== Wikimedia Brasil Statement of Principles ==<br />
Hi, I would like to suggest also the reading of the Statement of Principles made by the group of volunteers of Wikimedia in Brazil, in 2009, which has nice thoughts and can inspire a little those reading here:<br />
* [[:br:chapter:Wikimedia:Statement of Principles|Wikimedia Brasil - Statement of Principles]]<br />
I would like later, when I find time, to make comments on the internationalization section. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Tom]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 22:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Transparency: lack of IRS Form 990 ==<br />
<br />
Hello,<br />
<br />
The text mention we disclose the IRS form 990. The Financial page at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Financial_reports only shows the 2010-2011 form, thus we are missing the 2011-2012 form which should have been filled last year. [[User:Hashar|Ashar Voultoiz]] ([[User talk:Hashar|talk]]) 11:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:This isn't missing, just not there yet. :) The 2010-2011 form ([[:wmf:File:Form 990 - FY 10-11 - Public.pdf|here]]) was uploaded in May 2012. Previous years have been uploaded in [[:wmf::File:WMF 2009 2010 Form 990.pdf|April]], [[:wmf:File:WMF 2008 Form 990.pdf|May]], [[:wmf:File:WMF 2007 Form 990.pdf|May]] and [[:wmf:File:WMF 2006 Form 990.pdf|September]] of the year following the expiration of the fiscal year. Forms 990 are not due until the 15th day of the fifth month after the end of the fiscal year, with up to 180 days of extension if necessary. Last year's form 990 is still on schedule with previous years, and I'm sure it'll be uploaded sooner if ready. --[[User:Mdennis (WMF)|Maggie Dennis (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mdennis (WMF)|talk]]) 14:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Entities ==<br />
<br />
Thank you Sue for sharing and drafting this document in public! Reading the document – while understanding that it is aimed to describe current practice – I was a bit saddened to not see "movement entities" described in the context of partnership and cooperation in achieving the common goals. (There is some mention about giving movement entities money and freedom to do what they want, but I feel this does not live fully up to the [[mission]] statement, either in practice or at the level of principles.) –[[User:Bdamokos|Bence]] ([[User talk:Bdamokos|talk]]) 13:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== "Regardless of their title or position" ==<br />
<br />
"We aim to be careful with donors' money. We pay salaries that are fair but not lavish, and provide reasonable benefits (e.g., health and dental insurance) that are the same for all employees regardless of their title or position. We aim to incur only reasonable travel costs, and to keep work-related entertainment costs moderate."<br />
<br />
Hi. Is this recent? Was this envisioned when people were planning the catalyst programs? What about benefits as laptops and mobiles, how is the policy of WMF defined regading this? Best, --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Tom]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 18:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)</div>Sue Gardnerhttps://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resolution_talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles/Archive_1&diff=328101Resolution talk:Wikimedia Foundation Guiding Principles/Archive 12013-04-02T17:29:17Z<p>Sue Gardner: /* Reasonable travel costs */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Freedom and open source ==<br />
"As an organization, we strive to use open source tools over proprietary ones, although we use proprietary or closed tools (such as software, operating systems, etc.) where there is currently no open-source tool that will effectively meet our needs." - Is there a requirement and process in place which forces people to publish an evaluation which open-source tools were considered and tested for a task in order to identify which specific functionality was only provided by closed-source tools? --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 18:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:<br />
:Well, maybe that is my impression because I work remotely, but I've seen some proprietary files been shared and proprietary softwares being used when we could have free software. For instance, microsoft documents or apple softwares. And I've heard the wifi network in SF office works better with apple stuff, which is kind of weird - I've visited SF office only once and I checked that, but I've heard the same from other online meetings. For pragmatical reasons, sometimes I know using some closed softwares can deliver things faster tho. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Ezalvarenga]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 19:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:I agree we could use a little more discipline on this. e.g. I'm not ''convinced'' all Mac users in the office would truly be significantly less effective at their work on Ubuntu machines. I do acknowledge some may be. I think it warrants some nudging/pushing, though. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 20:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::I think there's a huge distinction between closed source tools for personal productivity, and closed source tools for supporting the projects. This should be clarified in the text of the principles, because the current state of affairs is that we require FOSS when it comes to what is actually necessary for the projects to run, and we obviously don't when it comes to the office IT. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 22:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Thanks. In my initial posting I had shared tools in production (servers, webservices, etc.) in mind, but did not mean to refer to personal computers of individuals - that would be under the "personal freedom" category, and a published evaluation feels like overkill for such private cases. --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::Hi, Aklapper, I don't have time today to make a longer comment, but for the personal freedom, if everybody begin to use closed formats, people who wants to use open formats will be forced to use also closed ones. If a person doesn't want to buy an apple computer, but the wifi network forces people to do so or make their lifes with other hardwares difficult, sorry, a serious policy about that should change. Yes, people can choose whatever they want on their personal computers, but if the majority is using what is fashion, a conscious minitority will not have freedom to choose what they want. As an example, I do use sometimes closed softwares, like skype, but only when really necessary, like a partner or co-worker that prefers to use it. And I know the pain it is sometimes to use only Linux since 1998. :) In Brazil, at least, in the government level, we are trying to [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/thackday/WCmyz2jltF8/sKDd0xCPQaQJ BURN ALL THE DOCS]! There are also [https://groups.google.com/group/thackday/browse_thread/thread/4f94fbf09e4b6f54 bills] under way. ;D P. S. I could not even imagine close softwares on the server side. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Ezalvarenga]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 12:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Responding to a couple of you here. No, AKlapper, AFAIK there is no formal documented requirement/process for evaluation of when the Wikimedia Foundation uses a proprietary tool instead of an open source one. To date we've been small enough, and had a sufficient proportion of the staff who're personally dedicated to open source values, such that evaluation has tended to happen informally on a case-by-case basis, and it's worked reasonably well. Like, we made an organizational commitment to use CiviCRM early and we've stuck with that, and similarly I know that Finance & Admin uses proprietary accounting tools because early on some research was done that determined there was no acceptable open-source tool. I think those were both reasonable outcomes. Over the years we've toyed with the idea of developing a formal evaluation policy, but we have not done it. If you're suggesting we should, I would generally agree, but I also wouldn't say it's the thing Office IT should prioritize as most important and most urgent.<br />
<br />
More generally, in response to Ezalvarenga and Ijon, yes, I'd agree that our actual practices are likely imperfect -- there are probably some people at the Wikimedia Foundation using proprietary tools for individual use that could be replaced by open source tools. For example, I know that Legal has at some times used Microsoft Word for documents shared with external firms, when they probably could've insisted on using OpenOffice or LibreOffice without too much of a productivity hit.<br />
<br />
Frankly, individuals using proprietary tools has been a pretty big pain point for the Wikimedia Foundation. It's understandable: individual staff have widely varying levels of personal commitment to FLOSS, people want to be effective at work and so they want to use the tools that support them best, and people's work, and their needs, vary. No-one wants to be told they have no choice but to use X, whether X is Ubuntu/Thunderbird/LibreOffice or IE/Outlook/Word. That's utterly reasonable. So it's complex, and we're not going to capture a lot of complexity in a short statement. <br />
<br />
StevenW had proposed we modify the language here to distinguish between site production tools and personal/individual tools. Can somebody propose language for that, and for anything else here that might need clarification or finetuning? Feel free to make a change and I'll revert it or finetune it if I feel I need to. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Related reading: [[FLOSS-Exchange]]. I think focusing on the ideal (and its rationale, which Erik sort of touched on with his "right to fork" [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5334873&oldid=5334652 addition]), instead of what individuals might do, is a reasonable compromise. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 07:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think the line should be what's shared by the organization (or teams within the organization) and personal. For anything shared, we should make it free software/open source unless it's really unworkable (and even then, we should always keep an eye out for moving to free software as it improves). But if you want to use MS Word on your personal machine to write PHP that fully meets our coding conventions, more power to you ;). This basically [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&oldid=5335910#Freedom_and_open_source matches] the current text. But there are some cases where free software is workable for shared tools but we're not currently using them; as I said, we should try to change that. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Agreed with SteveW and others above that there's some distinction between what we share, what we use personally, and what we require others to use. Apple users in the office? Who cares, they're mostly running FOSS on top of Apple -- most of our ops folks and engineers live in a terminal and use standard Unix tools. Adobe Photoshop and proprietary-format files for graphics work? Maybe we do care, because you can't always use the PSD files without it. (I always advocate for SVG format for graphics, especially anything we intend to use in software or on sites that may need to be revisioned in the future.) Google Apps for email? Who cares, email is interoperable. Google Hangouts for video conferencing internally? Who cares? Google Hangouts for video conferencing including open community participation? Runs on Linux, but requires a proprietary plugin; not ideal but we accept it as the best compromise of several options for now. Maybe we care but we can live with it. etc. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::So the text now reads like this: <br />
<br />
::''The Wikimedia Foundation is deeply rooted in the values of the free culture and free software movements. With the exception of "fair use" material, all information in Wikimedia projects can be freely shared, freely distributed, freely modified and freely used for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, in perpetuity.''<br />
::''All code written by the Wikimedia Foundation is licensed under an applicable open source license. We realize our obligations not just to share code, but to cultivate a healthy community of contributors around the source code, and to work with upstream projects and contribute back improvements to their code.''<br />
::''All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software.''<br />
::''Consistent with the above principles, we support the right of third parties to make and maintain licensing-compliant copies and forks of Wikimedia content and Wikimedia-developed code, regardless of motivation or purpose. While we are generally not able to directly assist such efforts, we enable them by making available copies of Wikimedia content in bulk, and avoiding critical dependencies on proprietary code or services for maintaining a largely functionally equivalent fork.''<br />
::''As an organization, we strive to use open source tools over proprietary ones, although we use proprietary or closed tools (such as software, operating systems, etc.) where there is currently no open-source tool that will effectively meet our needs.''<br />
<br />
::Does this work for everybody? I could add some language specifically around personal tool use, but I feel like "where there's no open-source tool that would effectively meet our needs" covers it. Like, you use Illustrator if Gimp isn't good enough for what you need. Let me know if anyone feels like this language isn't clear/accurate: otherwise I'll consider this thread resolved. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 21:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: As a very minor piece of word-smithing, I'd change "not able to directly assist such efforts" to "not able to individually assist such efforts" - we do directly help such efforts with data dumps and tools, we just don't have the resources to give human attention individually to such efforts. But yes, looks good to go otherwise. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 22:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::: Done -- thanks James :-) [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 17:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Quick suggestion... ==<br />
<br />
[https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASue_Gardner%2FWikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5332950&oldid=5331958 ], which I made before seeing the request to comment first. Anyway, "serving every human being" seems a bit disingenuous, since we really aim to serve every literate human being with access to data and a digital device. ;-) The goal of providing equal access to all seems fairer, and more in line the the section's comments about well, accessibility. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 00:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:"equal access to all" is, er, equally disingenuous, as, by your own phrase, we're providing equal access only to "every literate human being with access to data and a digital device".<br />
:Furthermore, I actually do think we ''strive'' to serve every human being. Remember the free knowledge the Wikimedia community creates and shares is consumed offline too, not to mention the huge value of secondary use -- the knowledge worked into presentations, newspapers, books, radio and TV programs -- all consumed by hundreds of millions ''more'' than the group consuming it directly from our Web sites. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 00:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Yeah, I agree with Ijon. The language is "aims to" and "endeavours to," so I think it's appropriately framed as aspirational. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Actually, it's not quite that limited. We do generally serve literate people, but there are actually readings of many articles (e.g. see [[:w:Template:Spoken Wikipedia|Template:Spoken Wikipedia]], I'm sure among others). There are also various mechanisms for printing Wikipedia (some in-house, some just people trying to make money by selling Wikipedia books), so you don't need a digital device. The fact that we've consistently used fully free licenses for our content (except fair use extracts) has facilitated all of that. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Commons serves non-literate people indirectly. {{Smiley}} —[[User:Tom Morris|Tom Morris]] ([[User talk:Tom Morris|talk]]) 19:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Getting rich ==<br />
<br />
On «nobody is getting rich by working at the Wikimedia Foundation»: define "rich". For instance, I'm a student but I'm very rich compared to most world population and richer than millions of Italians (so, when serving in my university board I raised tuition fees for myself/my income range). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Yeah obviously "getting rich" is relative. It's only when you compare [[:wiktionary:apples and oranges|apples to apples]] and look at other tech and nonprofit compensation schemes that you see what is meant. In any case, it's pretty awesome that we want to put that among our guiding principles, right? <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Edit conflict with StevenW! And yeah, Steven, I agree. I think the key word here is "getting." Nemo is correct of course that by world population standards, everybody who works at the Wikimedia Foundation is rich. But we were born rich, we did not "get" rich through our work at the Wikimedia Foundation. The point here is that working at the Wikimedia Foundation is not a path to dramatically improving one's personal wealth. Thanks. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::I tend to see those negative statements ("'''not''' getting rich") as putting things in people's head that you don't want there in the first place. You say "not getting rich" (and I am on par with both Steven's and your interpretation on this) and all people seem to read/hear is "rich". Maybe we should try to find a positive statement for this? I'm kind of stuck though for a good one. "If you want to get rich, go work somewhere else"? -- ok, that one is stupid, but maybe you get my point? [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 21:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::I suspected that the point was in ''getting'', however this is tricky. One may get "richer" by going to work in the WMF for career reasons, compared to the previous work (or country?), comparatively getting "poorer" than possible in some other place, however the latter is mostly impossible to prove. "Nobody is getting richer" would be clearer but is technically wrong.<br />
:::Maybe: "we aim at level of income not being an important [the most important? one of the most important?] motivation[s] for someone to stay at the WMF", which implies there are different/contrasting motivations (presumably honest ;) ) without getting lost in defining which, and that income may be sacrificed. This is probably what is meant hear; no idea if it is positive enough as per notafish. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC) <small>P.s.: Steven, personally I don't care that much if someone gets rich at the WMF, as long as it's not by fleeing with the cash. :) I just like clarity.</small><br />
::::Seems a bit "off" for Sue Gardner to be commenting on "not getting rich" when her salary exceeds that of about 99% of American wage earners. -- [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A|2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A]] 18:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
I've just removed the phrase about getting rich. I think "fair but not lavish" covers it :-) Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 22:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Reasonable travel costs==<br />
«We aim to incur only reasonable travel costs: the general policy is to travel economy class and stay in moderately-priced hotels»: were $225K for staff (and board) at Wikimania reasonable? [[Talk:Wikimedia budget#Wikimania travel question]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:How much is that per person sent to Wikimania that year? I think looking at the total for shock value is unfair. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Nemo we're not making a commitment here to reduce travel costs, or to minimize travel. (I wouldn't want to do that: with a growing staff that operates as part of a global community that stages many international events such as Wikimania, the chapters' meeting and various hackathons, it strikes me that a focus on reducing travel costs would be a net negative not a net plus. I expect travel costs to be a not-insubstantial chunk of the Wikimedia Foundation budget: that seems eminently reasonable to me given the nature of our work.) The point here is simply that when we travel, we aim to do it moderately not luxuriously. The nuts-and-bolts of how we do that are captured in [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Travel_policy the travel policy], but the purpose of this statement is simply to summarize the overall intent. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::So in short yes, you think it's reasonable. :) <small>I don't know if it was: while you do or can know all the details on the alternatives and other considerations, I can't judge — no opinion at all.</small> Given that "reasonable" conveys little, you may consider removing «to incur only reasonable travel costs: the general policy is » and leaving only the straightforward part of the statement.<br />
:::Ideally (IMHO), we'd include some other criteria, like the impact:cost ratio (which you hinted to), usage of cheapest means of transportation, miscellaneous synergies (dumb example: double rooms instead of single where possible? and other more impactful stuff), with the disclaimer that all this must be applied fairly (see other section on benefits/reimbursements). I have no idea what are the current practices on all this so I don't know where to start, but I'm confident a compact form is possible. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::Hey Nemo, please see my comment in Title and Position (the next section down). Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 17:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Title or position==<br />
«People at the Wikimedia Foundation get the same benefits regardless of their title or position». <br />
*Who's "people"? Are you including all managers, trustees and employees?<br />
*What's "benefits" and how do you measure if "salaries" are "fair"? Are you considering only accessories or also the actual wage, before or after taxes, pension contributions etc.?<br />
*What are you including in "title or position" (or other comparison for "fair")? For instance, remote worker vs. office worker, full time vs. part time, staff vs. contractor.<br />
--[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:*Well, people does include at least all staff if you read further "regardless of their title or position". This should include everyone. As for Trustees, you've got a point, "people" is not clear and should probably be changed to "Staff" when it comes to benefits. I do not believe Trustees get benefits, even though they might benefit from insurance and related stuff when it comes to their work for the Foundation. It might make sense here to differentiate between staff/volunteers or something along those lines. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 14:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::To be clear: yes, the statement's intended to refer to all staff, and I can change the word "people" to "staff." There is detail available in the document [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/2a/Wikimedia_Foundation_Compensation_Practices.pdf Wikimedia Foundation Compensation Practices]. And for Notafish, yes, the trustees don't get any benefits. Expenses they incur on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation are reimbursed as per the policies, but they receive no compensation in the form of salary or other benefits. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::I think Staff makes sense in that context, thanks for clarifying. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 21:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC) <small>(Sue, it's '''n'''otafish, with a small '''n''', and I'm stupidly particular about it. If you want a capital, go with Delphine ;)</small><br />
:::::Thank you, Sue, this clarifies the first point: only two left in this section. :)<br />
:::::On "benefits", the exact meaning of the word (or lexical equivalent) varies quite a lot across jurisdictions and fiscal systems, as far as I know, so it's not safe to assume everyone will get what you mean. I understand that reimbursements are a different matter, but it would be nice if they were fair and independent from title etc., too. (I suppose they already mostly are?) --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::: Yeah, in the U.S. "benefits" is generally understood not to include salary (people talk about "salary plus benefits") (it's basically everything ''but'' salary). However, that might not be true in other countries/languages. Also, the 401(k) maximum match is a fixed percentage of salary. While the percentage is the same across position, the amount (n% × salary) technically is not. However, it's true this is a fine distinction. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
*'Staff' is normally understood to mean Employees + Contractors, where contractors are afforded fewer benefits (if any at all). I'd suggest amending to specify 'Employees at...'. [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 23:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
**I'd kind of like us to provide fair benefits to all staff including international contractors, but of course jurisdictions make things.... difficult. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 19:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::: As per Oliver and others, I changed "staff" to "employees" for clarity. I do wish the WMF could provide equivalent benefits to everyone regardless of their official status (i.e., staff versus contractor) but Brion is right, it's very complex. Having said that, I'm pleased we do provide additional benefits to all U.S. employees beyond what's provided by the state. In many/most countries, the state provides the basics: in the United States it does not, and so employer-provided health insurance is critical. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 17:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::: Okay I just rewrote this section. <br />
<br />
::::''We aim to be careful with donors' money. We pay salaries that are fair but not lavish, and provide reasonable benefits (e.g., health and dental insurance) that are the same for all employees regardless of their title or position. We aim to incur only reasonable travel costs, and to keep work-related entertainment costs moderate.'' <br />
<br />
::::Purpose of the rewrite is just clarity/simplicity. Nemo, rather than expanding the travel-related part with more detail I made it higher-level. [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Travel_policy The full travel policy is here], and it's an official Board policy, so if it changes it would be updated on that page. Folks, let me know if aiming "to keep work-related entertainment costs moderate" is clear enough. Again, there is a [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Duty_entertainment_guidelines_policy more detailed policy on this]. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 17:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Accountable==<br />
«The Wikimedia Foundation wants to be accountable to [...]». Please clarify how the concept of accountability applies here: «responsible for your decisions or actions and expected to explain them when you are asked»[http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/accountable] (are there processes to be responsible of your actions in front of the readers, receive their questions and explain? etc.). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Sure, of course there are processes to be responsible to the readers of the projects. Reader surveys. User testing. OTRS. The blogs. The annual reports. The regular publication of activity reports, performance reports, financial statements. Social media. Engagement with charity watchdog groups. Public mailing lists. Bugzilla. Office hours on IRC. Events for donors. This page, and many other on-wiki consultations related to feature development, policy development, and so forth. There are probably lots I am forgetting :-) Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Shared power==<br />
This section seems entirely useless, in that it lists a lot of minor ephemeral details from the ''here and now'' and no actual "principles" that may "guide" any action. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:The purpose of this section is to explicitly acknowledge that the Wikimedia Foundation works in partnership with a global community of volunteers -- that the Wikimedia Foundation is not the sole or even primary actor in fulfilling the Wikimedia mission, and that it needs to conduct itself accordingly, by creating mechanisms and processes enabling the community to have influence on its actions. Because we are interdependent partners. I think this is a pretty fundamental and important point to make, because in this regard we are different from practically everybody else. (What I mean by that: eBay and Facebook and Yelp may also have a social purpose or utility, but their primary purpose is to make money, and "community members" are a resource to be managed by the company to that end. In our case, the primary purpose of the movement is to make knowledge freely available to everyone around the world, and the Wikimedia Foundation and the global community of volunteers play different and complementary roles in achieving that shared goal.) So I wonder if that's not clear -- if my wording is just mucky. If so, can someone help propose better, more useful language? Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]])<br />
:The shared power section does mention volunteer "developers". However, I would like to see more emphasis on this. Something like "The Wikimedia Foundation strives to continually increase its partnership with outside developers, project managers, and system adminstrators so we can technically improve the sites together". This is an area where we've had some success, but more can definitely be done. The reason I said "outside" not "volunteer" is that they may be paid to work on something like MediaWiki, just not paid ''by'' WMF. The Apache Software Foundation is an example of an organization where many (not all) developers are paid (by various companies organizations), but they partner together to get things done. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==United States==<br />
On «support successful job candidates in attaining the legal right to work in the United States»: why only USA? What if they want to move elsewhere? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Maybe this should become "...to work from a WMF office in the United States", in case that's what's meant here. --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Or rather: Support succesful job candidates in attaining the legal right to work in the US should the need arise". Or something along those lines. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 14:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Yeah -- you're correct, we also support remote workers when people don't want to relocate and the job doesn't require it. I will reword :-) [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Here's what I changed it too -- let me know if this is clearer. "We aim to recruit talented people regardless of where they live, and depending on their preferences and the needs of the job, we support them in working remotely or relocating to the United States." Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::Does the trick, as far as I'm concerned. :) [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 21:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::::Yes, much clearer, thanks. <br />
::::::Ideally you'd be completely nation-neutral and support them in relocating to another country of their choice too, if suitable for them, and you could remove the "to the United States" bit. However, I understand this is an edge case. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::::Relocations are done because the WMF feels the employee should be in-office. Up until we open an office somewhere else I can't imagine that spending donor funds moving people to a country 'because they want to live there' would be optimal. [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 23:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Serving every human being==<br />
This section looks weird being 7 sections away from «Freedom and open source» with «All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software» etc. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The emphasis on the development of new features is undue and likely to grate on both engineering staff and community, in my opinion. It is out of step with the custodian role which many individuals in both groups identify with. We should express a stronger commitment to high availability and site performance. --[[User:Ori.livneh|Ori.livneh]] ([[User talk:Ori.livneh|talk]]) 10:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Oh ha, Ori.livneh I think that's just clumsy wording on my part. I can see how it's easy to misread, but what you think I said is not what I meant to be saying. I'll revise. I'll also move this chunk up to be nearer to Freedom and Open Source. Thanks to you both [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Also, it talks about these being directed at "readers", and hoping to support them in starting to contribute - but we should probably also talk about supporting existing contributors. :-) [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 20:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: On Sue's request, I've tried to address these points with [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5334886&oldid=5334873 this edit].--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 23:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: It's better (thanks, Sue, Erik, and James) but it's still not quite right, in my opinion: rather than rank engineering priorities (features, performance, availability) and then work backwards to explain the values that motivate them (access, participation), I think the section ought to lead with a statement of values, and then explain how our engineering priorities reflect our effort to realize these values maximally. --[[User:Ori.livneh|Ori.livneh]] ([[User talk:Ori.livneh|talk]]) 11:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::: Want to take a crack at drafting something on talk?--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 20:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::: How about:<br />
:::::: <div style="border:1px solid silver; background:#eee; margin:0.5em; padding:1em 2em;">The Wikimedia Foundation aims to make <span style="background: #d8ecff;">the</span> material in the Wikimedia projects broadly accessible to all. <span style="background: #d8ecff;">We work to enable for the world education from, entertainment by, and engagement with our projects' content, and participation in the communities and processes that create them.</span> Ensuring <span style="background: #d8ecff;">the</span> continued reliability, availability and responsiveness of all Wikimedia sites and services is our first priority. In prioritizing new products and features, our goal is to impact the largest-possible number of readers and contributors, and to eliminate barriers that could preclude people from accessing or contributing to our projects, such as poor usability, lack of language support, and limited access to technology. We endeavour to create the structural support and the necessary preconditions for bottom-up innovation by others. We do not form agreements in which one organization is given access to material or functionality that others are denied. Where possible, we aim to preserve and support frictionless use of the material in the projects, so that people can share it widely and easily.</div><br />
:::::: Thoughts? Please forgive the "power of threes" and running alliterations. :-) I worry that this section is now trying to say too much; possibly split after "technology"? I'm not particularly attached to my wording, so don't worry about offending. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 05:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Communication==<br />
Do you think https://xkcd.com/802/ [https://xkcd.com/802_large/] applies to the WMF? (In particular, the proportions in the two maps on the top <s>right</s> left being zoomed.) --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Nemo, could you clarify which proportions you refer to by naming them? Top right is "Unread Updates". --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Ouch. I meant left, of course. :) Thanks, [[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Right to fork==<br />
Again nothing. [[Talk:Terms of use/Archives/2011-12-06#Right to Fork]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
* Probably more of a Wikimedia principle than a Wikimedia Foundation principle. Perhaps we need a separate list? :-) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 09:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
*: I doubt it: «principles intended to guide the work of the Wikimedia Foundation». Who else do you suggest to task with ensuring the right to fork? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: Sue asked me to explore some language around this, so I've taken a first crack at it with [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5334873&oldid=5334652 this edit].--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 23:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::: Thanks! Much better. I'll let the experts comment on the specific wording and if it covers all the essential (people would like to have something more than page history dumps, but what exactly is tricky). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 23:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::: If this idea is developed any further could someone ping me? I'm interested for obvious reasons. Thanks. -- [[User:ArielGlenn|ArielGlenn]] ([[User talk:ArielGlenn|talk]]) 09:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Internationalism ==<br />
<br />
«''When we consider the community'' as a whole, we aim to consider all its languages and geographies and to avoid global initiatives that favor communities speaking only our languages» (emphasis added).<br />
I note that you're only talking of how you consider the community; what about «initiatives that favor communities speaking only our languages» in general? For instance, roughly how much of the WMF spending goes on initiatives that favor only English-language people (projects, users etc., readers) or only the USA? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Right to influence ==<br />
<br />
«Their work has earned [...] financial support sustaining the Wikimedia Foundation [...] and the global community has therefore earned the right to influence the work of the organizations»: it ''seems'' that you're stating that the only reason why someone has the "right to influence" the work is that they bring in dollars. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Transparency ==<br />
<br />
This section says "including employee guidelines". What happened to the public sharing of the [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Employee_Handbook Employee Handbook]? -- [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A|2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A]] 18:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
: I asked about this recently. It doesn't really seem relevant to this kind of document, though. There's a thread on wikimedia-l, I think, if you want to follow up. :-) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 21:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:: It explicitly says "As a matter of general practice, unless there’s a particular reason not to, we aim to publish internal organizational policies and procedures, including employee guidelines, financial policies, etc." I think it does belong here, because what the employees do is relevant, particularly to the donors who are essentially paying us. I agree the current reality around such employee procedures, etc. is not quite consistent with the document. There is some stuff on Office Wiki (a private WMF wiki for employees) that does not need to be confidential. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 23:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::: If only there were someone with access to both wikis with the technical know-how to move the pages. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 03:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::I'm pretty sure the staff handbook contains (amongst other things) access info to our healthcare providers, and other non-public information which should be stripped. I think that if someone did have the access and technical know-how to move the pages and acted on it, they'd swiftly find themselves losing the access ;p. As a general statement, the document ''should'' be moved over - but I imagine they want to get it finished and stable before combing through it to identify elements inappropriate for public consumption (otherwise you end up having to do multiple sweeps). [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 03:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::There are also sections which have been vetted by Legal and should not be open for editing by the public. This is one of the problems.--[[User:Jorm (WMF)|Jorm (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jorm (WMF)|talk]]) 23:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::: The legal team has no issue creating redacted PDFs. They just did for the [[NDA]]s. But they shouldn't be releasing documents in this way, of course. I've started some notes at [[legal docs]] for anyone interested. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 06:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Independence ==<br />
<br />
"Skillsets" is not a proper word. -- [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A|2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A]] 18:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
: Context, "Similarly, our Board of Trustees selection process is designed to encourage representation of different voices and skillsets, rather than recognizing donors or celebrities."<br />
: What would you recommend instead? "skill sets"? Something else? (This level of minor word tweaking you can really just do yourself, but I'm happy to proxy the edit for you from the talk page, if you'd like.) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 20:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: "Skillsets" is a reasonable word, but if the IP objects strenuously, we could use "sets of skills", which is rather po-faced. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 05:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::"Skillsets" is a perfectly cromulent word, even if my spell checker doesn't like it. If you're picky, write it as "skill sets". :) --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Frictionless and copyleft ==<br />
<br />
You might want to clarify this does not mean abandoning copyleft. Though not all WMF wikis use copyleft, many do, and there is general understanding of its benefits. I want to ensure people don't come later and start arguing that e.g. all new wikis should be non-copyleft to avoid "friction". [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 23:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Surely by definition, 'avoiding friction in reuse' would be 'copyleft' - it's talking about freedom for others to reuse our work, not freedom for us to reuse the work of others. Which WMF wikis are non-copyleft? [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 04:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:: Wikinews and Wikidata, for two. Copyleft licences are overly restrictive for wider re-use in some contexts. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 05:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Aha, we're talking less- rather than more-restrictive; my mistake :). [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 05:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Duplicate of [[wmf:Values]]? ==<br />
<br />
Hi. I wonder if these guiding principles aren't in some ways a duplicate of (or perhaps an update to) [[wmf:Values]]. What's the purpose of this document? Is it going to live alongside the [[wmf:mission|mission statement]], [[wmf:vision|vision statement]], etc.? Or will it end up being a Board resolution? Or something else? --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 04:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:It is similar, but more detailed than the values statement. I think the guiding principles are pretty well done, and cover some additional ground. It is worth considering if they could supersede the values statement, but there is some value in having a shorter document too. The guiding principles draft says, "It is likely that these principles will be presented to the Board of Trustees for their approval, at a future Board meeting." [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 16:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Free formats ==<br />
<br />
In re: ''All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software,'' can you clarify whether or not this is meant to mean that we will provide every file in free formats and thus not ''require'' the use of non-free software to view the file or does this mean that we will not provide the file in non-free formats at all? There seems to be some contention both internally and externally surrounding the possibility of providing non-free formats. I, personally, full appreciate having available to me free-formats, but when all of my devices have hardware-accelerated H.264 decoding, I would prefer to save cpu cycles and my battery when watching videos from commons. Similarly, there are some mobile devices that only support non-free formats and thus we currently do not support those users. -[[User:Pgehres (WMF)|Peter Gehres (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Pgehres (WMF)|talk]]) 05:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:We're working on that issue with legal internally... I'm certainly trying to push advocacy for explicit support of multi-format stack as officially acceptable, and would prefer clearer language on this as well. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Quality ==<br />
<br />
It strikes me that there is a glaring omission here. The current list of principles is a good set of ideologies, but surely the Wikimedia Foundation values high-quality content as much as it does the abstract principles like transparency and accountability. I understand that the Foundation does not generally (nor should) directly involve itself in the creation or judging of content on the projects, but certainly one of its core duties is encouraging or enabling the content creation, and one of the core implicit principles is that the content of the projects ought to be high-quality, comprehensive, authoritative, and so on (to the degree such quality descriptors are applicable to each project). To me, it seems like the omission of any principle that actually addresses the content of the projects is likely a matter of something being so obvious it didn't seem to need saying. I think it is important nonetheless, though. [[User:Dominic|Dominic]] ([[User talk:Dominic|talk]]) 06:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
: I agree. I think reiterating the [[wmf:mission statement|mission statement]] might be good here. (Related to the section above about [[wmf:values]], this page seems to be doing a bit of wheel reinvention....) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 06:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Ads? ==<br />
<br />
Is being ad-free a guiding principle? Relatedly, is being neutral? --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 07:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:On the neutrality issue... that seems perhaps too WIkipedia-specific? Wikivoyage, for instance, has [[:wikivoyage:Wikivoyage:Be fair|no neutrality policy]]. It seems like being independent is really the principle here, related to being ad-free, and that actually extends to other things like not being reliant on a few major donors. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think being ad-free is ''something we think is really great'', but the relevant guiding principle is indeed independence. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Mm, it's a little more than "really great"; Sue, Jimmy, and other board members have repeatedly stated for the record that Wikipedia will never show ads. So it's not accurate to present this as merely a strong preference; it has long been a firm commitment. (All this not to contradict that the principle here ''is'' independence rather than ''no ads''.) [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 22:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::IMO a commitment to not put ads on the site is more of a ''position'' than a ''principle''. We certainly don't advocate against advertisement culture the way we advocate for free speech and access to information. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 23:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Agreed. (your first comment did not acknowledge it was a committed position.) [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 23:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Free speech ==<br />
<br />
"Another crack at alternative wording: We aim to balance appropriately between our goal of being active internationally and our desire to minimize legal risk to the projects."<br />
:^ I worry this version doesn't actually say anything about being pro-free speech or making information available to everyone. One way to improve our international activity and lower our risk profile would be to censor information for certain countries to comply with local censorship or blasphemy laws, but I think we wouldn't consider that acceptable. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 19:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Thank you ==<br />
<br />
I just checked this page because I had a free moment (I am in an all-day annual planning meeting) and I want to say thank you to everyone who's contributing here -- this is a really useful conversation. Some of the language folks are proposing is really helpful, and there are a couple of places where the comments show that the existing language isn't nearly as clear as I thought it was. So this is good. I'll come back sometime over the next week, but please meanwhile continue to develop new needed language through discussion here -- it's very, very helpful. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]])<br />
<br />
== Wikimedia Brasil Statement of Principles ==<br />
Hi, I would like to suggest also the reading of the Statement of Principles made by the group of volunteers of Wikimedia in Brazil, in 2009, which has nice thoughts and can inspire a little those reading here:<br />
* [[:br:chapter:Wikimedia:Statement of Principles|Wikimedia Brasil - Statement of Principles]]<br />
I would like later, when I find time, to make comments on the internationalization section. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Tom]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 22:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Transparency: lack of IRS Form 990 ==<br />
<br />
Hello,<br />
<br />
The text mention we disclose the IRS form 990. The Financial page at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Financial_reports only shows the 2010-2011 form, thus we are missing the 2011-2012 form which should have been filled last year. [[User:Hashar|Ashar Voultoiz]] ([[User talk:Hashar|talk]]) 11:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:This isn't missing, just not there yet. :) The 2010-2011 form ([[:wmf:File:Form 990 - FY 10-11 - Public.pdf|here]]) was uploaded in May 2012. Previous years have been uploaded in [[:wmf::File:WMF 2009 2010 Form 990.pdf|April]], [[:wmf:File:WMF 2008 Form 990.pdf|May]], [[:wmf:File:WMF 2007 Form 990.pdf|May]] and [[:wmf:File:WMF 2006 Form 990.pdf|September]] of the year following the expiration of the fiscal year. Forms 990 are not due until the 15th day of the fifth month after the end of the fiscal year, with up to 180 days of extension if necessary. Last year's form 990 is still on schedule with previous years, and I'm sure it'll be uploaded sooner if ready. --[[User:Mdennis (WMF)|Maggie Dennis (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mdennis (WMF)|talk]]) 14:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Entities ==<br />
<br />
Thank you Sue for sharing and drafting this document in public! Reading the document – while understanding that it is aimed to describe current practice – I was a bit saddened to not see "movement entities" described in the context of partnership and cooperation in achieving the common goals. (There is some mention about giving movement entities money and freedom to do what they want, but I feel this does not live fully up to the [[mission]] statement, either in practice or at the level of principles.) –[[User:Bdamokos|Bence]] ([[User talk:Bdamokos|talk]]) 13:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)</div>Sue Gardnerhttps://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resolution_talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles/Archive_1&diff=328100Resolution talk:Wikimedia Foundation Guiding Principles/Archive 12013-04-02T17:28:36Z<p>Sue Gardner: /* Title or position */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Freedom and open source ==<br />
"As an organization, we strive to use open source tools over proprietary ones, although we use proprietary or closed tools (such as software, operating systems, etc.) where there is currently no open-source tool that will effectively meet our needs." - Is there a requirement and process in place which forces people to publish an evaluation which open-source tools were considered and tested for a task in order to identify which specific functionality was only provided by closed-source tools? --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 18:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:<br />
:Well, maybe that is my impression because I work remotely, but I've seen some proprietary files been shared and proprietary softwares being used when we could have free software. For instance, microsoft documents or apple softwares. And I've heard the wifi network in SF office works better with apple stuff, which is kind of weird - I've visited SF office only once and I checked that, but I've heard the same from other online meetings. For pragmatical reasons, sometimes I know using some closed softwares can deliver things faster tho. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Ezalvarenga]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 19:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:I agree we could use a little more discipline on this. e.g. I'm not ''convinced'' all Mac users in the office would truly be significantly less effective at their work on Ubuntu machines. I do acknowledge some may be. I think it warrants some nudging/pushing, though. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 20:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::I think there's a huge distinction between closed source tools for personal productivity, and closed source tools for supporting the projects. This should be clarified in the text of the principles, because the current state of affairs is that we require FOSS when it comes to what is actually necessary for the projects to run, and we obviously don't when it comes to the office IT. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 22:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Thanks. In my initial posting I had shared tools in production (servers, webservices, etc.) in mind, but did not mean to refer to personal computers of individuals - that would be under the "personal freedom" category, and a published evaluation feels like overkill for such private cases. --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::Hi, Aklapper, I don't have time today to make a longer comment, but for the personal freedom, if everybody begin to use closed formats, people who wants to use open formats will be forced to use also closed ones. If a person doesn't want to buy an apple computer, but the wifi network forces people to do so or make their lifes with other hardwares difficult, sorry, a serious policy about that should change. Yes, people can choose whatever they want on their personal computers, but if the majority is using what is fashion, a conscious minitority will not have freedom to choose what they want. As an example, I do use sometimes closed softwares, like skype, but only when really necessary, like a partner or co-worker that prefers to use it. And I know the pain it is sometimes to use only Linux since 1998. :) In Brazil, at least, in the government level, we are trying to [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/thackday/WCmyz2jltF8/sKDd0xCPQaQJ BURN ALL THE DOCS]! There are also [https://groups.google.com/group/thackday/browse_thread/thread/4f94fbf09e4b6f54 bills] under way. ;D P. S. I could not even imagine close softwares on the server side. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Ezalvarenga]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 12:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Responding to a couple of you here. No, AKlapper, AFAIK there is no formal documented requirement/process for evaluation of when the Wikimedia Foundation uses a proprietary tool instead of an open source one. To date we've been small enough, and had a sufficient proportion of the staff who're personally dedicated to open source values, such that evaluation has tended to happen informally on a case-by-case basis, and it's worked reasonably well. Like, we made an organizational commitment to use CiviCRM early and we've stuck with that, and similarly I know that Finance & Admin uses proprietary accounting tools because early on some research was done that determined there was no acceptable open-source tool. I think those were both reasonable outcomes. Over the years we've toyed with the idea of developing a formal evaluation policy, but we have not done it. If you're suggesting we should, I would generally agree, but I also wouldn't say it's the thing Office IT should prioritize as most important and most urgent.<br />
<br />
More generally, in response to Ezalvarenga and Ijon, yes, I'd agree that our actual practices are likely imperfect -- there are probably some people at the Wikimedia Foundation using proprietary tools for individual use that could be replaced by open source tools. For example, I know that Legal has at some times used Microsoft Word for documents shared with external firms, when they probably could've insisted on using OpenOffice or LibreOffice without too much of a productivity hit.<br />
<br />
Frankly, individuals using proprietary tools has been a pretty big pain point for the Wikimedia Foundation. It's understandable: individual staff have widely varying levels of personal commitment to FLOSS, people want to be effective at work and so they want to use the tools that support them best, and people's work, and their needs, vary. No-one wants to be told they have no choice but to use X, whether X is Ubuntu/Thunderbird/LibreOffice or IE/Outlook/Word. That's utterly reasonable. So it's complex, and we're not going to capture a lot of complexity in a short statement. <br />
<br />
StevenW had proposed we modify the language here to distinguish between site production tools and personal/individual tools. Can somebody propose language for that, and for anything else here that might need clarification or finetuning? Feel free to make a change and I'll revert it or finetune it if I feel I need to. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Related reading: [[FLOSS-Exchange]]. I think focusing on the ideal (and its rationale, which Erik sort of touched on with his "right to fork" [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5334873&oldid=5334652 addition]), instead of what individuals might do, is a reasonable compromise. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 07:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think the line should be what's shared by the organization (or teams within the organization) and personal. For anything shared, we should make it free software/open source unless it's really unworkable (and even then, we should always keep an eye out for moving to free software as it improves). But if you want to use MS Word on your personal machine to write PHP that fully meets our coding conventions, more power to you ;). This basically [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&oldid=5335910#Freedom_and_open_source matches] the current text. But there are some cases where free software is workable for shared tools but we're not currently using them; as I said, we should try to change that. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Agreed with SteveW and others above that there's some distinction between what we share, what we use personally, and what we require others to use. Apple users in the office? Who cares, they're mostly running FOSS on top of Apple -- most of our ops folks and engineers live in a terminal and use standard Unix tools. Adobe Photoshop and proprietary-format files for graphics work? Maybe we do care, because you can't always use the PSD files without it. (I always advocate for SVG format for graphics, especially anything we intend to use in software or on sites that may need to be revisioned in the future.) Google Apps for email? Who cares, email is interoperable. Google Hangouts for video conferencing internally? Who cares? Google Hangouts for video conferencing including open community participation? Runs on Linux, but requires a proprietary plugin; not ideal but we accept it as the best compromise of several options for now. Maybe we care but we can live with it. etc. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::So the text now reads like this: <br />
<br />
::''The Wikimedia Foundation is deeply rooted in the values of the free culture and free software movements. With the exception of "fair use" material, all information in Wikimedia projects can be freely shared, freely distributed, freely modified and freely used for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, in perpetuity.''<br />
::''All code written by the Wikimedia Foundation is licensed under an applicable open source license. We realize our obligations not just to share code, but to cultivate a healthy community of contributors around the source code, and to work with upstream projects and contribute back improvements to their code.''<br />
::''All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software.''<br />
::''Consistent with the above principles, we support the right of third parties to make and maintain licensing-compliant copies and forks of Wikimedia content and Wikimedia-developed code, regardless of motivation or purpose. While we are generally not able to directly assist such efforts, we enable them by making available copies of Wikimedia content in bulk, and avoiding critical dependencies on proprietary code or services for maintaining a largely functionally equivalent fork.''<br />
::''As an organization, we strive to use open source tools over proprietary ones, although we use proprietary or closed tools (such as software, operating systems, etc.) where there is currently no open-source tool that will effectively meet our needs.''<br />
<br />
::Does this work for everybody? I could add some language specifically around personal tool use, but I feel like "where there's no open-source tool that would effectively meet our needs" covers it. Like, you use Illustrator if Gimp isn't good enough for what you need. Let me know if anyone feels like this language isn't clear/accurate: otherwise I'll consider this thread resolved. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 21:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: As a very minor piece of word-smithing, I'd change "not able to directly assist such efforts" to "not able to individually assist such efforts" - we do directly help such efforts with data dumps and tools, we just don't have the resources to give human attention individually to such efforts. But yes, looks good to go otherwise. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 22:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::: Done -- thanks James :-) [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 17:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Quick suggestion... ==<br />
<br />
[https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASue_Gardner%2FWikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5332950&oldid=5331958 ], which I made before seeing the request to comment first. Anyway, "serving every human being" seems a bit disingenuous, since we really aim to serve every literate human being with access to data and a digital device. ;-) The goal of providing equal access to all seems fairer, and more in line the the section's comments about well, accessibility. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 00:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:"equal access to all" is, er, equally disingenuous, as, by your own phrase, we're providing equal access only to "every literate human being with access to data and a digital device".<br />
:Furthermore, I actually do think we ''strive'' to serve every human being. Remember the free knowledge the Wikimedia community creates and shares is consumed offline too, not to mention the huge value of secondary use -- the knowledge worked into presentations, newspapers, books, radio and TV programs -- all consumed by hundreds of millions ''more'' than the group consuming it directly from our Web sites. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 00:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Yeah, I agree with Ijon. The language is "aims to" and "endeavours to," so I think it's appropriately framed as aspirational. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Actually, it's not quite that limited. We do generally serve literate people, but there are actually readings of many articles (e.g. see [[:w:Template:Spoken Wikipedia|Template:Spoken Wikipedia]], I'm sure among others). There are also various mechanisms for printing Wikipedia (some in-house, some just people trying to make money by selling Wikipedia books), so you don't need a digital device. The fact that we've consistently used fully free licenses for our content (except fair use extracts) has facilitated all of that. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Commons serves non-literate people indirectly. {{Smiley}} —[[User:Tom Morris|Tom Morris]] ([[User talk:Tom Morris|talk]]) 19:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Getting rich ==<br />
<br />
On «nobody is getting rich by working at the Wikimedia Foundation»: define "rich". For instance, I'm a student but I'm very rich compared to most world population and richer than millions of Italians (so, when serving in my university board I raised tuition fees for myself/my income range). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Yeah obviously "getting rich" is relative. It's only when you compare [[:wiktionary:apples and oranges|apples to apples]] and look at other tech and nonprofit compensation schemes that you see what is meant. In any case, it's pretty awesome that we want to put that among our guiding principles, right? <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Edit conflict with StevenW! And yeah, Steven, I agree. I think the key word here is "getting." Nemo is correct of course that by world population standards, everybody who works at the Wikimedia Foundation is rich. But we were born rich, we did not "get" rich through our work at the Wikimedia Foundation. The point here is that working at the Wikimedia Foundation is not a path to dramatically improving one's personal wealth. Thanks. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::I tend to see those negative statements ("'''not''' getting rich") as putting things in people's head that you don't want there in the first place. You say "not getting rich" (and I am on par with both Steven's and your interpretation on this) and all people seem to read/hear is "rich". Maybe we should try to find a positive statement for this? I'm kind of stuck though for a good one. "If you want to get rich, go work somewhere else"? -- ok, that one is stupid, but maybe you get my point? [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 21:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::I suspected that the point was in ''getting'', however this is tricky. One may get "richer" by going to work in the WMF for career reasons, compared to the previous work (or country?), comparatively getting "poorer" than possible in some other place, however the latter is mostly impossible to prove. "Nobody is getting richer" would be clearer but is technically wrong.<br />
:::Maybe: "we aim at level of income not being an important [the most important? one of the most important?] motivation[s] for someone to stay at the WMF", which implies there are different/contrasting motivations (presumably honest ;) ) without getting lost in defining which, and that income may be sacrificed. This is probably what is meant hear; no idea if it is positive enough as per notafish. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC) <small>P.s.: Steven, personally I don't care that much if someone gets rich at the WMF, as long as it's not by fleeing with the cash. :) I just like clarity.</small><br />
::::Seems a bit "off" for Sue Gardner to be commenting on "not getting rich" when her salary exceeds that of about 99% of American wage earners. -- [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A|2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A]] 18:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
I've just removed the phrase about getting rich. I think "fair but not lavish" covers it :-) Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 22:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Reasonable travel costs==<br />
«We aim to incur only reasonable travel costs: the general policy is to travel economy class and stay in moderately-priced hotels»: were $225K for staff (and board) at Wikimania reasonable? [[Talk:Wikimedia budget#Wikimania travel question]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:How much is that per person sent to Wikimania that year? I think looking at the total for shock value is unfair. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Nemo we're not making a commitment here to reduce travel costs, or to minimize travel. (I wouldn't want to do that: with a growing staff that operates as part of a global community that stages many international events such as Wikimania, the chapters' meeting and various hackathons, it strikes me that a focus on reducing travel costs would be a net negative not a net plus. I expect travel costs to be a not-insubstantial chunk of the Wikimedia Foundation budget: that seems eminently reasonable to me given the nature of our work.) The point here is simply that when we travel, we aim to do it moderately not luxuriously. The nuts-and-bolts of how we do that are captured in [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Travel_policy the travel policy], but the purpose of this statement is simply to summarize the overall intent. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::So in short yes, you think it's reasonable. :) <small>I don't know if it was: while you do or can know all the details on the alternatives and other considerations, I can't judge — no opinion at all.</small> Given that "reasonable" conveys little, you may consider removing «to incur only reasonable travel costs: the general policy is » and leaving only the straightforward part of the statement.<br />
:::Ideally (IMHO), we'd include some other criteria, like the impact:cost ratio (which you hinted to), usage of cheapest means of transportation, miscellaneous synergies (dumb example: double rooms instead of single where possible? and other more impactful stuff), with the disclaimer that all this must be applied fairly (see other section on benefits/reimbursements). I have no idea what are the current practices on all this so I don't know where to start, but I'm confident a compact form is possible. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Title or position==<br />
«People at the Wikimedia Foundation get the same benefits regardless of their title or position». <br />
*Who's "people"? Are you including all managers, trustees and employees?<br />
*What's "benefits" and how do you measure if "salaries" are "fair"? Are you considering only accessories or also the actual wage, before or after taxes, pension contributions etc.?<br />
*What are you including in "title or position" (or other comparison for "fair")? For instance, remote worker vs. office worker, full time vs. part time, staff vs. contractor.<br />
--[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:*Well, people does include at least all staff if you read further "regardless of their title or position". This should include everyone. As for Trustees, you've got a point, "people" is not clear and should probably be changed to "Staff" when it comes to benefits. I do not believe Trustees get benefits, even though they might benefit from insurance and related stuff when it comes to their work for the Foundation. It might make sense here to differentiate between staff/volunteers or something along those lines. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 14:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::To be clear: yes, the statement's intended to refer to all staff, and I can change the word "people" to "staff." There is detail available in the document [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/2a/Wikimedia_Foundation_Compensation_Practices.pdf Wikimedia Foundation Compensation Practices]. And for Notafish, yes, the trustees don't get any benefits. Expenses they incur on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation are reimbursed as per the policies, but they receive no compensation in the form of salary or other benefits. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::I think Staff makes sense in that context, thanks for clarifying. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 21:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC) <small>(Sue, it's '''n'''otafish, with a small '''n''', and I'm stupidly particular about it. If you want a capital, go with Delphine ;)</small><br />
:::::Thank you, Sue, this clarifies the first point: only two left in this section. :)<br />
:::::On "benefits", the exact meaning of the word (or lexical equivalent) varies quite a lot across jurisdictions and fiscal systems, as far as I know, so it's not safe to assume everyone will get what you mean. I understand that reimbursements are a different matter, but it would be nice if they were fair and independent from title etc., too. (I suppose they already mostly are?) --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::: Yeah, in the U.S. "benefits" is generally understood not to include salary (people talk about "salary plus benefits") (it's basically everything ''but'' salary). However, that might not be true in other countries/languages. Also, the 401(k) maximum match is a fixed percentage of salary. While the percentage is the same across position, the amount (n% × salary) technically is not. However, it's true this is a fine distinction. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
*'Staff' is normally understood to mean Employees + Contractors, where contractors are afforded fewer benefits (if any at all). I'd suggest amending to specify 'Employees at...'. [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 23:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
**I'd kind of like us to provide fair benefits to all staff including international contractors, but of course jurisdictions make things.... difficult. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 19:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::: As per Oliver and others, I changed "staff" to "employees" for clarity. I do wish the WMF could provide equivalent benefits to everyone regardless of their official status (i.e., staff versus contractor) but Brion is right, it's very complex. Having said that, I'm pleased we do provide additional benefits to all U.S. employees beyond what's provided by the state. In many/most countries, the state provides the basics: in the United States it does not, and so employer-provided health insurance is critical. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 17:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::: Okay I just rewrote this section. <br />
<br />
::::''We aim to be careful with donors' money. We pay salaries that are fair but not lavish, and provide reasonable benefits (e.g., health and dental insurance) that are the same for all employees regardless of their title or position. We aim to incur only reasonable travel costs, and to keep work-related entertainment costs moderate.'' <br />
<br />
::::Purpose of the rewrite is just clarity/simplicity. Nemo, rather than expanding the travel-related part with more detail I made it higher-level. [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Travel_policy The full travel policy is here], and it's an official Board policy, so if it changes it would be updated on that page. Folks, let me know if aiming "to keep work-related entertainment costs moderate" is clear enough. Again, there is a [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Duty_entertainment_guidelines_policy more detailed policy on this]. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 17:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Accountable==<br />
«The Wikimedia Foundation wants to be accountable to [...]». Please clarify how the concept of accountability applies here: «responsible for your decisions or actions and expected to explain them when you are asked»[http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/accountable] (are there processes to be responsible of your actions in front of the readers, receive their questions and explain? etc.). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Sure, of course there are processes to be responsible to the readers of the projects. Reader surveys. User testing. OTRS. The blogs. The annual reports. The regular publication of activity reports, performance reports, financial statements. Social media. Engagement with charity watchdog groups. Public mailing lists. Bugzilla. Office hours on IRC. Events for donors. This page, and many other on-wiki consultations related to feature development, policy development, and so forth. There are probably lots I am forgetting :-) Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Shared power==<br />
This section seems entirely useless, in that it lists a lot of minor ephemeral details from the ''here and now'' and no actual "principles" that may "guide" any action. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:The purpose of this section is to explicitly acknowledge that the Wikimedia Foundation works in partnership with a global community of volunteers -- that the Wikimedia Foundation is not the sole or even primary actor in fulfilling the Wikimedia mission, and that it needs to conduct itself accordingly, by creating mechanisms and processes enabling the community to have influence on its actions. Because we are interdependent partners. I think this is a pretty fundamental and important point to make, because in this regard we are different from practically everybody else. (What I mean by that: eBay and Facebook and Yelp may also have a social purpose or utility, but their primary purpose is to make money, and "community members" are a resource to be managed by the company to that end. In our case, the primary purpose of the movement is to make knowledge freely available to everyone around the world, and the Wikimedia Foundation and the global community of volunteers play different and complementary roles in achieving that shared goal.) So I wonder if that's not clear -- if my wording is just mucky. If so, can someone help propose better, more useful language? Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]])<br />
:The shared power section does mention volunteer "developers". However, I would like to see more emphasis on this. Something like "The Wikimedia Foundation strives to continually increase its partnership with outside developers, project managers, and system adminstrators so we can technically improve the sites together". This is an area where we've had some success, but more can definitely be done. The reason I said "outside" not "volunteer" is that they may be paid to work on something like MediaWiki, just not paid ''by'' WMF. The Apache Software Foundation is an example of an organization where many (not all) developers are paid (by various companies organizations), but they partner together to get things done. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==United States==<br />
On «support successful job candidates in attaining the legal right to work in the United States»: why only USA? What if they want to move elsewhere? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Maybe this should become "...to work from a WMF office in the United States", in case that's what's meant here. --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Or rather: Support succesful job candidates in attaining the legal right to work in the US should the need arise". Or something along those lines. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 14:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Yeah -- you're correct, we also support remote workers when people don't want to relocate and the job doesn't require it. I will reword :-) [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Here's what I changed it too -- let me know if this is clearer. "We aim to recruit talented people regardless of where they live, and depending on their preferences and the needs of the job, we support them in working remotely or relocating to the United States." Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::Does the trick, as far as I'm concerned. :) [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 21:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::::Yes, much clearer, thanks. <br />
::::::Ideally you'd be completely nation-neutral and support them in relocating to another country of their choice too, if suitable for them, and you could remove the "to the United States" bit. However, I understand this is an edge case. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::::Relocations are done because the WMF feels the employee should be in-office. Up until we open an office somewhere else I can't imagine that spending donor funds moving people to a country 'because they want to live there' would be optimal. [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 23:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Serving every human being==<br />
This section looks weird being 7 sections away from «Freedom and open source» with «All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software» etc. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The emphasis on the development of new features is undue and likely to grate on both engineering staff and community, in my opinion. It is out of step with the custodian role which many individuals in both groups identify with. We should express a stronger commitment to high availability and site performance. --[[User:Ori.livneh|Ori.livneh]] ([[User talk:Ori.livneh|talk]]) 10:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Oh ha, Ori.livneh I think that's just clumsy wording on my part. I can see how it's easy to misread, but what you think I said is not what I meant to be saying. I'll revise. I'll also move this chunk up to be nearer to Freedom and Open Source. Thanks to you both [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Also, it talks about these being directed at "readers", and hoping to support them in starting to contribute - but we should probably also talk about supporting existing contributors. :-) [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 20:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: On Sue's request, I've tried to address these points with [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5334886&oldid=5334873 this edit].--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 23:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: It's better (thanks, Sue, Erik, and James) but it's still not quite right, in my opinion: rather than rank engineering priorities (features, performance, availability) and then work backwards to explain the values that motivate them (access, participation), I think the section ought to lead with a statement of values, and then explain how our engineering priorities reflect our effort to realize these values maximally. --[[User:Ori.livneh|Ori.livneh]] ([[User talk:Ori.livneh|talk]]) 11:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::: Want to take a crack at drafting something on talk?--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 20:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::: How about:<br />
:::::: <div style="border:1px solid silver; background:#eee; margin:0.5em; padding:1em 2em;">The Wikimedia Foundation aims to make <span style="background: #d8ecff;">the</span> material in the Wikimedia projects broadly accessible to all. <span style="background: #d8ecff;">We work to enable for the world education from, entertainment by, and engagement with our projects' content, and participation in the communities and processes that create them.</span> Ensuring <span style="background: #d8ecff;">the</span> continued reliability, availability and responsiveness of all Wikimedia sites and services is our first priority. In prioritizing new products and features, our goal is to impact the largest-possible number of readers and contributors, and to eliminate barriers that could preclude people from accessing or contributing to our projects, such as poor usability, lack of language support, and limited access to technology. We endeavour to create the structural support and the necessary preconditions for bottom-up innovation by others. We do not form agreements in which one organization is given access to material or functionality that others are denied. Where possible, we aim to preserve and support frictionless use of the material in the projects, so that people can share it widely and easily.</div><br />
:::::: Thoughts? Please forgive the "power of threes" and running alliterations. :-) I worry that this section is now trying to say too much; possibly split after "technology"? I'm not particularly attached to my wording, so don't worry about offending. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 05:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Communication==<br />
Do you think https://xkcd.com/802/ [https://xkcd.com/802_large/] applies to the WMF? (In particular, the proportions in the two maps on the top <s>right</s> left being zoomed.) --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Nemo, could you clarify which proportions you refer to by naming them? Top right is "Unread Updates". --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Ouch. I meant left, of course. :) Thanks, [[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Right to fork==<br />
Again nothing. [[Talk:Terms of use/Archives/2011-12-06#Right to Fork]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
* Probably more of a Wikimedia principle than a Wikimedia Foundation principle. Perhaps we need a separate list? :-) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 09:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
*: I doubt it: «principles intended to guide the work of the Wikimedia Foundation». Who else do you suggest to task with ensuring the right to fork? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: Sue asked me to explore some language around this, so I've taken a first crack at it with [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5334873&oldid=5334652 this edit].--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 23:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::: Thanks! Much better. I'll let the experts comment on the specific wording and if it covers all the essential (people would like to have something more than page history dumps, but what exactly is tricky). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 23:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::: If this idea is developed any further could someone ping me? I'm interested for obvious reasons. Thanks. -- [[User:ArielGlenn|ArielGlenn]] ([[User talk:ArielGlenn|talk]]) 09:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Internationalism ==<br />
<br />
«''When we consider the community'' as a whole, we aim to consider all its languages and geographies and to avoid global initiatives that favor communities speaking only our languages» (emphasis added).<br />
I note that you're only talking of how you consider the community; what about «initiatives that favor communities speaking only our languages» in general? For instance, roughly how much of the WMF spending goes on initiatives that favor only English-language people (projects, users etc., readers) or only the USA? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Right to influence ==<br />
<br />
«Their work has earned [...] financial support sustaining the Wikimedia Foundation [...] and the global community has therefore earned the right to influence the work of the organizations»: it ''seems'' that you're stating that the only reason why someone has the "right to influence" the work is that they bring in dollars. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Transparency ==<br />
<br />
This section says "including employee guidelines". What happened to the public sharing of the [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Employee_Handbook Employee Handbook]? -- [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A|2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A]] 18:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
: I asked about this recently. It doesn't really seem relevant to this kind of document, though. There's a thread on wikimedia-l, I think, if you want to follow up. :-) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 21:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:: It explicitly says "As a matter of general practice, unless there’s a particular reason not to, we aim to publish internal organizational policies and procedures, including employee guidelines, financial policies, etc." I think it does belong here, because what the employees do is relevant, particularly to the donors who are essentially paying us. I agree the current reality around such employee procedures, etc. is not quite consistent with the document. There is some stuff on Office Wiki (a private WMF wiki for employees) that does not need to be confidential. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 23:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::: If only there were someone with access to both wikis with the technical know-how to move the pages. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 03:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::I'm pretty sure the staff handbook contains (amongst other things) access info to our healthcare providers, and other non-public information which should be stripped. I think that if someone did have the access and technical know-how to move the pages and acted on it, they'd swiftly find themselves losing the access ;p. As a general statement, the document ''should'' be moved over - but I imagine they want to get it finished and stable before combing through it to identify elements inappropriate for public consumption (otherwise you end up having to do multiple sweeps). [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 03:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::There are also sections which have been vetted by Legal and should not be open for editing by the public. This is one of the problems.--[[User:Jorm (WMF)|Jorm (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jorm (WMF)|talk]]) 23:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::: The legal team has no issue creating redacted PDFs. They just did for the [[NDA]]s. But they shouldn't be releasing documents in this way, of course. I've started some notes at [[legal docs]] for anyone interested. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 06:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Independence ==<br />
<br />
"Skillsets" is not a proper word. -- [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A|2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A]] 18:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
: Context, "Similarly, our Board of Trustees selection process is designed to encourage representation of different voices and skillsets, rather than recognizing donors or celebrities."<br />
: What would you recommend instead? "skill sets"? Something else? (This level of minor word tweaking you can really just do yourself, but I'm happy to proxy the edit for you from the talk page, if you'd like.) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 20:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: "Skillsets" is a reasonable word, but if the IP objects strenuously, we could use "sets of skills", which is rather po-faced. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 05:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::"Skillsets" is a perfectly cromulent word, even if my spell checker doesn't like it. If you're picky, write it as "skill sets". :) --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Frictionless and copyleft ==<br />
<br />
You might want to clarify this does not mean abandoning copyleft. Though not all WMF wikis use copyleft, many do, and there is general understanding of its benefits. I want to ensure people don't come later and start arguing that e.g. all new wikis should be non-copyleft to avoid "friction". [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 23:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Surely by definition, 'avoiding friction in reuse' would be 'copyleft' - it's talking about freedom for others to reuse our work, not freedom for us to reuse the work of others. Which WMF wikis are non-copyleft? [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 04:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:: Wikinews and Wikidata, for two. Copyleft licences are overly restrictive for wider re-use in some contexts. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 05:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Aha, we're talking less- rather than more-restrictive; my mistake :). [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 05:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Duplicate of [[wmf:Values]]? ==<br />
<br />
Hi. I wonder if these guiding principles aren't in some ways a duplicate of (or perhaps an update to) [[wmf:Values]]. What's the purpose of this document? Is it going to live alongside the [[wmf:mission|mission statement]], [[wmf:vision|vision statement]], etc.? Or will it end up being a Board resolution? Or something else? --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 04:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:It is similar, but more detailed than the values statement. I think the guiding principles are pretty well done, and cover some additional ground. It is worth considering if they could supersede the values statement, but there is some value in having a shorter document too. The guiding principles draft says, "It is likely that these principles will be presented to the Board of Trustees for their approval, at a future Board meeting." [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 16:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Free formats ==<br />
<br />
In re: ''All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software,'' can you clarify whether or not this is meant to mean that we will provide every file in free formats and thus not ''require'' the use of non-free software to view the file or does this mean that we will not provide the file in non-free formats at all? There seems to be some contention both internally and externally surrounding the possibility of providing non-free formats. I, personally, full appreciate having available to me free-formats, but when all of my devices have hardware-accelerated H.264 decoding, I would prefer to save cpu cycles and my battery when watching videos from commons. Similarly, there are some mobile devices that only support non-free formats and thus we currently do not support those users. -[[User:Pgehres (WMF)|Peter Gehres (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Pgehres (WMF)|talk]]) 05:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:We're working on that issue with legal internally... I'm certainly trying to push advocacy for explicit support of multi-format stack as officially acceptable, and would prefer clearer language on this as well. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Quality ==<br />
<br />
It strikes me that there is a glaring omission here. The current list of principles is a good set of ideologies, but surely the Wikimedia Foundation values high-quality content as much as it does the abstract principles like transparency and accountability. I understand that the Foundation does not generally (nor should) directly involve itself in the creation or judging of content on the projects, but certainly one of its core duties is encouraging or enabling the content creation, and one of the core implicit principles is that the content of the projects ought to be high-quality, comprehensive, authoritative, and so on (to the degree such quality descriptors are applicable to each project). To me, it seems like the omission of any principle that actually addresses the content of the projects is likely a matter of something being so obvious it didn't seem to need saying. I think it is important nonetheless, though. [[User:Dominic|Dominic]] ([[User talk:Dominic|talk]]) 06:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
: I agree. I think reiterating the [[wmf:mission statement|mission statement]] might be good here. (Related to the section above about [[wmf:values]], this page seems to be doing a bit of wheel reinvention....) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 06:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Ads? ==<br />
<br />
Is being ad-free a guiding principle? Relatedly, is being neutral? --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 07:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:On the neutrality issue... that seems perhaps too WIkipedia-specific? Wikivoyage, for instance, has [[:wikivoyage:Wikivoyage:Be fair|no neutrality policy]]. It seems like being independent is really the principle here, related to being ad-free, and that actually extends to other things like not being reliant on a few major donors. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think being ad-free is ''something we think is really great'', but the relevant guiding principle is indeed independence. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Mm, it's a little more than "really great"; Sue, Jimmy, and other board members have repeatedly stated for the record that Wikipedia will never show ads. So it's not accurate to present this as merely a strong preference; it has long been a firm commitment. (All this not to contradict that the principle here ''is'' independence rather than ''no ads''.) [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 22:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::IMO a commitment to not put ads on the site is more of a ''position'' than a ''principle''. We certainly don't advocate against advertisement culture the way we advocate for free speech and access to information. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 23:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Agreed. (your first comment did not acknowledge it was a committed position.) [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 23:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Free speech ==<br />
<br />
"Another crack at alternative wording: We aim to balance appropriately between our goal of being active internationally and our desire to minimize legal risk to the projects."<br />
:^ I worry this version doesn't actually say anything about being pro-free speech or making information available to everyone. One way to improve our international activity and lower our risk profile would be to censor information for certain countries to comply with local censorship or blasphemy laws, but I think we wouldn't consider that acceptable. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 19:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Thank you ==<br />
<br />
I just checked this page because I had a free moment (I am in an all-day annual planning meeting) and I want to say thank you to everyone who's contributing here -- this is a really useful conversation. Some of the language folks are proposing is really helpful, and there are a couple of places where the comments show that the existing language isn't nearly as clear as I thought it was. So this is good. I'll come back sometime over the next week, but please meanwhile continue to develop new needed language through discussion here -- it's very, very helpful. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]])<br />
<br />
== Wikimedia Brasil Statement of Principles ==<br />
Hi, I would like to suggest also the reading of the Statement of Principles made by the group of volunteers of Wikimedia in Brazil, in 2009, which has nice thoughts and can inspire a little those reading here:<br />
* [[:br:chapter:Wikimedia:Statement of Principles|Wikimedia Brasil - Statement of Principles]]<br />
I would like later, when I find time, to make comments on the internationalization section. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Tom]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 22:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Transparency: lack of IRS Form 990 ==<br />
<br />
Hello,<br />
<br />
The text mention we disclose the IRS form 990. The Financial page at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Financial_reports only shows the 2010-2011 form, thus we are missing the 2011-2012 form which should have been filled last year. [[User:Hashar|Ashar Voultoiz]] ([[User talk:Hashar|talk]]) 11:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:This isn't missing, just not there yet. :) The 2010-2011 form ([[:wmf:File:Form 990 - FY 10-11 - Public.pdf|here]]) was uploaded in May 2012. Previous years have been uploaded in [[:wmf::File:WMF 2009 2010 Form 990.pdf|April]], [[:wmf:File:WMF 2008 Form 990.pdf|May]], [[:wmf:File:WMF 2007 Form 990.pdf|May]] and [[:wmf:File:WMF 2006 Form 990.pdf|September]] of the year following the expiration of the fiscal year. Forms 990 are not due until the 15th day of the fifth month after the end of the fiscal year, with up to 180 days of extension if necessary. Last year's form 990 is still on schedule with previous years, and I'm sure it'll be uploaded sooner if ready. --[[User:Mdennis (WMF)|Maggie Dennis (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mdennis (WMF)|talk]]) 14:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Entities ==<br />
<br />
Thank you Sue for sharing and drafting this document in public! Reading the document – while understanding that it is aimed to describe current practice – I was a bit saddened to not see "movement entities" described in the context of partnership and cooperation in achieving the common goals. (There is some mention about giving movement entities money and freedom to do what they want, but I feel this does not live fully up to the [[mission]] statement, either in practice or at the level of principles.) –[[User:Bdamokos|Bence]] ([[User talk:Bdamokos|talk]]) 13:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)</div>Sue Gardnerhttps://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resolution_talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles/Archive_1&diff=328099Resolution talk:Wikimedia Foundation Guiding Principles/Archive 12013-04-02T17:27:58Z<p>Sue Gardner: /* Title or position */ pasting in rewritten section plus explanation</p>
<hr />
<div>== Freedom and open source ==<br />
"As an organization, we strive to use open source tools over proprietary ones, although we use proprietary or closed tools (such as software, operating systems, etc.) where there is currently no open-source tool that will effectively meet our needs." - Is there a requirement and process in place which forces people to publish an evaluation which open-source tools were considered and tested for a task in order to identify which specific functionality was only provided by closed-source tools? --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 18:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:<br />
:Well, maybe that is my impression because I work remotely, but I've seen some proprietary files been shared and proprietary softwares being used when we could have free software. For instance, microsoft documents or apple softwares. And I've heard the wifi network in SF office works better with apple stuff, which is kind of weird - I've visited SF office only once and I checked that, but I've heard the same from other online meetings. For pragmatical reasons, sometimes I know using some closed softwares can deliver things faster tho. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Ezalvarenga]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 19:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:I agree we could use a little more discipline on this. e.g. I'm not ''convinced'' all Mac users in the office would truly be significantly less effective at their work on Ubuntu machines. I do acknowledge some may be. I think it warrants some nudging/pushing, though. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 20:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::I think there's a huge distinction between closed source tools for personal productivity, and closed source tools for supporting the projects. This should be clarified in the text of the principles, because the current state of affairs is that we require FOSS when it comes to what is actually necessary for the projects to run, and we obviously don't when it comes to the office IT. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 22:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Thanks. In my initial posting I had shared tools in production (servers, webservices, etc.) in mind, but did not mean to refer to personal computers of individuals - that would be under the "personal freedom" category, and a published evaluation feels like overkill for such private cases. --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::Hi, Aklapper, I don't have time today to make a longer comment, but for the personal freedom, if everybody begin to use closed formats, people who wants to use open formats will be forced to use also closed ones. If a person doesn't want to buy an apple computer, but the wifi network forces people to do so or make their lifes with other hardwares difficult, sorry, a serious policy about that should change. Yes, people can choose whatever they want on their personal computers, but if the majority is using what is fashion, a conscious minitority will not have freedom to choose what they want. As an example, I do use sometimes closed softwares, like skype, but only when really necessary, like a partner or co-worker that prefers to use it. And I know the pain it is sometimes to use only Linux since 1998. :) In Brazil, at least, in the government level, we are trying to [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/thackday/WCmyz2jltF8/sKDd0xCPQaQJ BURN ALL THE DOCS]! There are also [https://groups.google.com/group/thackday/browse_thread/thread/4f94fbf09e4b6f54 bills] under way. ;D P. S. I could not even imagine close softwares on the server side. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Ezalvarenga]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 12:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Responding to a couple of you here. No, AKlapper, AFAIK there is no formal documented requirement/process for evaluation of when the Wikimedia Foundation uses a proprietary tool instead of an open source one. To date we've been small enough, and had a sufficient proportion of the staff who're personally dedicated to open source values, such that evaluation has tended to happen informally on a case-by-case basis, and it's worked reasonably well. Like, we made an organizational commitment to use CiviCRM early and we've stuck with that, and similarly I know that Finance & Admin uses proprietary accounting tools because early on some research was done that determined there was no acceptable open-source tool. I think those were both reasonable outcomes. Over the years we've toyed with the idea of developing a formal evaluation policy, but we have not done it. If you're suggesting we should, I would generally agree, but I also wouldn't say it's the thing Office IT should prioritize as most important and most urgent.<br />
<br />
More generally, in response to Ezalvarenga and Ijon, yes, I'd agree that our actual practices are likely imperfect -- there are probably some people at the Wikimedia Foundation using proprietary tools for individual use that could be replaced by open source tools. For example, I know that Legal has at some times used Microsoft Word for documents shared with external firms, when they probably could've insisted on using OpenOffice or LibreOffice without too much of a productivity hit.<br />
<br />
Frankly, individuals using proprietary tools has been a pretty big pain point for the Wikimedia Foundation. It's understandable: individual staff have widely varying levels of personal commitment to FLOSS, people want to be effective at work and so they want to use the tools that support them best, and people's work, and their needs, vary. No-one wants to be told they have no choice but to use X, whether X is Ubuntu/Thunderbird/LibreOffice or IE/Outlook/Word. That's utterly reasonable. So it's complex, and we're not going to capture a lot of complexity in a short statement. <br />
<br />
StevenW had proposed we modify the language here to distinguish between site production tools and personal/individual tools. Can somebody propose language for that, and for anything else here that might need clarification or finetuning? Feel free to make a change and I'll revert it or finetune it if I feel I need to. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Related reading: [[FLOSS-Exchange]]. I think focusing on the ideal (and its rationale, which Erik sort of touched on with his "right to fork" [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5334873&oldid=5334652 addition]), instead of what individuals might do, is a reasonable compromise. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 07:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think the line should be what's shared by the organization (or teams within the organization) and personal. For anything shared, we should make it free software/open source unless it's really unworkable (and even then, we should always keep an eye out for moving to free software as it improves). But if you want to use MS Word on your personal machine to write PHP that fully meets our coding conventions, more power to you ;). This basically [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&oldid=5335910#Freedom_and_open_source matches] the current text. But there are some cases where free software is workable for shared tools but we're not currently using them; as I said, we should try to change that. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Agreed with SteveW and others above that there's some distinction between what we share, what we use personally, and what we require others to use. Apple users in the office? Who cares, they're mostly running FOSS on top of Apple -- most of our ops folks and engineers live in a terminal and use standard Unix tools. Adobe Photoshop and proprietary-format files for graphics work? Maybe we do care, because you can't always use the PSD files without it. (I always advocate for SVG format for graphics, especially anything we intend to use in software or on sites that may need to be revisioned in the future.) Google Apps for email? Who cares, email is interoperable. Google Hangouts for video conferencing internally? Who cares? Google Hangouts for video conferencing including open community participation? Runs on Linux, but requires a proprietary plugin; not ideal but we accept it as the best compromise of several options for now. Maybe we care but we can live with it. etc. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::So the text now reads like this: <br />
<br />
::''The Wikimedia Foundation is deeply rooted in the values of the free culture and free software movements. With the exception of "fair use" material, all information in Wikimedia projects can be freely shared, freely distributed, freely modified and freely used for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, in perpetuity.''<br />
::''All code written by the Wikimedia Foundation is licensed under an applicable open source license. We realize our obligations not just to share code, but to cultivate a healthy community of contributors around the source code, and to work with upstream projects and contribute back improvements to their code.''<br />
::''All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software.''<br />
::''Consistent with the above principles, we support the right of third parties to make and maintain licensing-compliant copies and forks of Wikimedia content and Wikimedia-developed code, regardless of motivation or purpose. While we are generally not able to directly assist such efforts, we enable them by making available copies of Wikimedia content in bulk, and avoiding critical dependencies on proprietary code or services for maintaining a largely functionally equivalent fork.''<br />
::''As an organization, we strive to use open source tools over proprietary ones, although we use proprietary or closed tools (such as software, operating systems, etc.) where there is currently no open-source tool that will effectively meet our needs.''<br />
<br />
::Does this work for everybody? I could add some language specifically around personal tool use, but I feel like "where there's no open-source tool that would effectively meet our needs" covers it. Like, you use Illustrator if Gimp isn't good enough for what you need. Let me know if anyone feels like this language isn't clear/accurate: otherwise I'll consider this thread resolved. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 21:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: As a very minor piece of word-smithing, I'd change "not able to directly assist such efforts" to "not able to individually assist such efforts" - we do directly help such efforts with data dumps and tools, we just don't have the resources to give human attention individually to such efforts. But yes, looks good to go otherwise. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 22:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::: Done -- thanks James :-) [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 17:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Quick suggestion... ==<br />
<br />
[https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASue_Gardner%2FWikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5332950&oldid=5331958 ], which I made before seeing the request to comment first. Anyway, "serving every human being" seems a bit disingenuous, since we really aim to serve every literate human being with access to data and a digital device. ;-) The goal of providing equal access to all seems fairer, and more in line the the section's comments about well, accessibility. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 00:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:"equal access to all" is, er, equally disingenuous, as, by your own phrase, we're providing equal access only to "every literate human being with access to data and a digital device".<br />
:Furthermore, I actually do think we ''strive'' to serve every human being. Remember the free knowledge the Wikimedia community creates and shares is consumed offline too, not to mention the huge value of secondary use -- the knowledge worked into presentations, newspapers, books, radio and TV programs -- all consumed by hundreds of millions ''more'' than the group consuming it directly from our Web sites. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 00:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Yeah, I agree with Ijon. The language is "aims to" and "endeavours to," so I think it's appropriately framed as aspirational. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Actually, it's not quite that limited. We do generally serve literate people, but there are actually readings of many articles (e.g. see [[:w:Template:Spoken Wikipedia|Template:Spoken Wikipedia]], I'm sure among others). There are also various mechanisms for printing Wikipedia (some in-house, some just people trying to make money by selling Wikipedia books), so you don't need a digital device. The fact that we've consistently used fully free licenses for our content (except fair use extracts) has facilitated all of that. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Commons serves non-literate people indirectly. {{Smiley}} —[[User:Tom Morris|Tom Morris]] ([[User talk:Tom Morris|talk]]) 19:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Getting rich ==<br />
<br />
On «nobody is getting rich by working at the Wikimedia Foundation»: define "rich". For instance, I'm a student but I'm very rich compared to most world population and richer than millions of Italians (so, when serving in my university board I raised tuition fees for myself/my income range). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Yeah obviously "getting rich" is relative. It's only when you compare [[:wiktionary:apples and oranges|apples to apples]] and look at other tech and nonprofit compensation schemes that you see what is meant. In any case, it's pretty awesome that we want to put that among our guiding principles, right? <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Edit conflict with StevenW! And yeah, Steven, I agree. I think the key word here is "getting." Nemo is correct of course that by world population standards, everybody who works at the Wikimedia Foundation is rich. But we were born rich, we did not "get" rich through our work at the Wikimedia Foundation. The point here is that working at the Wikimedia Foundation is not a path to dramatically improving one's personal wealth. Thanks. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::I tend to see those negative statements ("'''not''' getting rich") as putting things in people's head that you don't want there in the first place. You say "not getting rich" (and I am on par with both Steven's and your interpretation on this) and all people seem to read/hear is "rich". Maybe we should try to find a positive statement for this? I'm kind of stuck though for a good one. "If you want to get rich, go work somewhere else"? -- ok, that one is stupid, but maybe you get my point? [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 21:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::I suspected that the point was in ''getting'', however this is tricky. One may get "richer" by going to work in the WMF for career reasons, compared to the previous work (or country?), comparatively getting "poorer" than possible in some other place, however the latter is mostly impossible to prove. "Nobody is getting richer" would be clearer but is technically wrong.<br />
:::Maybe: "we aim at level of income not being an important [the most important? one of the most important?] motivation[s] for someone to stay at the WMF", which implies there are different/contrasting motivations (presumably honest ;) ) without getting lost in defining which, and that income may be sacrificed. This is probably what is meant hear; no idea if it is positive enough as per notafish. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC) <small>P.s.: Steven, personally I don't care that much if someone gets rich at the WMF, as long as it's not by fleeing with the cash. :) I just like clarity.</small><br />
::::Seems a bit "off" for Sue Gardner to be commenting on "not getting rich" when her salary exceeds that of about 99% of American wage earners. -- [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A|2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A]] 18:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
I've just removed the phrase about getting rich. I think "fair but not lavish" covers it :-) Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 22:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Reasonable travel costs==<br />
«We aim to incur only reasonable travel costs: the general policy is to travel economy class and stay in moderately-priced hotels»: were $225K for staff (and board) at Wikimania reasonable? [[Talk:Wikimedia budget#Wikimania travel question]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:How much is that per person sent to Wikimania that year? I think looking at the total for shock value is unfair. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Nemo we're not making a commitment here to reduce travel costs, or to minimize travel. (I wouldn't want to do that: with a growing staff that operates as part of a global community that stages many international events such as Wikimania, the chapters' meeting and various hackathons, it strikes me that a focus on reducing travel costs would be a net negative not a net plus. I expect travel costs to be a not-insubstantial chunk of the Wikimedia Foundation budget: that seems eminently reasonable to me given the nature of our work.) The point here is simply that when we travel, we aim to do it moderately not luxuriously. The nuts-and-bolts of how we do that are captured in [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Travel_policy the travel policy], but the purpose of this statement is simply to summarize the overall intent. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::So in short yes, you think it's reasonable. :) <small>I don't know if it was: while you do or can know all the details on the alternatives and other considerations, I can't judge — no opinion at all.</small> Given that "reasonable" conveys little, you may consider removing «to incur only reasonable travel costs: the general policy is » and leaving only the straightforward part of the statement.<br />
:::Ideally (IMHO), we'd include some other criteria, like the impact:cost ratio (which you hinted to), usage of cheapest means of transportation, miscellaneous synergies (dumb example: double rooms instead of single where possible? and other more impactful stuff), with the disclaimer that all this must be applied fairly (see other section on benefits/reimbursements). I have no idea what are the current practices on all this so I don't know where to start, but I'm confident a compact form is possible. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Title or position==<br />
«People at the Wikimedia Foundation get the same benefits regardless of their title or position». <br />
*Who's "people"? Are you including all managers, trustees and employees?<br />
*What's "benefits" and how do you measure if "salaries" are "fair"? Are you considering only accessories or also the actual wage, before or after taxes, pension contributions etc.?<br />
*What are you including in "title or position" (or other comparison for "fair")? For instance, remote worker vs. office worker, full time vs. part time, staff vs. contractor.<br />
--[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:*Well, people does include at least all staff if you read further "regardless of their title or position". This should include everyone. As for Trustees, you've got a point, "people" is not clear and should probably be changed to "Staff" when it comes to benefits. I do not believe Trustees get benefits, even though they might benefit from insurance and related stuff when it comes to their work for the Foundation. It might make sense here to differentiate between staff/volunteers or something along those lines. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 14:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::To be clear: yes, the statement's intended to refer to all staff, and I can change the word "people" to "staff." There is detail available in the document [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/2a/Wikimedia_Foundation_Compensation_Practices.pdf Wikimedia Foundation Compensation Practices]. And for Notafish, yes, the trustees don't get any benefits. Expenses they incur on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation are reimbursed as per the policies, but they receive no compensation in the form of salary or other benefits. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::I think Staff makes sense in that context, thanks for clarifying. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 21:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC) <small>(Sue, it's '''n'''otafish, with a small '''n''', and I'm stupidly particular about it. If you want a capital, go with Delphine ;)</small><br />
:::::Thank you, Sue, this clarifies the first point: only two left in this section. :)<br />
:::::On "benefits", the exact meaning of the word (or lexical equivalent) varies quite a lot across jurisdictions and fiscal systems, as far as I know, so it's not safe to assume everyone will get what you mean. I understand that reimbursements are a different matter, but it would be nice if they were fair and independent from title etc., too. (I suppose they already mostly are?) --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::: Yeah, in the U.S. "benefits" is generally understood not to include salary (people talk about "salary plus benefits") (it's basically everything ''but'' salary). However, that might not be true in other countries/languages. Also, the 401(k) maximum match is a fixed percentage of salary. While the percentage is the same across position, the amount (n% × salary) technically is not. However, it's true this is a fine distinction. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
*'Staff' is normally understood to mean Employees + Contractors, where contractors are afforded fewer benefits (if any at all). I'd suggest amending to specify 'Employees at...'. [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 23:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
**I'd kind of like us to provide fair benefits to all staff including international contractors, but of course jurisdictions make things.... difficult. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 19:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
*** As per Oliver and others, I changed "staff" to "employees" for clarity. I do wish the WMF could provide equivalent benefits to everyone regardless of their official status (i.e., staff versus contractor) but Brion is right, it's very complex. Having said that, I'm pleased we do provide additional benefits to all U.S. employees beyond what's provided by the state. In many/most countries, the state provides the basics: in the United States it does not, and so employer-provided health insurance is critical. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 17:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
**** Okay I just rewrote this section. <br />
<br />
****''We aim to be careful with donors' money. We pay salaries that are fair but not lavish, and provide reasonable benefits (e.g., health and dental insurance) that are the same for all employees regardless of their title or position. We aim to incur only reasonable travel costs, and to keep work-related entertainment costs moderate.'' <br />
<br />
****Purpose of the rewrite is just clarity/simplicity. Nemo, rather than expanding the travel-related part with more detail I made it higher-level. [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Travel_policy The full travel policy is here], and it's an official Board policy, so if it changes it would be updated on that page. Folks, let me know if aiming "to keep work-related entertainment costs moderate" is clear enough. Again, there is a [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Duty_entertainment_guidelines_policy more detailed policy on this]. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 17:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Accountable==<br />
«The Wikimedia Foundation wants to be accountable to [...]». Please clarify how the concept of accountability applies here: «responsible for your decisions or actions and expected to explain them when you are asked»[http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/accountable] (are there processes to be responsible of your actions in front of the readers, receive their questions and explain? etc.). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Sure, of course there are processes to be responsible to the readers of the projects. Reader surveys. User testing. OTRS. The blogs. The annual reports. The regular publication of activity reports, performance reports, financial statements. Social media. Engagement with charity watchdog groups. Public mailing lists. Bugzilla. Office hours on IRC. Events for donors. This page, and many other on-wiki consultations related to feature development, policy development, and so forth. There are probably lots I am forgetting :-) Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Shared power==<br />
This section seems entirely useless, in that it lists a lot of minor ephemeral details from the ''here and now'' and no actual "principles" that may "guide" any action. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:The purpose of this section is to explicitly acknowledge that the Wikimedia Foundation works in partnership with a global community of volunteers -- that the Wikimedia Foundation is not the sole or even primary actor in fulfilling the Wikimedia mission, and that it needs to conduct itself accordingly, by creating mechanisms and processes enabling the community to have influence on its actions. Because we are interdependent partners. I think this is a pretty fundamental and important point to make, because in this regard we are different from practically everybody else. (What I mean by that: eBay and Facebook and Yelp may also have a social purpose or utility, but their primary purpose is to make money, and "community members" are a resource to be managed by the company to that end. In our case, the primary purpose of the movement is to make knowledge freely available to everyone around the world, and the Wikimedia Foundation and the global community of volunteers play different and complementary roles in achieving that shared goal.) So I wonder if that's not clear -- if my wording is just mucky. If so, can someone help propose better, more useful language? Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]])<br />
:The shared power section does mention volunteer "developers". However, I would like to see more emphasis on this. Something like "The Wikimedia Foundation strives to continually increase its partnership with outside developers, project managers, and system adminstrators so we can technically improve the sites together". This is an area where we've had some success, but more can definitely be done. The reason I said "outside" not "volunteer" is that they may be paid to work on something like MediaWiki, just not paid ''by'' WMF. The Apache Software Foundation is an example of an organization where many (not all) developers are paid (by various companies organizations), but they partner together to get things done. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==United States==<br />
On «support successful job candidates in attaining the legal right to work in the United States»: why only USA? What if they want to move elsewhere? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Maybe this should become "...to work from a WMF office in the United States", in case that's what's meant here. --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Or rather: Support succesful job candidates in attaining the legal right to work in the US should the need arise". Or something along those lines. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 14:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Yeah -- you're correct, we also support remote workers when people don't want to relocate and the job doesn't require it. I will reword :-) [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Here's what I changed it too -- let me know if this is clearer. "We aim to recruit talented people regardless of where they live, and depending on their preferences and the needs of the job, we support them in working remotely or relocating to the United States." Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::Does the trick, as far as I'm concerned. :) [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 21:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::::Yes, much clearer, thanks. <br />
::::::Ideally you'd be completely nation-neutral and support them in relocating to another country of their choice too, if suitable for them, and you could remove the "to the United States" bit. However, I understand this is an edge case. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::::Relocations are done because the WMF feels the employee should be in-office. Up until we open an office somewhere else I can't imagine that spending donor funds moving people to a country 'because they want to live there' would be optimal. [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 23:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Serving every human being==<br />
This section looks weird being 7 sections away from «Freedom and open source» with «All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software» etc. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The emphasis on the development of new features is undue and likely to grate on both engineering staff and community, in my opinion. It is out of step with the custodian role which many individuals in both groups identify with. We should express a stronger commitment to high availability and site performance. --[[User:Ori.livneh|Ori.livneh]] ([[User talk:Ori.livneh|talk]]) 10:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Oh ha, Ori.livneh I think that's just clumsy wording on my part. I can see how it's easy to misread, but what you think I said is not what I meant to be saying. I'll revise. I'll also move this chunk up to be nearer to Freedom and Open Source. Thanks to you both [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Also, it talks about these being directed at "readers", and hoping to support them in starting to contribute - but we should probably also talk about supporting existing contributors. :-) [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 20:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: On Sue's request, I've tried to address these points with [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5334886&oldid=5334873 this edit].--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 23:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: It's better (thanks, Sue, Erik, and James) but it's still not quite right, in my opinion: rather than rank engineering priorities (features, performance, availability) and then work backwards to explain the values that motivate them (access, participation), I think the section ought to lead with a statement of values, and then explain how our engineering priorities reflect our effort to realize these values maximally. --[[User:Ori.livneh|Ori.livneh]] ([[User talk:Ori.livneh|talk]]) 11:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::: Want to take a crack at drafting something on talk?--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 20:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::: How about:<br />
:::::: <div style="border:1px solid silver; background:#eee; margin:0.5em; padding:1em 2em;">The Wikimedia Foundation aims to make <span style="background: #d8ecff;">the</span> material in the Wikimedia projects broadly accessible to all. <span style="background: #d8ecff;">We work to enable for the world education from, entertainment by, and engagement with our projects' content, and participation in the communities and processes that create them.</span> Ensuring <span style="background: #d8ecff;">the</span> continued reliability, availability and responsiveness of all Wikimedia sites and services is our first priority. In prioritizing new products and features, our goal is to impact the largest-possible number of readers and contributors, and to eliminate barriers that could preclude people from accessing or contributing to our projects, such as poor usability, lack of language support, and limited access to technology. We endeavour to create the structural support and the necessary preconditions for bottom-up innovation by others. We do not form agreements in which one organization is given access to material or functionality that others are denied. Where possible, we aim to preserve and support frictionless use of the material in the projects, so that people can share it widely and easily.</div><br />
:::::: Thoughts? Please forgive the "power of threes" and running alliterations. :-) I worry that this section is now trying to say too much; possibly split after "technology"? I'm not particularly attached to my wording, so don't worry about offending. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 05:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Communication==<br />
Do you think https://xkcd.com/802/ [https://xkcd.com/802_large/] applies to the WMF? (In particular, the proportions in the two maps on the top <s>right</s> left being zoomed.) --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Nemo, could you clarify which proportions you refer to by naming them? Top right is "Unread Updates". --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Ouch. I meant left, of course. :) Thanks, [[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Right to fork==<br />
Again nothing. [[Talk:Terms of use/Archives/2011-12-06#Right to Fork]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
* Probably more of a Wikimedia principle than a Wikimedia Foundation principle. Perhaps we need a separate list? :-) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 09:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
*: I doubt it: «principles intended to guide the work of the Wikimedia Foundation». Who else do you suggest to task with ensuring the right to fork? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: Sue asked me to explore some language around this, so I've taken a first crack at it with [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5334873&oldid=5334652 this edit].--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 23:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::: Thanks! Much better. I'll let the experts comment on the specific wording and if it covers all the essential (people would like to have something more than page history dumps, but what exactly is tricky). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 23:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::: If this idea is developed any further could someone ping me? I'm interested for obvious reasons. Thanks. -- [[User:ArielGlenn|ArielGlenn]] ([[User talk:ArielGlenn|talk]]) 09:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Internationalism ==<br />
<br />
«''When we consider the community'' as a whole, we aim to consider all its languages and geographies and to avoid global initiatives that favor communities speaking only our languages» (emphasis added).<br />
I note that you're only talking of how you consider the community; what about «initiatives that favor communities speaking only our languages» in general? For instance, roughly how much of the WMF spending goes on initiatives that favor only English-language people (projects, users etc., readers) or only the USA? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Right to influence ==<br />
<br />
«Their work has earned [...] financial support sustaining the Wikimedia Foundation [...] and the global community has therefore earned the right to influence the work of the organizations»: it ''seems'' that you're stating that the only reason why someone has the "right to influence" the work is that they bring in dollars. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Transparency ==<br />
<br />
This section says "including employee guidelines". What happened to the public sharing of the [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Employee_Handbook Employee Handbook]? -- [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A|2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A]] 18:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
: I asked about this recently. It doesn't really seem relevant to this kind of document, though. There's a thread on wikimedia-l, I think, if you want to follow up. :-) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 21:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:: It explicitly says "As a matter of general practice, unless there’s a particular reason not to, we aim to publish internal organizational policies and procedures, including employee guidelines, financial policies, etc." I think it does belong here, because what the employees do is relevant, particularly to the donors who are essentially paying us. I agree the current reality around such employee procedures, etc. is not quite consistent with the document. There is some stuff on Office Wiki (a private WMF wiki for employees) that does not need to be confidential. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 23:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::: If only there were someone with access to both wikis with the technical know-how to move the pages. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 03:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::I'm pretty sure the staff handbook contains (amongst other things) access info to our healthcare providers, and other non-public information which should be stripped. I think that if someone did have the access and technical know-how to move the pages and acted on it, they'd swiftly find themselves losing the access ;p. As a general statement, the document ''should'' be moved over - but I imagine they want to get it finished and stable before combing through it to identify elements inappropriate for public consumption (otherwise you end up having to do multiple sweeps). [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 03:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::There are also sections which have been vetted by Legal and should not be open for editing by the public. This is one of the problems.--[[User:Jorm (WMF)|Jorm (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jorm (WMF)|talk]]) 23:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::: The legal team has no issue creating redacted PDFs. They just did for the [[NDA]]s. But they shouldn't be releasing documents in this way, of course. I've started some notes at [[legal docs]] for anyone interested. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 06:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Independence ==<br />
<br />
"Skillsets" is not a proper word. -- [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A|2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A]] 18:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
: Context, "Similarly, our Board of Trustees selection process is designed to encourage representation of different voices and skillsets, rather than recognizing donors or celebrities."<br />
: What would you recommend instead? "skill sets"? Something else? (This level of minor word tweaking you can really just do yourself, but I'm happy to proxy the edit for you from the talk page, if you'd like.) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 20:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: "Skillsets" is a reasonable word, but if the IP objects strenuously, we could use "sets of skills", which is rather po-faced. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 05:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::"Skillsets" is a perfectly cromulent word, even if my spell checker doesn't like it. If you're picky, write it as "skill sets". :) --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Frictionless and copyleft ==<br />
<br />
You might want to clarify this does not mean abandoning copyleft. Though not all WMF wikis use copyleft, many do, and there is general understanding of its benefits. I want to ensure people don't come later and start arguing that e.g. all new wikis should be non-copyleft to avoid "friction". [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 23:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Surely by definition, 'avoiding friction in reuse' would be 'copyleft' - it's talking about freedom for others to reuse our work, not freedom for us to reuse the work of others. Which WMF wikis are non-copyleft? [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 04:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:: Wikinews and Wikidata, for two. Copyleft licences are overly restrictive for wider re-use in some contexts. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 05:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Aha, we're talking less- rather than more-restrictive; my mistake :). [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 05:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Duplicate of [[wmf:Values]]? ==<br />
<br />
Hi. I wonder if these guiding principles aren't in some ways a duplicate of (or perhaps an update to) [[wmf:Values]]. What's the purpose of this document? Is it going to live alongside the [[wmf:mission|mission statement]], [[wmf:vision|vision statement]], etc.? Or will it end up being a Board resolution? Or something else? --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 04:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:It is similar, but more detailed than the values statement. I think the guiding principles are pretty well done, and cover some additional ground. It is worth considering if they could supersede the values statement, but there is some value in having a shorter document too. The guiding principles draft says, "It is likely that these principles will be presented to the Board of Trustees for their approval, at a future Board meeting." [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 16:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Free formats ==<br />
<br />
In re: ''All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software,'' can you clarify whether or not this is meant to mean that we will provide every file in free formats and thus not ''require'' the use of non-free software to view the file or does this mean that we will not provide the file in non-free formats at all? There seems to be some contention both internally and externally surrounding the possibility of providing non-free formats. I, personally, full appreciate having available to me free-formats, but when all of my devices have hardware-accelerated H.264 decoding, I would prefer to save cpu cycles and my battery when watching videos from commons. Similarly, there are some mobile devices that only support non-free formats and thus we currently do not support those users. -[[User:Pgehres (WMF)|Peter Gehres (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Pgehres (WMF)|talk]]) 05:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:We're working on that issue with legal internally... I'm certainly trying to push advocacy for explicit support of multi-format stack as officially acceptable, and would prefer clearer language on this as well. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Quality ==<br />
<br />
It strikes me that there is a glaring omission here. The current list of principles is a good set of ideologies, but surely the Wikimedia Foundation values high-quality content as much as it does the abstract principles like transparency and accountability. I understand that the Foundation does not generally (nor should) directly involve itself in the creation or judging of content on the projects, but certainly one of its core duties is encouraging or enabling the content creation, and one of the core implicit principles is that the content of the projects ought to be high-quality, comprehensive, authoritative, and so on (to the degree such quality descriptors are applicable to each project). To me, it seems like the omission of any principle that actually addresses the content of the projects is likely a matter of something being so obvious it didn't seem to need saying. I think it is important nonetheless, though. [[User:Dominic|Dominic]] ([[User talk:Dominic|talk]]) 06:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
: I agree. I think reiterating the [[wmf:mission statement|mission statement]] might be good here. (Related to the section above about [[wmf:values]], this page seems to be doing a bit of wheel reinvention....) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 06:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Ads? ==<br />
<br />
Is being ad-free a guiding principle? Relatedly, is being neutral? --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 07:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:On the neutrality issue... that seems perhaps too WIkipedia-specific? Wikivoyage, for instance, has [[:wikivoyage:Wikivoyage:Be fair|no neutrality policy]]. It seems like being independent is really the principle here, related to being ad-free, and that actually extends to other things like not being reliant on a few major donors. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think being ad-free is ''something we think is really great'', but the relevant guiding principle is indeed independence. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Mm, it's a little more than "really great"; Sue, Jimmy, and other board members have repeatedly stated for the record that Wikipedia will never show ads. So it's not accurate to present this as merely a strong preference; it has long been a firm commitment. (All this not to contradict that the principle here ''is'' independence rather than ''no ads''.) [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 22:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::IMO a commitment to not put ads on the site is more of a ''position'' than a ''principle''. We certainly don't advocate against advertisement culture the way we advocate for free speech and access to information. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 23:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Agreed. (your first comment did not acknowledge it was a committed position.) [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 23:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Free speech ==<br />
<br />
"Another crack at alternative wording: We aim to balance appropriately between our goal of being active internationally and our desire to minimize legal risk to the projects."<br />
:^ I worry this version doesn't actually say anything about being pro-free speech or making information available to everyone. One way to improve our international activity and lower our risk profile would be to censor information for certain countries to comply with local censorship or blasphemy laws, but I think we wouldn't consider that acceptable. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 19:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Thank you ==<br />
<br />
I just checked this page because I had a free moment (I am in an all-day annual planning meeting) and I want to say thank you to everyone who's contributing here -- this is a really useful conversation. Some of the language folks are proposing is really helpful, and there are a couple of places where the comments show that the existing language isn't nearly as clear as I thought it was. So this is good. I'll come back sometime over the next week, but please meanwhile continue to develop new needed language through discussion here -- it's very, very helpful. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]])<br />
<br />
== Wikimedia Brasil Statement of Principles ==<br />
Hi, I would like to suggest also the reading of the Statement of Principles made by the group of volunteers of Wikimedia in Brazil, in 2009, which has nice thoughts and can inspire a little those reading here:<br />
* [[:br:chapter:Wikimedia:Statement of Principles|Wikimedia Brasil - Statement of Principles]]<br />
I would like later, when I find time, to make comments on the internationalization section. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Tom]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 22:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Transparency: lack of IRS Form 990 ==<br />
<br />
Hello,<br />
<br />
The text mention we disclose the IRS form 990. The Financial page at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Financial_reports only shows the 2010-2011 form, thus we are missing the 2011-2012 form which should have been filled last year. [[User:Hashar|Ashar Voultoiz]] ([[User talk:Hashar|talk]]) 11:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:This isn't missing, just not there yet. :) The 2010-2011 form ([[:wmf:File:Form 990 - FY 10-11 - Public.pdf|here]]) was uploaded in May 2012. Previous years have been uploaded in [[:wmf::File:WMF 2009 2010 Form 990.pdf|April]], [[:wmf:File:WMF 2008 Form 990.pdf|May]], [[:wmf:File:WMF 2007 Form 990.pdf|May]] and [[:wmf:File:WMF 2006 Form 990.pdf|September]] of the year following the expiration of the fiscal year. Forms 990 are not due until the 15th day of the fifth month after the end of the fiscal year, with up to 180 days of extension if necessary. Last year's form 990 is still on schedule with previous years, and I'm sure it'll be uploaded sooner if ready. --[[User:Mdennis (WMF)|Maggie Dennis (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mdennis (WMF)|talk]]) 14:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Entities ==<br />
<br />
Thank you Sue for sharing and drafting this document in public! Reading the document – while understanding that it is aimed to describe current practice – I was a bit saddened to not see "movement entities" described in the context of partnership and cooperation in achieving the common goals. (There is some mention about giving movement entities money and freedom to do what they want, but I feel this does not live fully up to the [[mission]] statement, either in practice or at the level of principles.) –[[User:Bdamokos|Bence]] ([[User talk:Bdamokos|talk]]) 13:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)</div>Sue Gardnerhttps://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resolution_talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles/Archive_1&diff=328098Resolution talk:Wikimedia Foundation Guiding Principles/Archive 12013-04-02T17:14:31Z<p>Sue Gardner: /* Title or position */ commenting on employer-provided benefits</p>
<hr />
<div>== Freedom and open source ==<br />
"As an organization, we strive to use open source tools over proprietary ones, although we use proprietary or closed tools (such as software, operating systems, etc.) where there is currently no open-source tool that will effectively meet our needs." - Is there a requirement and process in place which forces people to publish an evaluation which open-source tools were considered and tested for a task in order to identify which specific functionality was only provided by closed-source tools? --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 18:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:<br />
:Well, maybe that is my impression because I work remotely, but I've seen some proprietary files been shared and proprietary softwares being used when we could have free software. For instance, microsoft documents or apple softwares. And I've heard the wifi network in SF office works better with apple stuff, which is kind of weird - I've visited SF office only once and I checked that, but I've heard the same from other online meetings. For pragmatical reasons, sometimes I know using some closed softwares can deliver things faster tho. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Ezalvarenga]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 19:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:I agree we could use a little more discipline on this. e.g. I'm not ''convinced'' all Mac users in the office would truly be significantly less effective at their work on Ubuntu machines. I do acknowledge some may be. I think it warrants some nudging/pushing, though. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 20:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::I think there's a huge distinction between closed source tools for personal productivity, and closed source tools for supporting the projects. This should be clarified in the text of the principles, because the current state of affairs is that we require FOSS when it comes to what is actually necessary for the projects to run, and we obviously don't when it comes to the office IT. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 22:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Thanks. In my initial posting I had shared tools in production (servers, webservices, etc.) in mind, but did not mean to refer to personal computers of individuals - that would be under the "personal freedom" category, and a published evaluation feels like overkill for such private cases. --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::Hi, Aklapper, I don't have time today to make a longer comment, but for the personal freedom, if everybody begin to use closed formats, people who wants to use open formats will be forced to use also closed ones. If a person doesn't want to buy an apple computer, but the wifi network forces people to do so or make their lifes with other hardwares difficult, sorry, a serious policy about that should change. Yes, people can choose whatever they want on their personal computers, but if the majority is using what is fashion, a conscious minitority will not have freedom to choose what they want. As an example, I do use sometimes closed softwares, like skype, but only when really necessary, like a partner or co-worker that prefers to use it. And I know the pain it is sometimes to use only Linux since 1998. :) In Brazil, at least, in the government level, we are trying to [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/thackday/WCmyz2jltF8/sKDd0xCPQaQJ BURN ALL THE DOCS]! There are also [https://groups.google.com/group/thackday/browse_thread/thread/4f94fbf09e4b6f54 bills] under way. ;D P. S. I could not even imagine close softwares on the server side. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Ezalvarenga]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 12:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Responding to a couple of you here. No, AKlapper, AFAIK there is no formal documented requirement/process for evaluation of when the Wikimedia Foundation uses a proprietary tool instead of an open source one. To date we've been small enough, and had a sufficient proportion of the staff who're personally dedicated to open source values, such that evaluation has tended to happen informally on a case-by-case basis, and it's worked reasonably well. Like, we made an organizational commitment to use CiviCRM early and we've stuck with that, and similarly I know that Finance & Admin uses proprietary accounting tools because early on some research was done that determined there was no acceptable open-source tool. I think those were both reasonable outcomes. Over the years we've toyed with the idea of developing a formal evaluation policy, but we have not done it. If you're suggesting we should, I would generally agree, but I also wouldn't say it's the thing Office IT should prioritize as most important and most urgent.<br />
<br />
More generally, in response to Ezalvarenga and Ijon, yes, I'd agree that our actual practices are likely imperfect -- there are probably some people at the Wikimedia Foundation using proprietary tools for individual use that could be replaced by open source tools. For example, I know that Legal has at some times used Microsoft Word for documents shared with external firms, when they probably could've insisted on using OpenOffice or LibreOffice without too much of a productivity hit.<br />
<br />
Frankly, individuals using proprietary tools has been a pretty big pain point for the Wikimedia Foundation. It's understandable: individual staff have widely varying levels of personal commitment to FLOSS, people want to be effective at work and so they want to use the tools that support them best, and people's work, and their needs, vary. No-one wants to be told they have no choice but to use X, whether X is Ubuntu/Thunderbird/LibreOffice or IE/Outlook/Word. That's utterly reasonable. So it's complex, and we're not going to capture a lot of complexity in a short statement. <br />
<br />
StevenW had proposed we modify the language here to distinguish between site production tools and personal/individual tools. Can somebody propose language for that, and for anything else here that might need clarification or finetuning? Feel free to make a change and I'll revert it or finetune it if I feel I need to. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Related reading: [[FLOSS-Exchange]]. I think focusing on the ideal (and its rationale, which Erik sort of touched on with his "right to fork" [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5334873&oldid=5334652 addition]), instead of what individuals might do, is a reasonable compromise. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 07:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think the line should be what's shared by the organization (or teams within the organization) and personal. For anything shared, we should make it free software/open source unless it's really unworkable (and even then, we should always keep an eye out for moving to free software as it improves). But if you want to use MS Word on your personal machine to write PHP that fully meets our coding conventions, more power to you ;). This basically [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&oldid=5335910#Freedom_and_open_source matches] the current text. But there are some cases where free software is workable for shared tools but we're not currently using them; as I said, we should try to change that. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Agreed with SteveW and others above that there's some distinction between what we share, what we use personally, and what we require others to use. Apple users in the office? Who cares, they're mostly running FOSS on top of Apple -- most of our ops folks and engineers live in a terminal and use standard Unix tools. Adobe Photoshop and proprietary-format files for graphics work? Maybe we do care, because you can't always use the PSD files without it. (I always advocate for SVG format for graphics, especially anything we intend to use in software or on sites that may need to be revisioned in the future.) Google Apps for email? Who cares, email is interoperable. Google Hangouts for video conferencing internally? Who cares? Google Hangouts for video conferencing including open community participation? Runs on Linux, but requires a proprietary plugin; not ideal but we accept it as the best compromise of several options for now. Maybe we care but we can live with it. etc. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::So the text now reads like this: <br />
<br />
::''The Wikimedia Foundation is deeply rooted in the values of the free culture and free software movements. With the exception of "fair use" material, all information in Wikimedia projects can be freely shared, freely distributed, freely modified and freely used for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, in perpetuity.''<br />
::''All code written by the Wikimedia Foundation is licensed under an applicable open source license. We realize our obligations not just to share code, but to cultivate a healthy community of contributors around the source code, and to work with upstream projects and contribute back improvements to their code.''<br />
::''All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software.''<br />
::''Consistent with the above principles, we support the right of third parties to make and maintain licensing-compliant copies and forks of Wikimedia content and Wikimedia-developed code, regardless of motivation or purpose. While we are generally not able to directly assist such efforts, we enable them by making available copies of Wikimedia content in bulk, and avoiding critical dependencies on proprietary code or services for maintaining a largely functionally equivalent fork.''<br />
::''As an organization, we strive to use open source tools over proprietary ones, although we use proprietary or closed tools (such as software, operating systems, etc.) where there is currently no open-source tool that will effectively meet our needs.''<br />
<br />
::Does this work for everybody? I could add some language specifically around personal tool use, but I feel like "where there's no open-source tool that would effectively meet our needs" covers it. Like, you use Illustrator if Gimp isn't good enough for what you need. Let me know if anyone feels like this language isn't clear/accurate: otherwise I'll consider this thread resolved. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 21:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: As a very minor piece of word-smithing, I'd change "not able to directly assist such efforts" to "not able to individually assist such efforts" - we do directly help such efforts with data dumps and tools, we just don't have the resources to give human attention individually to such efforts. But yes, looks good to go otherwise. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 22:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::: Done -- thanks James :-) [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 17:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Quick suggestion... ==<br />
<br />
[https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASue_Gardner%2FWikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5332950&oldid=5331958 ], which I made before seeing the request to comment first. Anyway, "serving every human being" seems a bit disingenuous, since we really aim to serve every literate human being with access to data and a digital device. ;-) The goal of providing equal access to all seems fairer, and more in line the the section's comments about well, accessibility. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 00:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:"equal access to all" is, er, equally disingenuous, as, by your own phrase, we're providing equal access only to "every literate human being with access to data and a digital device".<br />
:Furthermore, I actually do think we ''strive'' to serve every human being. Remember the free knowledge the Wikimedia community creates and shares is consumed offline too, not to mention the huge value of secondary use -- the knowledge worked into presentations, newspapers, books, radio and TV programs -- all consumed by hundreds of millions ''more'' than the group consuming it directly from our Web sites. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 00:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Yeah, I agree with Ijon. The language is "aims to" and "endeavours to," so I think it's appropriately framed as aspirational. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Actually, it's not quite that limited. We do generally serve literate people, but there are actually readings of many articles (e.g. see [[:w:Template:Spoken Wikipedia|Template:Spoken Wikipedia]], I'm sure among others). There are also various mechanisms for printing Wikipedia (some in-house, some just people trying to make money by selling Wikipedia books), so you don't need a digital device. The fact that we've consistently used fully free licenses for our content (except fair use extracts) has facilitated all of that. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Commons serves non-literate people indirectly. {{Smiley}} —[[User:Tom Morris|Tom Morris]] ([[User talk:Tom Morris|talk]]) 19:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Getting rich ==<br />
<br />
On «nobody is getting rich by working at the Wikimedia Foundation»: define "rich". For instance, I'm a student but I'm very rich compared to most world population and richer than millions of Italians (so, when serving in my university board I raised tuition fees for myself/my income range). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Yeah obviously "getting rich" is relative. It's only when you compare [[:wiktionary:apples and oranges|apples to apples]] and look at other tech and nonprofit compensation schemes that you see what is meant. In any case, it's pretty awesome that we want to put that among our guiding principles, right? <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Edit conflict with StevenW! And yeah, Steven, I agree. I think the key word here is "getting." Nemo is correct of course that by world population standards, everybody who works at the Wikimedia Foundation is rich. But we were born rich, we did not "get" rich through our work at the Wikimedia Foundation. The point here is that working at the Wikimedia Foundation is not a path to dramatically improving one's personal wealth. Thanks. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::I tend to see those negative statements ("'''not''' getting rich") as putting things in people's head that you don't want there in the first place. You say "not getting rich" (and I am on par with both Steven's and your interpretation on this) and all people seem to read/hear is "rich". Maybe we should try to find a positive statement for this? I'm kind of stuck though for a good one. "If you want to get rich, go work somewhere else"? -- ok, that one is stupid, but maybe you get my point? [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 21:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::I suspected that the point was in ''getting'', however this is tricky. One may get "richer" by going to work in the WMF for career reasons, compared to the previous work (or country?), comparatively getting "poorer" than possible in some other place, however the latter is mostly impossible to prove. "Nobody is getting richer" would be clearer but is technically wrong.<br />
:::Maybe: "we aim at level of income not being an important [the most important? one of the most important?] motivation[s] for someone to stay at the WMF", which implies there are different/contrasting motivations (presumably honest ;) ) without getting lost in defining which, and that income may be sacrificed. This is probably what is meant hear; no idea if it is positive enough as per notafish. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC) <small>P.s.: Steven, personally I don't care that much if someone gets rich at the WMF, as long as it's not by fleeing with the cash. :) I just like clarity.</small><br />
::::Seems a bit "off" for Sue Gardner to be commenting on "not getting rich" when her salary exceeds that of about 99% of American wage earners. -- [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A|2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A]] 18:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
I've just removed the phrase about getting rich. I think "fair but not lavish" covers it :-) Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 22:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Reasonable travel costs==<br />
«We aim to incur only reasonable travel costs: the general policy is to travel economy class and stay in moderately-priced hotels»: were $225K for staff (and board) at Wikimania reasonable? [[Talk:Wikimedia budget#Wikimania travel question]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:How much is that per person sent to Wikimania that year? I think looking at the total for shock value is unfair. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Nemo we're not making a commitment here to reduce travel costs, or to minimize travel. (I wouldn't want to do that: with a growing staff that operates as part of a global community that stages many international events such as Wikimania, the chapters' meeting and various hackathons, it strikes me that a focus on reducing travel costs would be a net negative not a net plus. I expect travel costs to be a not-insubstantial chunk of the Wikimedia Foundation budget: that seems eminently reasonable to me given the nature of our work.) The point here is simply that when we travel, we aim to do it moderately not luxuriously. The nuts-and-bolts of how we do that are captured in [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Travel_policy the travel policy], but the purpose of this statement is simply to summarize the overall intent. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::So in short yes, you think it's reasonable. :) <small>I don't know if it was: while you do or can know all the details on the alternatives and other considerations, I can't judge — no opinion at all.</small> Given that "reasonable" conveys little, you may consider removing «to incur only reasonable travel costs: the general policy is » and leaving only the straightforward part of the statement.<br />
:::Ideally (IMHO), we'd include some other criteria, like the impact:cost ratio (which you hinted to), usage of cheapest means of transportation, miscellaneous synergies (dumb example: double rooms instead of single where possible? and other more impactful stuff), with the disclaimer that all this must be applied fairly (see other section on benefits/reimbursements). I have no idea what are the current practices on all this so I don't know where to start, but I'm confident a compact form is possible. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Title or position==<br />
«People at the Wikimedia Foundation get the same benefits regardless of their title or position». <br />
*Who's "people"? Are you including all managers, trustees and employees?<br />
*What's "benefits" and how do you measure if "salaries" are "fair"? Are you considering only accessories or also the actual wage, before or after taxes, pension contributions etc.?<br />
*What are you including in "title or position" (or other comparison for "fair")? For instance, remote worker vs. office worker, full time vs. part time, staff vs. contractor.<br />
--[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:*Well, people does include at least all staff if you read further "regardless of their title or position". This should include everyone. As for Trustees, you've got a point, "people" is not clear and should probably be changed to "Staff" when it comes to benefits. I do not believe Trustees get benefits, even though they might benefit from insurance and related stuff when it comes to their work for the Foundation. It might make sense here to differentiate between staff/volunteers or something along those lines. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 14:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::To be clear: yes, the statement's intended to refer to all staff, and I can change the word "people" to "staff." There is detail available in the document [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/2a/Wikimedia_Foundation_Compensation_Practices.pdf Wikimedia Foundation Compensation Practices]. And for Notafish, yes, the trustees don't get any benefits. Expenses they incur on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation are reimbursed as per the policies, but they receive no compensation in the form of salary or other benefits. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::I think Staff makes sense in that context, thanks for clarifying. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 21:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC) <small>(Sue, it's '''n'''otafish, with a small '''n''', and I'm stupidly particular about it. If you want a capital, go with Delphine ;)</small><br />
:::::Thank you, Sue, this clarifies the first point: only two left in this section. :)<br />
:::::On "benefits", the exact meaning of the word (or lexical equivalent) varies quite a lot across jurisdictions and fiscal systems, as far as I know, so it's not safe to assume everyone will get what you mean. I understand that reimbursements are a different matter, but it would be nice if they were fair and independent from title etc., too. (I suppose they already mostly are?) --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::: Yeah, in the U.S. "benefits" is generally understood not to include salary (people talk about "salary plus benefits") (it's basically everything ''but'' salary). However, that might not be true in other countries/languages. Also, the 401(k) maximum match is a fixed percentage of salary. While the percentage is the same across position, the amount (n% × salary) technically is not. However, it's true this is a fine distinction. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
*'Staff' is normally understood to mean Employees + Contractors, where contractors are afforded fewer benefits (if any at all). I'd suggest amending to specify 'Employees at...'. [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 23:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
**I'd kind of like us to provide fair benefits to all staff including international contractors, but of course jurisdictions make things.... difficult. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 19:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
*** As per Oliver and others, I changed "staff" to "employees" for clarity. I do wish the WMF could provide equivalent benefits to everyone regardless of their official status (i.e., staff versus contractor) but Brion is right, it's very complex. Having said that, I'm pleased we do provide additional benefits to all U.S. employees beyond what's provided by the state. In many/most countries, the state provides the basics: in the United States it does not, and so employer-provided health insurance is critical. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 17:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Accountable==<br />
«The Wikimedia Foundation wants to be accountable to [...]». Please clarify how the concept of accountability applies here: «responsible for your decisions or actions and expected to explain them when you are asked»[http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/accountable] (are there processes to be responsible of your actions in front of the readers, receive their questions and explain? etc.). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Sure, of course there are processes to be responsible to the readers of the projects. Reader surveys. User testing. OTRS. The blogs. The annual reports. The regular publication of activity reports, performance reports, financial statements. Social media. Engagement with charity watchdog groups. Public mailing lists. Bugzilla. Office hours on IRC. Events for donors. This page, and many other on-wiki consultations related to feature development, policy development, and so forth. There are probably lots I am forgetting :-) Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Shared power==<br />
This section seems entirely useless, in that it lists a lot of minor ephemeral details from the ''here and now'' and no actual "principles" that may "guide" any action. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:The purpose of this section is to explicitly acknowledge that the Wikimedia Foundation works in partnership with a global community of volunteers -- that the Wikimedia Foundation is not the sole or even primary actor in fulfilling the Wikimedia mission, and that it needs to conduct itself accordingly, by creating mechanisms and processes enabling the community to have influence on its actions. Because we are interdependent partners. I think this is a pretty fundamental and important point to make, because in this regard we are different from practically everybody else. (What I mean by that: eBay and Facebook and Yelp may also have a social purpose or utility, but their primary purpose is to make money, and "community members" are a resource to be managed by the company to that end. In our case, the primary purpose of the movement is to make knowledge freely available to everyone around the world, and the Wikimedia Foundation and the global community of volunteers play different and complementary roles in achieving that shared goal.) So I wonder if that's not clear -- if my wording is just mucky. If so, can someone help propose better, more useful language? Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]])<br />
:The shared power section does mention volunteer "developers". However, I would like to see more emphasis on this. Something like "The Wikimedia Foundation strives to continually increase its partnership with outside developers, project managers, and system adminstrators so we can technically improve the sites together". This is an area where we've had some success, but more can definitely be done. The reason I said "outside" not "volunteer" is that they may be paid to work on something like MediaWiki, just not paid ''by'' WMF. The Apache Software Foundation is an example of an organization where many (not all) developers are paid (by various companies organizations), but they partner together to get things done. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==United States==<br />
On «support successful job candidates in attaining the legal right to work in the United States»: why only USA? What if they want to move elsewhere? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Maybe this should become "...to work from a WMF office in the United States", in case that's what's meant here. --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Or rather: Support succesful job candidates in attaining the legal right to work in the US should the need arise". Or something along those lines. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 14:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Yeah -- you're correct, we also support remote workers when people don't want to relocate and the job doesn't require it. I will reword :-) [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Here's what I changed it too -- let me know if this is clearer. "We aim to recruit talented people regardless of where they live, and depending on their preferences and the needs of the job, we support them in working remotely or relocating to the United States." Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::Does the trick, as far as I'm concerned. :) [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 21:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::::Yes, much clearer, thanks. <br />
::::::Ideally you'd be completely nation-neutral and support them in relocating to another country of their choice too, if suitable for them, and you could remove the "to the United States" bit. However, I understand this is an edge case. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::::Relocations are done because the WMF feels the employee should be in-office. Up until we open an office somewhere else I can't imagine that spending donor funds moving people to a country 'because they want to live there' would be optimal. [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 23:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Serving every human being==<br />
This section looks weird being 7 sections away from «Freedom and open source» with «All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software» etc. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The emphasis on the development of new features is undue and likely to grate on both engineering staff and community, in my opinion. It is out of step with the custodian role which many individuals in both groups identify with. We should express a stronger commitment to high availability and site performance. --[[User:Ori.livneh|Ori.livneh]] ([[User talk:Ori.livneh|talk]]) 10:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Oh ha, Ori.livneh I think that's just clumsy wording on my part. I can see how it's easy to misread, but what you think I said is not what I meant to be saying. I'll revise. I'll also move this chunk up to be nearer to Freedom and Open Source. Thanks to you both [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Also, it talks about these being directed at "readers", and hoping to support them in starting to contribute - but we should probably also talk about supporting existing contributors. :-) [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 20:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: On Sue's request, I've tried to address these points with [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5334886&oldid=5334873 this edit].--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 23:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: It's better (thanks, Sue, Erik, and James) but it's still not quite right, in my opinion: rather than rank engineering priorities (features, performance, availability) and then work backwards to explain the values that motivate them (access, participation), I think the section ought to lead with a statement of values, and then explain how our engineering priorities reflect our effort to realize these values maximally. --[[User:Ori.livneh|Ori.livneh]] ([[User talk:Ori.livneh|talk]]) 11:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::: Want to take a crack at drafting something on talk?--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 20:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::: How about:<br />
:::::: <div style="border:1px solid silver; background:#eee; margin:0.5em; padding:1em 2em;">The Wikimedia Foundation aims to make <span style="background: #d8ecff;">the</span> material in the Wikimedia projects broadly accessible to all. <span style="background: #d8ecff;">We work to enable for the world education from, entertainment by, and engagement with our projects' content, and participation in the communities and processes that create them.</span> Ensuring <span style="background: #d8ecff;">the</span> continued reliability, availability and responsiveness of all Wikimedia sites and services is our first priority. In prioritizing new products and features, our goal is to impact the largest-possible number of readers and contributors, and to eliminate barriers that could preclude people from accessing or contributing to our projects, such as poor usability, lack of language support, and limited access to technology. We endeavour to create the structural support and the necessary preconditions for bottom-up innovation by others. We do not form agreements in which one organization is given access to material or functionality that others are denied. Where possible, we aim to preserve and support frictionless use of the material in the projects, so that people can share it widely and easily.</div><br />
:::::: Thoughts? Please forgive the "power of threes" and running alliterations. :-) I worry that this section is now trying to say too much; possibly split after "technology"? I'm not particularly attached to my wording, so don't worry about offending. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 05:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Communication==<br />
Do you think https://xkcd.com/802/ [https://xkcd.com/802_large/] applies to the WMF? (In particular, the proportions in the two maps on the top <s>right</s> left being zoomed.) --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Nemo, could you clarify which proportions you refer to by naming them? Top right is "Unread Updates". --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Ouch. I meant left, of course. :) Thanks, [[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Right to fork==<br />
Again nothing. [[Talk:Terms of use/Archives/2011-12-06#Right to Fork]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
* Probably more of a Wikimedia principle than a Wikimedia Foundation principle. Perhaps we need a separate list? :-) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 09:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
*: I doubt it: «principles intended to guide the work of the Wikimedia Foundation». Who else do you suggest to task with ensuring the right to fork? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: Sue asked me to explore some language around this, so I've taken a first crack at it with [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5334873&oldid=5334652 this edit].--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 23:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::: Thanks! Much better. I'll let the experts comment on the specific wording and if it covers all the essential (people would like to have something more than page history dumps, but what exactly is tricky). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 23:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::: If this idea is developed any further could someone ping me? I'm interested for obvious reasons. Thanks. -- [[User:ArielGlenn|ArielGlenn]] ([[User talk:ArielGlenn|talk]]) 09:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Internationalism ==<br />
<br />
«''When we consider the community'' as a whole, we aim to consider all its languages and geographies and to avoid global initiatives that favor communities speaking only our languages» (emphasis added).<br />
I note that you're only talking of how you consider the community; what about «initiatives that favor communities speaking only our languages» in general? For instance, roughly how much of the WMF spending goes on initiatives that favor only English-language people (projects, users etc., readers) or only the USA? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Right to influence ==<br />
<br />
«Their work has earned [...] financial support sustaining the Wikimedia Foundation [...] and the global community has therefore earned the right to influence the work of the organizations»: it ''seems'' that you're stating that the only reason why someone has the "right to influence" the work is that they bring in dollars. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Transparency ==<br />
<br />
This section says "including employee guidelines". What happened to the public sharing of the [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Employee_Handbook Employee Handbook]? -- [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A|2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A]] 18:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
: I asked about this recently. It doesn't really seem relevant to this kind of document, though. There's a thread on wikimedia-l, I think, if you want to follow up. :-) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 21:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:: It explicitly says "As a matter of general practice, unless there’s a particular reason not to, we aim to publish internal organizational policies and procedures, including employee guidelines, financial policies, etc." I think it does belong here, because what the employees do is relevant, particularly to the donors who are essentially paying us. I agree the current reality around such employee procedures, etc. is not quite consistent with the document. There is some stuff on Office Wiki (a private WMF wiki for employees) that does not need to be confidential. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 23:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::: If only there were someone with access to both wikis with the technical know-how to move the pages. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 03:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::I'm pretty sure the staff handbook contains (amongst other things) access info to our healthcare providers, and other non-public information which should be stripped. I think that if someone did have the access and technical know-how to move the pages and acted on it, they'd swiftly find themselves losing the access ;p. As a general statement, the document ''should'' be moved over - but I imagine they want to get it finished and stable before combing through it to identify elements inappropriate for public consumption (otherwise you end up having to do multiple sweeps). [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 03:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::There are also sections which have been vetted by Legal and should not be open for editing by the public. This is one of the problems.--[[User:Jorm (WMF)|Jorm (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jorm (WMF)|talk]]) 23:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::: The legal team has no issue creating redacted PDFs. They just did for the [[NDA]]s. But they shouldn't be releasing documents in this way, of course. I've started some notes at [[legal docs]] for anyone interested. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 06:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Independence ==<br />
<br />
"Skillsets" is not a proper word. -- [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A|2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A]] 18:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
: Context, "Similarly, our Board of Trustees selection process is designed to encourage representation of different voices and skillsets, rather than recognizing donors or celebrities."<br />
: What would you recommend instead? "skill sets"? Something else? (This level of minor word tweaking you can really just do yourself, but I'm happy to proxy the edit for you from the talk page, if you'd like.) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 20:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: "Skillsets" is a reasonable word, but if the IP objects strenuously, we could use "sets of skills", which is rather po-faced. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 05:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::"Skillsets" is a perfectly cromulent word, even if my spell checker doesn't like it. If you're picky, write it as "skill sets". :) --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Frictionless and copyleft ==<br />
<br />
You might want to clarify this does not mean abandoning copyleft. Though not all WMF wikis use copyleft, many do, and there is general understanding of its benefits. I want to ensure people don't come later and start arguing that e.g. all new wikis should be non-copyleft to avoid "friction". [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 23:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Surely by definition, 'avoiding friction in reuse' would be 'copyleft' - it's talking about freedom for others to reuse our work, not freedom for us to reuse the work of others. Which WMF wikis are non-copyleft? [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 04:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:: Wikinews and Wikidata, for two. Copyleft licences are overly restrictive for wider re-use in some contexts. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 05:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Aha, we're talking less- rather than more-restrictive; my mistake :). [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 05:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Duplicate of [[wmf:Values]]? ==<br />
<br />
Hi. I wonder if these guiding principles aren't in some ways a duplicate of (or perhaps an update to) [[wmf:Values]]. What's the purpose of this document? Is it going to live alongside the [[wmf:mission|mission statement]], [[wmf:vision|vision statement]], etc.? Or will it end up being a Board resolution? Or something else? --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 04:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:It is similar, but more detailed than the values statement. I think the guiding principles are pretty well done, and cover some additional ground. It is worth considering if they could supersede the values statement, but there is some value in having a shorter document too. The guiding principles draft says, "It is likely that these principles will be presented to the Board of Trustees for their approval, at a future Board meeting." [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 16:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Free formats ==<br />
<br />
In re: ''All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software,'' can you clarify whether or not this is meant to mean that we will provide every file in free formats and thus not ''require'' the use of non-free software to view the file or does this mean that we will not provide the file in non-free formats at all? There seems to be some contention both internally and externally surrounding the possibility of providing non-free formats. I, personally, full appreciate having available to me free-formats, but when all of my devices have hardware-accelerated H.264 decoding, I would prefer to save cpu cycles and my battery when watching videos from commons. Similarly, there are some mobile devices that only support non-free formats and thus we currently do not support those users. -[[User:Pgehres (WMF)|Peter Gehres (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Pgehres (WMF)|talk]]) 05:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:We're working on that issue with legal internally... I'm certainly trying to push advocacy for explicit support of multi-format stack as officially acceptable, and would prefer clearer language on this as well. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Quality ==<br />
<br />
It strikes me that there is a glaring omission here. The current list of principles is a good set of ideologies, but surely the Wikimedia Foundation values high-quality content as much as it does the abstract principles like transparency and accountability. I understand that the Foundation does not generally (nor should) directly involve itself in the creation or judging of content on the projects, but certainly one of its core duties is encouraging or enabling the content creation, and one of the core implicit principles is that the content of the projects ought to be high-quality, comprehensive, authoritative, and so on (to the degree such quality descriptors are applicable to each project). To me, it seems like the omission of any principle that actually addresses the content of the projects is likely a matter of something being so obvious it didn't seem to need saying. I think it is important nonetheless, though. [[User:Dominic|Dominic]] ([[User talk:Dominic|talk]]) 06:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
: I agree. I think reiterating the [[wmf:mission statement|mission statement]] might be good here. (Related to the section above about [[wmf:values]], this page seems to be doing a bit of wheel reinvention....) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 06:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Ads? ==<br />
<br />
Is being ad-free a guiding principle? Relatedly, is being neutral? --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 07:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:On the neutrality issue... that seems perhaps too WIkipedia-specific? Wikivoyage, for instance, has [[:wikivoyage:Wikivoyage:Be fair|no neutrality policy]]. It seems like being independent is really the principle here, related to being ad-free, and that actually extends to other things like not being reliant on a few major donors. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think being ad-free is ''something we think is really great'', but the relevant guiding principle is indeed independence. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Mm, it's a little more than "really great"; Sue, Jimmy, and other board members have repeatedly stated for the record that Wikipedia will never show ads. So it's not accurate to present this as merely a strong preference; it has long been a firm commitment. (All this not to contradict that the principle here ''is'' independence rather than ''no ads''.) [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 22:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::IMO a commitment to not put ads on the site is more of a ''position'' than a ''principle''. We certainly don't advocate against advertisement culture the way we advocate for free speech and access to information. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 23:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Agreed. (your first comment did not acknowledge it was a committed position.) [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 23:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Free speech ==<br />
<br />
"Another crack at alternative wording: We aim to balance appropriately between our goal of being active internationally and our desire to minimize legal risk to the projects."<br />
:^ I worry this version doesn't actually say anything about being pro-free speech or making information available to everyone. One way to improve our international activity and lower our risk profile would be to censor information for certain countries to comply with local censorship or blasphemy laws, but I think we wouldn't consider that acceptable. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 19:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Thank you ==<br />
<br />
I just checked this page because I had a free moment (I am in an all-day annual planning meeting) and I want to say thank you to everyone who's contributing here -- this is a really useful conversation. Some of the language folks are proposing is really helpful, and there are a couple of places where the comments show that the existing language isn't nearly as clear as I thought it was. So this is good. I'll come back sometime over the next week, but please meanwhile continue to develop new needed language through discussion here -- it's very, very helpful. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]])<br />
<br />
== Wikimedia Brasil Statement of Principles ==<br />
Hi, I would like to suggest also the reading of the Statement of Principles made by the group of volunteers of Wikimedia in Brazil, in 2009, which has nice thoughts and can inspire a little those reading here:<br />
* [[:br:chapter:Wikimedia:Statement of Principles|Wikimedia Brasil - Statement of Principles]]<br />
I would like later, when I find time, to make comments on the internationalization section. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Tom]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 22:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Transparency: lack of IRS Form 990 ==<br />
<br />
Hello,<br />
<br />
The text mention we disclose the IRS form 990. The Financial page at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Financial_reports only shows the 2010-2011 form, thus we are missing the 2011-2012 form which should have been filled last year. [[User:Hashar|Ashar Voultoiz]] ([[User talk:Hashar|talk]]) 11:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:This isn't missing, just not there yet. :) The 2010-2011 form ([[:wmf:File:Form 990 - FY 10-11 - Public.pdf|here]]) was uploaded in May 2012. Previous years have been uploaded in [[:wmf::File:WMF 2009 2010 Form 990.pdf|April]], [[:wmf:File:WMF 2008 Form 990.pdf|May]], [[:wmf:File:WMF 2007 Form 990.pdf|May]] and [[:wmf:File:WMF 2006 Form 990.pdf|September]] of the year following the expiration of the fiscal year. Forms 990 are not due until the 15th day of the fifth month after the end of the fiscal year, with up to 180 days of extension if necessary. Last year's form 990 is still on schedule with previous years, and I'm sure it'll be uploaded sooner if ready. --[[User:Mdennis (WMF)|Maggie Dennis (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mdennis (WMF)|talk]]) 14:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Entities ==<br />
<br />
Thank you Sue for sharing and drafting this document in public! Reading the document – while understanding that it is aimed to describe current practice – I was a bit saddened to not see "movement entities" described in the context of partnership and cooperation in achieving the common goals. (There is some mention about giving movement entities money and freedom to do what they want, but I feel this does not live fully up to the [[mission]] statement, either in practice or at the level of principles.) –[[User:Bdamokos|Bence]] ([[User talk:Bdamokos|talk]]) 13:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)</div>Sue Gardnerhttps://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resolution_talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles/Archive_1&diff=328097Resolution talk:Wikimedia Foundation Guiding Principles/Archive 12013-04-02T17:02:18Z<p>Sue Gardner: /* Freedom and open source */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Freedom and open source ==<br />
"As an organization, we strive to use open source tools over proprietary ones, although we use proprietary or closed tools (such as software, operating systems, etc.) where there is currently no open-source tool that will effectively meet our needs." - Is there a requirement and process in place which forces people to publish an evaluation which open-source tools were considered and tested for a task in order to identify which specific functionality was only provided by closed-source tools? --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 18:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:<br />
:Well, maybe that is my impression because I work remotely, but I've seen some proprietary files been shared and proprietary softwares being used when we could have free software. For instance, microsoft documents or apple softwares. And I've heard the wifi network in SF office works better with apple stuff, which is kind of weird - I've visited SF office only once and I checked that, but I've heard the same from other online meetings. For pragmatical reasons, sometimes I know using some closed softwares can deliver things faster tho. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Ezalvarenga]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 19:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:I agree we could use a little more discipline on this. e.g. I'm not ''convinced'' all Mac users in the office would truly be significantly less effective at their work on Ubuntu machines. I do acknowledge some may be. I think it warrants some nudging/pushing, though. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 20:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::I think there's a huge distinction between closed source tools for personal productivity, and closed source tools for supporting the projects. This should be clarified in the text of the principles, because the current state of affairs is that we require FOSS when it comes to what is actually necessary for the projects to run, and we obviously don't when it comes to the office IT. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 22:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Thanks. In my initial posting I had shared tools in production (servers, webservices, etc.) in mind, but did not mean to refer to personal computers of individuals - that would be under the "personal freedom" category, and a published evaluation feels like overkill for such private cases. --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::Hi, Aklapper, I don't have time today to make a longer comment, but for the personal freedom, if everybody begin to use closed formats, people who wants to use open formats will be forced to use also closed ones. If a person doesn't want to buy an apple computer, but the wifi network forces people to do so or make their lifes with other hardwares difficult, sorry, a serious policy about that should change. Yes, people can choose whatever they want on their personal computers, but if the majority is using what is fashion, a conscious minitority will not have freedom to choose what they want. As an example, I do use sometimes closed softwares, like skype, but only when really necessary, like a partner or co-worker that prefers to use it. And I know the pain it is sometimes to use only Linux since 1998. :) In Brazil, at least, in the government level, we are trying to [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/thackday/WCmyz2jltF8/sKDd0xCPQaQJ BURN ALL THE DOCS]! There are also [https://groups.google.com/group/thackday/browse_thread/thread/4f94fbf09e4b6f54 bills] under way. ;D P. S. I could not even imagine close softwares on the server side. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Ezalvarenga]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 12:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Responding to a couple of you here. No, AKlapper, AFAIK there is no formal documented requirement/process for evaluation of when the Wikimedia Foundation uses a proprietary tool instead of an open source one. To date we've been small enough, and had a sufficient proportion of the staff who're personally dedicated to open source values, such that evaluation has tended to happen informally on a case-by-case basis, and it's worked reasonably well. Like, we made an organizational commitment to use CiviCRM early and we've stuck with that, and similarly I know that Finance & Admin uses proprietary accounting tools because early on some research was done that determined there was no acceptable open-source tool. I think those were both reasonable outcomes. Over the years we've toyed with the idea of developing a formal evaluation policy, but we have not done it. If you're suggesting we should, I would generally agree, but I also wouldn't say it's the thing Office IT should prioritize as most important and most urgent.<br />
<br />
More generally, in response to Ezalvarenga and Ijon, yes, I'd agree that our actual practices are likely imperfect -- there are probably some people at the Wikimedia Foundation using proprietary tools for individual use that could be replaced by open source tools. For example, I know that Legal has at some times used Microsoft Word for documents shared with external firms, when they probably could've insisted on using OpenOffice or LibreOffice without too much of a productivity hit.<br />
<br />
Frankly, individuals using proprietary tools has been a pretty big pain point for the Wikimedia Foundation. It's understandable: individual staff have widely varying levels of personal commitment to FLOSS, people want to be effective at work and so they want to use the tools that support them best, and people's work, and their needs, vary. No-one wants to be told they have no choice but to use X, whether X is Ubuntu/Thunderbird/LibreOffice or IE/Outlook/Word. That's utterly reasonable. So it's complex, and we're not going to capture a lot of complexity in a short statement. <br />
<br />
StevenW had proposed we modify the language here to distinguish between site production tools and personal/individual tools. Can somebody propose language for that, and for anything else here that might need clarification or finetuning? Feel free to make a change and I'll revert it or finetune it if I feel I need to. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Related reading: [[FLOSS-Exchange]]. I think focusing on the ideal (and its rationale, which Erik sort of touched on with his "right to fork" [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5334873&oldid=5334652 addition]), instead of what individuals might do, is a reasonable compromise. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 07:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think the line should be what's shared by the organization (or teams within the organization) and personal. For anything shared, we should make it free software/open source unless it's really unworkable (and even then, we should always keep an eye out for moving to free software as it improves). But if you want to use MS Word on your personal machine to write PHP that fully meets our coding conventions, more power to you ;). This basically [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&oldid=5335910#Freedom_and_open_source matches] the current text. But there are some cases where free software is workable for shared tools but we're not currently using them; as I said, we should try to change that. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Agreed with SteveW and others above that there's some distinction between what we share, what we use personally, and what we require others to use. Apple users in the office? Who cares, they're mostly running FOSS on top of Apple -- most of our ops folks and engineers live in a terminal and use standard Unix tools. Adobe Photoshop and proprietary-format files for graphics work? Maybe we do care, because you can't always use the PSD files without it. (I always advocate for SVG format for graphics, especially anything we intend to use in software or on sites that may need to be revisioned in the future.) Google Apps for email? Who cares, email is interoperable. Google Hangouts for video conferencing internally? Who cares? Google Hangouts for video conferencing including open community participation? Runs on Linux, but requires a proprietary plugin; not ideal but we accept it as the best compromise of several options for now. Maybe we care but we can live with it. etc. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::So the text now reads like this: <br />
<br />
::''The Wikimedia Foundation is deeply rooted in the values of the free culture and free software movements. With the exception of "fair use" material, all information in Wikimedia projects can be freely shared, freely distributed, freely modified and freely used for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, in perpetuity.''<br />
::''All code written by the Wikimedia Foundation is licensed under an applicable open source license. We realize our obligations not just to share code, but to cultivate a healthy community of contributors around the source code, and to work with upstream projects and contribute back improvements to their code.''<br />
::''All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software.''<br />
::''Consistent with the above principles, we support the right of third parties to make and maintain licensing-compliant copies and forks of Wikimedia content and Wikimedia-developed code, regardless of motivation or purpose. While we are generally not able to directly assist such efforts, we enable them by making available copies of Wikimedia content in bulk, and avoiding critical dependencies on proprietary code or services for maintaining a largely functionally equivalent fork.''<br />
::''As an organization, we strive to use open source tools over proprietary ones, although we use proprietary or closed tools (such as software, operating systems, etc.) where there is currently no open-source tool that will effectively meet our needs.''<br />
<br />
::Does this work for everybody? I could add some language specifically around personal tool use, but I feel like "where there's no open-source tool that would effectively meet our needs" covers it. Like, you use Illustrator if Gimp isn't good enough for what you need. Let me know if anyone feels like this language isn't clear/accurate: otherwise I'll consider this thread resolved. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 21:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: As a very minor piece of word-smithing, I'd change "not able to directly assist such efforts" to "not able to individually assist such efforts" - we do directly help such efforts with data dumps and tools, we just don't have the resources to give human attention individually to such efforts. But yes, looks good to go otherwise. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 22:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::: Done -- thanks James :-) [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 17:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Quick suggestion... ==<br />
<br />
[https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASue_Gardner%2FWikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5332950&oldid=5331958 ], which I made before seeing the request to comment first. Anyway, "serving every human being" seems a bit disingenuous, since we really aim to serve every literate human being with access to data and a digital device. ;-) The goal of providing equal access to all seems fairer, and more in line the the section's comments about well, accessibility. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 00:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:"equal access to all" is, er, equally disingenuous, as, by your own phrase, we're providing equal access only to "every literate human being with access to data and a digital device".<br />
:Furthermore, I actually do think we ''strive'' to serve every human being. Remember the free knowledge the Wikimedia community creates and shares is consumed offline too, not to mention the huge value of secondary use -- the knowledge worked into presentations, newspapers, books, radio and TV programs -- all consumed by hundreds of millions ''more'' than the group consuming it directly from our Web sites. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 00:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Yeah, I agree with Ijon. The language is "aims to" and "endeavours to," so I think it's appropriately framed as aspirational. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Actually, it's not quite that limited. We do generally serve literate people, but there are actually readings of many articles (e.g. see [[:w:Template:Spoken Wikipedia|Template:Spoken Wikipedia]], I'm sure among others). There are also various mechanisms for printing Wikipedia (some in-house, some just people trying to make money by selling Wikipedia books), so you don't need a digital device. The fact that we've consistently used fully free licenses for our content (except fair use extracts) has facilitated all of that. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Commons serves non-literate people indirectly. {{Smiley}} —[[User:Tom Morris|Tom Morris]] ([[User talk:Tom Morris|talk]]) 19:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Getting rich ==<br />
<br />
On «nobody is getting rich by working at the Wikimedia Foundation»: define "rich". For instance, I'm a student but I'm very rich compared to most world population and richer than millions of Italians (so, when serving in my university board I raised tuition fees for myself/my income range). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Yeah obviously "getting rich" is relative. It's only when you compare [[:wiktionary:apples and oranges|apples to apples]] and look at other tech and nonprofit compensation schemes that you see what is meant. In any case, it's pretty awesome that we want to put that among our guiding principles, right? <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Edit conflict with StevenW! And yeah, Steven, I agree. I think the key word here is "getting." Nemo is correct of course that by world population standards, everybody who works at the Wikimedia Foundation is rich. But we were born rich, we did not "get" rich through our work at the Wikimedia Foundation. The point here is that working at the Wikimedia Foundation is not a path to dramatically improving one's personal wealth. Thanks. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::I tend to see those negative statements ("'''not''' getting rich") as putting things in people's head that you don't want there in the first place. You say "not getting rich" (and I am on par with both Steven's and your interpretation on this) and all people seem to read/hear is "rich". Maybe we should try to find a positive statement for this? I'm kind of stuck though for a good one. "If you want to get rich, go work somewhere else"? -- ok, that one is stupid, but maybe you get my point? [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 21:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::I suspected that the point was in ''getting'', however this is tricky. One may get "richer" by going to work in the WMF for career reasons, compared to the previous work (or country?), comparatively getting "poorer" than possible in some other place, however the latter is mostly impossible to prove. "Nobody is getting richer" would be clearer but is technically wrong.<br />
:::Maybe: "we aim at level of income not being an important [the most important? one of the most important?] motivation[s] for someone to stay at the WMF", which implies there are different/contrasting motivations (presumably honest ;) ) without getting lost in defining which, and that income may be sacrificed. This is probably what is meant hear; no idea if it is positive enough as per notafish. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC) <small>P.s.: Steven, personally I don't care that much if someone gets rich at the WMF, as long as it's not by fleeing with the cash. :) I just like clarity.</small><br />
::::Seems a bit "off" for Sue Gardner to be commenting on "not getting rich" when her salary exceeds that of about 99% of American wage earners. -- [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A|2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A]] 18:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
I've just removed the phrase about getting rich. I think "fair but not lavish" covers it :-) Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 22:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Reasonable travel costs==<br />
«We aim to incur only reasonable travel costs: the general policy is to travel economy class and stay in moderately-priced hotels»: were $225K for staff (and board) at Wikimania reasonable? [[Talk:Wikimedia budget#Wikimania travel question]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:How much is that per person sent to Wikimania that year? I think looking at the total for shock value is unfair. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Nemo we're not making a commitment here to reduce travel costs, or to minimize travel. (I wouldn't want to do that: with a growing staff that operates as part of a global community that stages many international events such as Wikimania, the chapters' meeting and various hackathons, it strikes me that a focus on reducing travel costs would be a net negative not a net plus. I expect travel costs to be a not-insubstantial chunk of the Wikimedia Foundation budget: that seems eminently reasonable to me given the nature of our work.) The point here is simply that when we travel, we aim to do it moderately not luxuriously. The nuts-and-bolts of how we do that are captured in [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Travel_policy the travel policy], but the purpose of this statement is simply to summarize the overall intent. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::So in short yes, you think it's reasonable. :) <small>I don't know if it was: while you do or can know all the details on the alternatives and other considerations, I can't judge — no opinion at all.</small> Given that "reasonable" conveys little, you may consider removing «to incur only reasonable travel costs: the general policy is » and leaving only the straightforward part of the statement.<br />
:::Ideally (IMHO), we'd include some other criteria, like the impact:cost ratio (which you hinted to), usage of cheapest means of transportation, miscellaneous synergies (dumb example: double rooms instead of single where possible? and other more impactful stuff), with the disclaimer that all this must be applied fairly (see other section on benefits/reimbursements). I have no idea what are the current practices on all this so I don't know where to start, but I'm confident a compact form is possible. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Title or position==<br />
«People at the Wikimedia Foundation get the same benefits regardless of their title or position». <br />
*Who's "people"? Are you including all managers, trustees and employees?<br />
*What's "benefits" and how do you measure if "salaries" are "fair"? Are you considering only accessories or also the actual wage, before or after taxes, pension contributions etc.?<br />
*What are you including in "title or position" (or other comparison for "fair")? For instance, remote worker vs. office worker, full time vs. part time, staff vs. contractor.<br />
--[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:*Well, people does include at least all staff if you read further "regardless of their title or position". This should include everyone. As for Trustees, you've got a point, "people" is not clear and should probably be changed to "Staff" when it comes to benefits. I do not believe Trustees get benefits, even though they might benefit from insurance and related stuff when it comes to their work for the Foundation. It might make sense here to differentiate between staff/volunteers or something along those lines. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 14:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::To be clear: yes, the statement's intended to refer to all staff, and I can change the word "people" to "staff." There is detail available in the document [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/2a/Wikimedia_Foundation_Compensation_Practices.pdf Wikimedia Foundation Compensation Practices]. And for Notafish, yes, the trustees don't get any benefits. Expenses they incur on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation are reimbursed as per the policies, but they receive no compensation in the form of salary or other benefits. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::I think Staff makes sense in that context, thanks for clarifying. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 21:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC) <small>(Sue, it's '''n'''otafish, with a small '''n''', and I'm stupidly particular about it. If you want a capital, go with Delphine ;)</small><br />
:::::Thank you, Sue, this clarifies the first point: only two left in this section. :)<br />
:::::On "benefits", the exact meaning of the word (or lexical equivalent) varies quite a lot across jurisdictions and fiscal systems, as far as I know, so it's not safe to assume everyone will get what you mean. I understand that reimbursements are a different matter, but it would be nice if they were fair and independent from title etc., too. (I suppose they already mostly are?) --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::: Yeah, in the U.S. "benefits" is generally understood not to include salary (people talk about "salary plus benefits") (it's basically everything ''but'' salary). However, that might not be true in other countries/languages. Also, the 401(k) maximum match is a fixed percentage of salary. While the percentage is the same across position, the amount (n% × salary) technically is not. However, it's true this is a fine distinction. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
*'Staff' is normally understood to mean Employees + Contractors, where contractors are afforded fewer benefits (if any at all). I'd suggest amending to specify 'Employees at...'. [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 23:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
**I'd kind of like us to provide fair benefits to all staff including international contractors, but of course jurisdictions make things.... difficult. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 19:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Accountable==<br />
«The Wikimedia Foundation wants to be accountable to [...]». Please clarify how the concept of accountability applies here: «responsible for your decisions or actions and expected to explain them when you are asked»[http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/accountable] (are there processes to be responsible of your actions in front of the readers, receive their questions and explain? etc.). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Sure, of course there are processes to be responsible to the readers of the projects. Reader surveys. User testing. OTRS. The blogs. The annual reports. The regular publication of activity reports, performance reports, financial statements. Social media. Engagement with charity watchdog groups. Public mailing lists. Bugzilla. Office hours on IRC. Events for donors. This page, and many other on-wiki consultations related to feature development, policy development, and so forth. There are probably lots I am forgetting :-) Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Shared power==<br />
This section seems entirely useless, in that it lists a lot of minor ephemeral details from the ''here and now'' and no actual "principles" that may "guide" any action. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:The purpose of this section is to explicitly acknowledge that the Wikimedia Foundation works in partnership with a global community of volunteers -- that the Wikimedia Foundation is not the sole or even primary actor in fulfilling the Wikimedia mission, and that it needs to conduct itself accordingly, by creating mechanisms and processes enabling the community to have influence on its actions. Because we are interdependent partners. I think this is a pretty fundamental and important point to make, because in this regard we are different from practically everybody else. (What I mean by that: eBay and Facebook and Yelp may also have a social purpose or utility, but their primary purpose is to make money, and "community members" are a resource to be managed by the company to that end. In our case, the primary purpose of the movement is to make knowledge freely available to everyone around the world, and the Wikimedia Foundation and the global community of volunteers play different and complementary roles in achieving that shared goal.) So I wonder if that's not clear -- if my wording is just mucky. If so, can someone help propose better, more useful language? Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]])<br />
:The shared power section does mention volunteer "developers". However, I would like to see more emphasis on this. Something like "The Wikimedia Foundation strives to continually increase its partnership with outside developers, project managers, and system adminstrators so we can technically improve the sites together". This is an area where we've had some success, but more can definitely be done. The reason I said "outside" not "volunteer" is that they may be paid to work on something like MediaWiki, just not paid ''by'' WMF. The Apache Software Foundation is an example of an organization where many (not all) developers are paid (by various companies organizations), but they partner together to get things done. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==United States==<br />
On «support successful job candidates in attaining the legal right to work in the United States»: why only USA? What if they want to move elsewhere? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Maybe this should become "...to work from a WMF office in the United States", in case that's what's meant here. --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Or rather: Support succesful job candidates in attaining the legal right to work in the US should the need arise". Or something along those lines. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 14:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Yeah -- you're correct, we also support remote workers when people don't want to relocate and the job doesn't require it. I will reword :-) [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Here's what I changed it too -- let me know if this is clearer. "We aim to recruit talented people regardless of where they live, and depending on their preferences and the needs of the job, we support them in working remotely or relocating to the United States." Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::Does the trick, as far as I'm concerned. :) [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 21:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::::Yes, much clearer, thanks. <br />
::::::Ideally you'd be completely nation-neutral and support them in relocating to another country of their choice too, if suitable for them, and you could remove the "to the United States" bit. However, I understand this is an edge case. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::::Relocations are done because the WMF feels the employee should be in-office. Up until we open an office somewhere else I can't imagine that spending donor funds moving people to a country 'because they want to live there' would be optimal. [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 23:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Serving every human being==<br />
This section looks weird being 7 sections away from «Freedom and open source» with «All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software» etc. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The emphasis on the development of new features is undue and likely to grate on both engineering staff and community, in my opinion. It is out of step with the custodian role which many individuals in both groups identify with. We should express a stronger commitment to high availability and site performance. --[[User:Ori.livneh|Ori.livneh]] ([[User talk:Ori.livneh|talk]]) 10:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Oh ha, Ori.livneh I think that's just clumsy wording on my part. I can see how it's easy to misread, but what you think I said is not what I meant to be saying. I'll revise. I'll also move this chunk up to be nearer to Freedom and Open Source. Thanks to you both [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Also, it talks about these being directed at "readers", and hoping to support them in starting to contribute - but we should probably also talk about supporting existing contributors. :-) [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 20:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: On Sue's request, I've tried to address these points with [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5334886&oldid=5334873 this edit].--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 23:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: It's better (thanks, Sue, Erik, and James) but it's still not quite right, in my opinion: rather than rank engineering priorities (features, performance, availability) and then work backwards to explain the values that motivate them (access, participation), I think the section ought to lead with a statement of values, and then explain how our engineering priorities reflect our effort to realize these values maximally. --[[User:Ori.livneh|Ori.livneh]] ([[User talk:Ori.livneh|talk]]) 11:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::: Want to take a crack at drafting something on talk?--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 20:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::: How about:<br />
:::::: <div style="border:1px solid silver; background:#eee; margin:0.5em; padding:1em 2em;">The Wikimedia Foundation aims to make <span style="background: #d8ecff;">the</span> material in the Wikimedia projects broadly accessible to all. <span style="background: #d8ecff;">We work to enable for the world education from, entertainment by, and engagement with our projects' content, and participation in the communities and processes that create them.</span> Ensuring <span style="background: #d8ecff;">the</span> continued reliability, availability and responsiveness of all Wikimedia sites and services is our first priority. In prioritizing new products and features, our goal is to impact the largest-possible number of readers and contributors, and to eliminate barriers that could preclude people from accessing or contributing to our projects, such as poor usability, lack of language support, and limited access to technology. We endeavour to create the structural support and the necessary preconditions for bottom-up innovation by others. We do not form agreements in which one organization is given access to material or functionality that others are denied. Where possible, we aim to preserve and support frictionless use of the material in the projects, so that people can share it widely and easily.</div><br />
:::::: Thoughts? Please forgive the "power of threes" and running alliterations. :-) I worry that this section is now trying to say too much; possibly split after "technology"? I'm not particularly attached to my wording, so don't worry about offending. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 05:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Communication==<br />
Do you think https://xkcd.com/802/ [https://xkcd.com/802_large/] applies to the WMF? (In particular, the proportions in the two maps on the top <s>right</s> left being zoomed.) --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Nemo, could you clarify which proportions you refer to by naming them? Top right is "Unread Updates". --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Ouch. I meant left, of course. :) Thanks, [[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Right to fork==<br />
Again nothing. [[Talk:Terms of use/Archives/2011-12-06#Right to Fork]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
* Probably more of a Wikimedia principle than a Wikimedia Foundation principle. Perhaps we need a separate list? :-) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 09:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
*: I doubt it: «principles intended to guide the work of the Wikimedia Foundation». Who else do you suggest to task with ensuring the right to fork? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: Sue asked me to explore some language around this, so I've taken a first crack at it with [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5334873&oldid=5334652 this edit].--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 23:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::: Thanks! Much better. I'll let the experts comment on the specific wording and if it covers all the essential (people would like to have something more than page history dumps, but what exactly is tricky). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 23:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::: If this idea is developed any further could someone ping me? I'm interested for obvious reasons. Thanks. -- [[User:ArielGlenn|ArielGlenn]] ([[User talk:ArielGlenn|talk]]) 09:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Internationalism ==<br />
<br />
«''When we consider the community'' as a whole, we aim to consider all its languages and geographies and to avoid global initiatives that favor communities speaking only our languages» (emphasis added).<br />
I note that you're only talking of how you consider the community; what about «initiatives that favor communities speaking only our languages» in general? For instance, roughly how much of the WMF spending goes on initiatives that favor only English-language people (projects, users etc., readers) or only the USA? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Right to influence ==<br />
<br />
«Their work has earned [...] financial support sustaining the Wikimedia Foundation [...] and the global community has therefore earned the right to influence the work of the organizations»: it ''seems'' that you're stating that the only reason why someone has the "right to influence" the work is that they bring in dollars. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Transparency ==<br />
<br />
This section says "including employee guidelines". What happened to the public sharing of the [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Employee_Handbook Employee Handbook]? -- [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A|2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A]] 18:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
: I asked about this recently. It doesn't really seem relevant to this kind of document, though. There's a thread on wikimedia-l, I think, if you want to follow up. :-) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 21:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:: It explicitly says "As a matter of general practice, unless there’s a particular reason not to, we aim to publish internal organizational policies and procedures, including employee guidelines, financial policies, etc." I think it does belong here, because what the employees do is relevant, particularly to the donors who are essentially paying us. I agree the current reality around such employee procedures, etc. is not quite consistent with the document. There is some stuff on Office Wiki (a private WMF wiki for employees) that does not need to be confidential. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 23:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::: If only there were someone with access to both wikis with the technical know-how to move the pages. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 03:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::I'm pretty sure the staff handbook contains (amongst other things) access info to our healthcare providers, and other non-public information which should be stripped. I think that if someone did have the access and technical know-how to move the pages and acted on it, they'd swiftly find themselves losing the access ;p. As a general statement, the document ''should'' be moved over - but I imagine they want to get it finished and stable before combing through it to identify elements inappropriate for public consumption (otherwise you end up having to do multiple sweeps). [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 03:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::There are also sections which have been vetted by Legal and should not be open for editing by the public. This is one of the problems.--[[User:Jorm (WMF)|Jorm (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jorm (WMF)|talk]]) 23:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::: The legal team has no issue creating redacted PDFs. They just did for the [[NDA]]s. But they shouldn't be releasing documents in this way, of course. I've started some notes at [[legal docs]] for anyone interested. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 06:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Independence ==<br />
<br />
"Skillsets" is not a proper word. -- [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A|2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A]] 18:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
: Context, "Similarly, our Board of Trustees selection process is designed to encourage representation of different voices and skillsets, rather than recognizing donors or celebrities."<br />
: What would you recommend instead? "skill sets"? Something else? (This level of minor word tweaking you can really just do yourself, but I'm happy to proxy the edit for you from the talk page, if you'd like.) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 20:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: "Skillsets" is a reasonable word, but if the IP objects strenuously, we could use "sets of skills", which is rather po-faced. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 05:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::"Skillsets" is a perfectly cromulent word, even if my spell checker doesn't like it. If you're picky, write it as "skill sets". :) --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Frictionless and copyleft ==<br />
<br />
You might want to clarify this does not mean abandoning copyleft. Though not all WMF wikis use copyleft, many do, and there is general understanding of its benefits. I want to ensure people don't come later and start arguing that e.g. all new wikis should be non-copyleft to avoid "friction". [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 23:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Surely by definition, 'avoiding friction in reuse' would be 'copyleft' - it's talking about freedom for others to reuse our work, not freedom for us to reuse the work of others. Which WMF wikis are non-copyleft? [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 04:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:: Wikinews and Wikidata, for two. Copyleft licences are overly restrictive for wider re-use in some contexts. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 05:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Aha, we're talking less- rather than more-restrictive; my mistake :). [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 05:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Duplicate of [[wmf:Values]]? ==<br />
<br />
Hi. I wonder if these guiding principles aren't in some ways a duplicate of (or perhaps an update to) [[wmf:Values]]. What's the purpose of this document? Is it going to live alongside the [[wmf:mission|mission statement]], [[wmf:vision|vision statement]], etc.? Or will it end up being a Board resolution? Or something else? --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 04:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:It is similar, but more detailed than the values statement. I think the guiding principles are pretty well done, and cover some additional ground. It is worth considering if they could supersede the values statement, but there is some value in having a shorter document too. The guiding principles draft says, "It is likely that these principles will be presented to the Board of Trustees for their approval, at a future Board meeting." [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 16:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Free formats ==<br />
<br />
In re: ''All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software,'' can you clarify whether or not this is meant to mean that we will provide every file in free formats and thus not ''require'' the use of non-free software to view the file or does this mean that we will not provide the file in non-free formats at all? There seems to be some contention both internally and externally surrounding the possibility of providing non-free formats. I, personally, full appreciate having available to me free-formats, but when all of my devices have hardware-accelerated H.264 decoding, I would prefer to save cpu cycles and my battery when watching videos from commons. Similarly, there are some mobile devices that only support non-free formats and thus we currently do not support those users. -[[User:Pgehres (WMF)|Peter Gehres (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Pgehres (WMF)|talk]]) 05:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:We're working on that issue with legal internally... I'm certainly trying to push advocacy for explicit support of multi-format stack as officially acceptable, and would prefer clearer language on this as well. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Quality ==<br />
<br />
It strikes me that there is a glaring omission here. The current list of principles is a good set of ideologies, but surely the Wikimedia Foundation values high-quality content as much as it does the abstract principles like transparency and accountability. I understand that the Foundation does not generally (nor should) directly involve itself in the creation or judging of content on the projects, but certainly one of its core duties is encouraging or enabling the content creation, and one of the core implicit principles is that the content of the projects ought to be high-quality, comprehensive, authoritative, and so on (to the degree such quality descriptors are applicable to each project). To me, it seems like the omission of any principle that actually addresses the content of the projects is likely a matter of something being so obvious it didn't seem to need saying. I think it is important nonetheless, though. [[User:Dominic|Dominic]] ([[User talk:Dominic|talk]]) 06:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
: I agree. I think reiterating the [[wmf:mission statement|mission statement]] might be good here. (Related to the section above about [[wmf:values]], this page seems to be doing a bit of wheel reinvention....) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 06:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Ads? ==<br />
<br />
Is being ad-free a guiding principle? Relatedly, is being neutral? --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 07:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:On the neutrality issue... that seems perhaps too WIkipedia-specific? Wikivoyage, for instance, has [[:wikivoyage:Wikivoyage:Be fair|no neutrality policy]]. It seems like being independent is really the principle here, related to being ad-free, and that actually extends to other things like not being reliant on a few major donors. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think being ad-free is ''something we think is really great'', but the relevant guiding principle is indeed independence. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Mm, it's a little more than "really great"; Sue, Jimmy, and other board members have repeatedly stated for the record that Wikipedia will never show ads. So it's not accurate to present this as merely a strong preference; it has long been a firm commitment. (All this not to contradict that the principle here ''is'' independence rather than ''no ads''.) [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 22:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::IMO a commitment to not put ads on the site is more of a ''position'' than a ''principle''. We certainly don't advocate against advertisement culture the way we advocate for free speech and access to information. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 23:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Agreed. (your first comment did not acknowledge it was a committed position.) [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 23:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Free speech ==<br />
<br />
"Another crack at alternative wording: We aim to balance appropriately between our goal of being active internationally and our desire to minimize legal risk to the projects."<br />
:^ I worry this version doesn't actually say anything about being pro-free speech or making information available to everyone. One way to improve our international activity and lower our risk profile would be to censor information for certain countries to comply with local censorship or blasphemy laws, but I think we wouldn't consider that acceptable. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 19:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Thank you ==<br />
<br />
I just checked this page because I had a free moment (I am in an all-day annual planning meeting) and I want to say thank you to everyone who's contributing here -- this is a really useful conversation. Some of the language folks are proposing is really helpful, and there are a couple of places where the comments show that the existing language isn't nearly as clear as I thought it was. So this is good. I'll come back sometime over the next week, but please meanwhile continue to develop new needed language through discussion here -- it's very, very helpful. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]])<br />
<br />
== Wikimedia Brasil Statement of Principles ==<br />
Hi, I would like to suggest also the reading of the Statement of Principles made by the group of volunteers of Wikimedia in Brazil, in 2009, which has nice thoughts and can inspire a little those reading here:<br />
* [[:br:chapter:Wikimedia:Statement of Principles|Wikimedia Brasil - Statement of Principles]]<br />
I would like later, when I find time, to make comments on the internationalization section. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Tom]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 22:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Transparency: lack of IRS Form 990 ==<br />
<br />
Hello,<br />
<br />
The text mention we disclose the IRS form 990. The Financial page at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Financial_reports only shows the 2010-2011 form, thus we are missing the 2011-2012 form which should have been filled last year. [[User:Hashar|Ashar Voultoiz]] ([[User talk:Hashar|talk]]) 11:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:This isn't missing, just not there yet. :) The 2010-2011 form ([[:wmf:File:Form 990 - FY 10-11 - Public.pdf|here]]) was uploaded in May 2012. Previous years have been uploaded in [[:wmf::File:WMF 2009 2010 Form 990.pdf|April]], [[:wmf:File:WMF 2008 Form 990.pdf|May]], [[:wmf:File:WMF 2007 Form 990.pdf|May]] and [[:wmf:File:WMF 2006 Form 990.pdf|September]] of the year following the expiration of the fiscal year. Forms 990 are not due until the 15th day of the fifth month after the end of the fiscal year, with up to 180 days of extension if necessary. Last year's form 990 is still on schedule with previous years, and I'm sure it'll be uploaded sooner if ready. --[[User:Mdennis (WMF)|Maggie Dennis (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mdennis (WMF)|talk]]) 14:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Entities ==<br />
<br />
Thank you Sue for sharing and drafting this document in public! Reading the document – while understanding that it is aimed to describe current practice – I was a bit saddened to not see "movement entities" described in the context of partnership and cooperation in achieving the common goals. (There is some mention about giving movement entities money and freedom to do what they want, but I feel this does not live fully up to the [[mission]] statement, either in practice or at the level of principles.) –[[User:Bdamokos|Bence]] ([[User talk:Bdamokos|talk]]) 13:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)</div>Sue Gardnerhttps://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resolution_talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles/Archive_1&diff=328095Resolution talk:Wikimedia Foundation Guiding Principles/Archive 12013-04-01T22:00:37Z<p>Sue Gardner: /* Getting rich */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Freedom and open source ==<br />
"As an organization, we strive to use open source tools over proprietary ones, although we use proprietary or closed tools (such as software, operating systems, etc.) where there is currently no open-source tool that will effectively meet our needs." - Is there a requirement and process in place which forces people to publish an evaluation which open-source tools were considered and tested for a task in order to identify which specific functionality was only provided by closed-source tools? --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 18:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:<br />
:Well, maybe that is my impression because I work remotely, but I've seen some proprietary files been shared and proprietary softwares being used when we could have free software. For instance, microsoft documents or apple softwares. And I've heard the wifi network in SF office works better with apple stuff, which is kind of weird - I've visited SF office only once and I checked that, but I've heard the same from other online meetings. For pragmatical reasons, sometimes I know using some closed softwares can deliver things faster tho. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Ezalvarenga]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 19:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:I agree we could use a little more discipline on this. e.g. I'm not ''convinced'' all Mac users in the office would truly be significantly less effective at their work on Ubuntu machines. I do acknowledge some may be. I think it warrants some nudging/pushing, though. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 20:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::I think there's a huge distinction between closed source tools for personal productivity, and closed source tools for supporting the projects. This should be clarified in the text of the principles, because the current state of affairs is that we require FOSS when it comes to what is actually necessary for the projects to run, and we obviously don't when it comes to the office IT. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 22:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Thanks. In my initial posting I had shared tools in production (servers, webservices, etc.) in mind, but did not mean to refer to personal computers of individuals - that would be under the "personal freedom" category, and a published evaluation feels like overkill for such private cases. --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::Hi, Aklapper, I don't have time today to make a longer comment, but for the personal freedom, if everybody begin to use closed formats, people who wants to use open formats will be forced to use also closed ones. If a person doesn't want to buy an apple computer, but the wifi network forces people to do so or make their lifes with other hardwares difficult, sorry, a serious policy about that should change. Yes, people can choose whatever they want on their personal computers, but if the majority is using what is fashion, a conscious minitority will not have freedom to choose what they want. As an example, I do use sometimes closed softwares, like skype, but only when really necessary, like a partner or co-worker that prefers to use it. And I know the pain it is sometimes to use only Linux since 1998. :) In Brazil, at least, in the government level, we are trying to [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/thackday/WCmyz2jltF8/sKDd0xCPQaQJ BURN ALL THE DOCS]! There are also [https://groups.google.com/group/thackday/browse_thread/thread/4f94fbf09e4b6f54 bills] under way. ;D P. S. I could not even imagine close softwares on the server side. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Ezalvarenga]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 12:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Responding to a couple of you here. No, AKlapper, AFAIK there is no formal documented requirement/process for evaluation of when the Wikimedia Foundation uses a proprietary tool instead of an open source one. To date we've been small enough, and had a sufficient proportion of the staff who're personally dedicated to open source values, such that evaluation has tended to happen informally on a case-by-case basis, and it's worked reasonably well. Like, we made an organizational commitment to use CiviCRM early and we've stuck with that, and similarly I know that Finance & Admin uses proprietary accounting tools because early on some research was done that determined there was no acceptable open-source tool. I think those were both reasonable outcomes. Over the years we've toyed with the idea of developing a formal evaluation policy, but we have not done it. If you're suggesting we should, I would generally agree, but I also wouldn't say it's the thing Office IT should prioritize as most important and most urgent.<br />
<br />
More generally, in response to Ezalvarenga and Ijon, yes, I'd agree that our actual practices are likely imperfect -- there are probably some people at the Wikimedia Foundation using proprietary tools for individual use that could be replaced by open source tools. For example, I know that Legal has at some times used Microsoft Word for documents shared with external firms, when they probably could've insisted on using OpenOffice or LibreOffice without too much of a productivity hit.<br />
<br />
Frankly, individuals using proprietary tools has been a pretty big pain point for the Wikimedia Foundation. It's understandable: individual staff have widely varying levels of personal commitment to FLOSS, people want to be effective at work and so they want to use the tools that support them best, and people's work, and their needs, vary. No-one wants to be told they have no choice but to use X, whether X is Ubuntu/Thunderbird/LibreOffice or IE/Outlook/Word. That's utterly reasonable. So it's complex, and we're not going to capture a lot of complexity in a short statement. <br />
<br />
StevenW had proposed we modify the language here to distinguish between site production tools and personal/individual tools. Can somebody propose language for that, and for anything else here that might need clarification or finetuning? Feel free to make a change and I'll revert it or finetune it if I feel I need to. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Related reading: [[FLOSS-Exchange]]. I think focusing on the ideal (and its rationale, which Erik sort of touched on with his "right to fork" [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5334873&oldid=5334652 addition]), instead of what individuals might do, is a reasonable compromise. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 07:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think the line should be what's shared by the organization (or teams within the organization) and personal. For anything shared, we should make it free software/open source unless it's really unworkable (and even then, we should always keep an eye out for moving to free software as it improves). But if you want to use MS Word on your personal machine to write PHP that fully meets our coding conventions, more power to you ;). This basically [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&oldid=5335910#Freedom_and_open_source matches] the current text. But there are some cases where free software is workable for shared tools but we're not currently using them; as I said, we should try to change that. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Agreed with SteveW and others above that there's some distinction between what we share, what we use personally, and what we require others to use. Apple users in the office? Who cares, they're mostly running FOSS on top of Apple -- most of our ops folks and engineers live in a terminal and use standard Unix tools. Adobe Photoshop and proprietary-format files for graphics work? Maybe we do care, because you can't always use the PSD files without it. (I always advocate for SVG format for graphics, especially anything we intend to use in software or on sites that may need to be revisioned in the future.) Google Apps for email? Who cares, email is interoperable. Google Hangouts for video conferencing internally? Who cares? Google Hangouts for video conferencing including open community participation? Runs on Linux, but requires a proprietary plugin; not ideal but we accept it as the best compromise of several options for now. Maybe we care but we can live with it. etc. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::So the text now reads like this: <br />
<br />
::''The Wikimedia Foundation is deeply rooted in the values of the free culture and free software movements. With the exception of "fair use" material, all information in Wikimedia projects can be freely shared, freely distributed, freely modified and freely used for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, in perpetuity.''<br />
::''All code written by the Wikimedia Foundation is licensed under an applicable open source license. We realize our obligations not just to share code, but to cultivate a healthy community of contributors around the source code, and to work with upstream projects and contribute back improvements to their code.''<br />
::''All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software.''<br />
::''Consistent with the above principles, we support the right of third parties to make and maintain licensing-compliant copies and forks of Wikimedia content and Wikimedia-developed code, regardless of motivation or purpose. While we are generally not able to directly assist such efforts, we enable them by making available copies of Wikimedia content in bulk, and avoiding critical dependencies on proprietary code or services for maintaining a largely functionally equivalent fork.''<br />
::''As an organization, we strive to use open source tools over proprietary ones, although we use proprietary or closed tools (such as software, operating systems, etc.) where there is currently no open-source tool that will effectively meet our needs.''<br />
<br />
::Does this work for everybody? I could add some language specifically around personal tool use, but I feel like "where there's no open-source tool that would effectively meet our needs" covers it. Like, you use Illustrator if Gimp isn't good enough for what you need. Let me know if anyone feels like this language isn't clear/accurate: otherwise I'll consider this thread resolved. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 21:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Quick suggestion... ==<br />
<br />
[https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASue_Gardner%2FWikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5332950&oldid=5331958 ], which I made before seeing the request to comment first. Anyway, "serving every human being" seems a bit disingenuous, since we really aim to serve every literate human being with access to data and a digital device. ;-) The goal of providing equal access to all seems fairer, and more in line the the section's comments about well, accessibility. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 00:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:"equal access to all" is, er, equally disingenuous, as, by your own phrase, we're providing equal access only to "every literate human being with access to data and a digital device".<br />
:Furthermore, I actually do think we ''strive'' to serve every human being. Remember the free knowledge the Wikimedia community creates and shares is consumed offline too, not to mention the huge value of secondary use -- the knowledge worked into presentations, newspapers, books, radio and TV programs -- all consumed by hundreds of millions ''more'' than the group consuming it directly from our Web sites. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 00:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Yeah, I agree with Ijon. The language is "aims to" and "endeavours to," so I think it's appropriately framed as aspirational. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Actually, it's not quite that limited. We do generally serve literate people, but there are actually readings of many articles (e.g. see [[:w:Template:Spoken Wikipedia|Template:Spoken Wikipedia]], I'm sure among others). There are also various mechanisms for printing Wikipedia (some in-house, some just people trying to make money by selling Wikipedia books), so you don't need a digital device. The fact that we've consistently used fully free licenses for our content (except fair use extracts) has facilitated all of that. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Commons serves non-literate people indirectly. {{Smiley}} —[[User:Tom Morris|Tom Morris]] ([[User talk:Tom Morris|talk]]) 19:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Getting rich ==<br />
<br />
On «nobody is getting rich by working at the Wikimedia Foundation»: define "rich". For instance, I'm a student but I'm very rich compared to most world population and richer than millions of Italians (so, when serving in my university board I raised tuition fees for myself/my income range). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Yeah obviously "getting rich" is relative. It's only when you compare [[:wiktionary:apples and oranges|apples to apples]] and look at other tech and nonprofit compensation schemes that you see what is meant. In any case, it's pretty awesome that we want to put that among our guiding principles, right? <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Edit conflict with StevenW! And yeah, Steven, I agree. I think the key word here is "getting." Nemo is correct of course that by world population standards, everybody who works at the Wikimedia Foundation is rich. But we were born rich, we did not "get" rich through our work at the Wikimedia Foundation. The point here is that working at the Wikimedia Foundation is not a path to dramatically improving one's personal wealth. Thanks. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::I tend to see those negative statements ("'''not''' getting rich") as putting things in people's head that you don't want there in the first place. You say "not getting rich" (and I am on par with both Steven's and your interpretation on this) and all people seem to read/hear is "rich". Maybe we should try to find a positive statement for this? I'm kind of stuck though for a good one. "If you want to get rich, go work somewhere else"? -- ok, that one is stupid, but maybe you get my point? [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 21:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::I suspected that the point was in ''getting'', however this is tricky. One may get "richer" by going to work in the WMF for career reasons, compared to the previous work (or country?), comparatively getting "poorer" than possible in some other place, however the latter is mostly impossible to prove. "Nobody is getting richer" would be clearer but is technically wrong.<br />
:::Maybe: "we aim at level of income not being an important [the most important? one of the most important?] motivation[s] for someone to stay at the WMF", which implies there are different/contrasting motivations (presumably honest ;) ) without getting lost in defining which, and that income may be sacrificed. This is probably what is meant hear; no idea if it is positive enough as per notafish. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC) <small>P.s.: Steven, personally I don't care that much if someone gets rich at the WMF, as long as it's not by fleeing with the cash. :) I just like clarity.</small><br />
::::Seems a bit "off" for Sue Gardner to be commenting on "not getting rich" when her salary exceeds that of about 99% of American wage earners. -- [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A|2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A]] 18:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
I've just removed the phrase about getting rich. I think "fair but not lavish" covers it :-) Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 22:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Reasonable travel costs==<br />
«We aim to incur only reasonable travel costs: the general policy is to travel economy class and stay in moderately-priced hotels»: were $225K for staff (and board) at Wikimania reasonable? [[Talk:Wikimedia budget#Wikimania travel question]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:How much is that per person sent to Wikimania that year? I think looking at the total for shock value is unfair. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Nemo we're not making a commitment here to reduce travel costs, or to minimize travel. (I wouldn't want to do that: with a growing staff that operates as part of a global community that stages many international events such as Wikimania, the chapters' meeting and various hackathons, it strikes me that a focus on reducing travel costs would be a net negative not a net plus. I expect travel costs to be a not-insubstantial chunk of the Wikimedia Foundation budget: that seems eminently reasonable to me given the nature of our work.) The point here is simply that when we travel, we aim to do it moderately not luxuriously. The nuts-and-bolts of how we do that are captured in [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Travel_policy the travel policy], but the purpose of this statement is simply to summarize the overall intent. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::So in short yes, you think it's reasonable. :) <small>I don't know if it was: while you do or can know all the details on the alternatives and other considerations, I can't judge — no opinion at all.</small> Given that "reasonable" conveys little, you may consider removing «to incur only reasonable travel costs: the general policy is » and leaving only the straightforward part of the statement.<br />
:::Ideally (IMHO), we'd include some other criteria, like the impact:cost ratio (which you hinted to), usage of cheapest means of transportation, miscellaneous synergies (dumb example: double rooms instead of single where possible? and other more impactful stuff), with the disclaimer that all this must be applied fairly (see other section on benefits/reimbursements). I have no idea what are the current practices on all this so I don't know where to start, but I'm confident a compact form is possible. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Title or position==<br />
«People at the Wikimedia Foundation get the same benefits regardless of their title or position». <br />
*Who's "people"? Are you including all managers, trustees and employees?<br />
*What's "benefits" and how do you measure if "salaries" are "fair"? Are you considering only accessories or also the actual wage, before or after taxes, pension contributions etc.?<br />
*What are you including in "title or position" (or other comparison for "fair")? For instance, remote worker vs. office worker, full time vs. part time, staff vs. contractor.<br />
--[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:*Well, people does include at least all staff if you read further "regardless of their title or position". This should include everyone. As for Trustees, you've got a point, "people" is not clear and should probably be changed to "Staff" when it comes to benefits. I do not believe Trustees get benefits, even though they might benefit from insurance and related stuff when it comes to their work for the Foundation. It might make sense here to differentiate between staff/volunteers or something along those lines. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 14:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::To be clear: yes, the statement's intended to refer to all staff, and I can change the word "people" to "staff." There is detail available in the document [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/2a/Wikimedia_Foundation_Compensation_Practices.pdf Wikimedia Foundation Compensation Practices]. And for Notafish, yes, the trustees don't get any benefits. Expenses they incur on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation are reimbursed as per the policies, but they receive no compensation in the form of salary or other benefits. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::I think Staff makes sense in that context, thanks for clarifying. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 21:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC) <small>(Sue, it's '''n'''otafish, with a small '''n''', and I'm stupidly particular about it. If you want a capital, go with Delphine ;)</small><br />
:::::Thank you, Sue, this clarifies the first point: only two left in this section. :)<br />
:::::On "benefits", the exact meaning of the word (or lexical equivalent) varies quite a lot across jurisdictions and fiscal systems, as far as I know, so it's not safe to assume everyone will get what you mean. I understand that reimbursements are a different matter, but it would be nice if they were fair and independent from title etc., too. (I suppose they already mostly are?) --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::: Yeah, in the U.S. "benefits" is generally understood not to include salary (people talk about "salary plus benefits") (it's basically everything ''but'' salary). However, that might not be true in other countries/languages. Also, the 401(k) maximum match is a fixed percentage of salary. While the percentage is the same across position, the amount (n% × salary) technically is not. However, it's true this is a fine distinction. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
*'Staff' is normally understood to mean Employees + Contractors, where contractors are afforded fewer benefits (if any at all). I'd suggest amending to specify 'Employees at...'. [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 23:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
**I'd kind of like us to provide fair benefits to all staff including international contractors, but of course jurisdictions make things.... difficult. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 19:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Accountable==<br />
«The Wikimedia Foundation wants to be accountable to [...]». Please clarify how the concept of accountability applies here: «responsible for your decisions or actions and expected to explain them when you are asked»[http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/accountable] (are there processes to be responsible of your actions in front of the readers, receive their questions and explain? etc.). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Sure, of course there are processes to be responsible to the readers of the projects. Reader surveys. User testing. OTRS. The blogs. The annual reports. The regular publication of activity reports, performance reports, financial statements. Social media. Engagement with charity watchdog groups. Public mailing lists. Bugzilla. Office hours on IRC. Events for donors. This page, and many other on-wiki consultations related to feature development, policy development, and so forth. There are probably lots I am forgetting :-) Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Shared power==<br />
This section seems entirely useless, in that it lists a lot of minor ephemeral details from the ''here and now'' and no actual "principles" that may "guide" any action. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:The purpose of this section is to explicitly acknowledge that the Wikimedia Foundation works in partnership with a global community of volunteers -- that the Wikimedia Foundation is not the sole or even primary actor in fulfilling the Wikimedia mission, and that it needs to conduct itself accordingly, by creating mechanisms and processes enabling the community to have influence on its actions. Because we are interdependent partners. I think this is a pretty fundamental and important point to make, because in this regard we are different from practically everybody else. (What I mean by that: eBay and Facebook and Yelp may also have a social purpose or utility, but their primary purpose is to make money, and "community members" are a resource to be managed by the company to that end. In our case, the primary purpose of the movement is to make knowledge freely available to everyone around the world, and the Wikimedia Foundation and the global community of volunteers play different and complementary roles in achieving that shared goal.) So I wonder if that's not clear -- if my wording is just mucky. If so, can someone help propose better, more useful language? Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]])<br />
:The shared power section does mention volunteer "developers". However, I would like to see more emphasis on this. Something like "The Wikimedia Foundation strives to continually increase its partnership with outside developers, project managers, and system adminstrators so we can technically improve the sites together". This is an area where we've had some success, but more can definitely be done. The reason I said "outside" not "volunteer" is that they may be paid to work on something like MediaWiki, just not paid ''by'' WMF. The Apache Software Foundation is an example of an organization where many (not all) developers are paid (by various companies organizations), but they partner together to get things done. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==United States==<br />
On «support successful job candidates in attaining the legal right to work in the United States»: why only USA? What if they want to move elsewhere? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Maybe this should become "...to work from a WMF office in the United States", in case that's what's meant here. --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Or rather: Support succesful job candidates in attaining the legal right to work in the US should the need arise". Or something along those lines. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 14:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Yeah -- you're correct, we also support remote workers when people don't want to relocate and the job doesn't require it. I will reword :-) [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Here's what I changed it too -- let me know if this is clearer. "We aim to recruit talented people regardless of where they live, and depending on their preferences and the needs of the job, we support them in working remotely or relocating to the United States." Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::Does the trick, as far as I'm concerned. :) [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 21:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::::Yes, much clearer, thanks. <br />
::::::Ideally you'd be completely nation-neutral and support them in relocating to another country of their choice too, if suitable for them, and you could remove the "to the United States" bit. However, I understand this is an edge case. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::::Relocations are done because the WMF feels the employee should be in-office. Up until we open an office somewhere else I can't imagine that spending donor funds moving people to a country 'because they want to live there' would be optimal. [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 23:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Serving every human being==<br />
This section looks weird being 7 sections away from «Freedom and open source» with «All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software» etc. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The emphasis on the development of new features is undue and likely to grate on both engineering staff and community, in my opinion. It is out of step with the custodian role which many individuals in both groups identify with. We should express a stronger commitment to high availability and site performance. --[[User:Ori.livneh|Ori.livneh]] ([[User talk:Ori.livneh|talk]]) 10:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Oh ha, Ori.livneh I think that's just clumsy wording on my part. I can see how it's easy to misread, but what you think I said is not what I meant to be saying. I'll revise. I'll also move this chunk up to be nearer to Freedom and Open Source. Thanks to you both [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Also, it talks about these being directed at "readers", and hoping to support them in starting to contribute - but we should probably also talk about supporting existing contributors. :-) [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 20:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: On Sue's request, I've tried to address these points with [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5334886&oldid=5334873 this edit].--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 23:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: It's better (thanks, Sue, Erik, and James) but it's still not quite right, in my opinion: rather than rank engineering priorities (features, performance, availability) and then work backwards to explain the values that motivate them (access, participation), I think the section ought to lead with a statement of values, and then explain how our engineering priorities reflect our effort to realize these values maximally. --[[User:Ori.livneh|Ori.livneh]] ([[User talk:Ori.livneh|talk]]) 11:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::: Want to take a crack at drafting something on talk?--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 20:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::: How about:<br />
:::::: <div style="border:1px solid silver; background:#eee; margin:0.5em; padding:1em 2em;">The Wikimedia Foundation aims to make <span style="background: #d8ecff;">the</span> material in the Wikimedia projects broadly accessible to all. <span style="background: #d8ecff;">We work to enable for the world education from, entertainment by, and engagement with our projects' content, and participation in the communities and processes that create them.</span> Ensuring <span style="background: #d8ecff;">the</span> continued reliability, availability and responsiveness of all Wikimedia sites and services is our first priority. In prioritizing new products and features, our goal is to impact the largest-possible number of readers and contributors, and to eliminate barriers that could preclude people from accessing or contributing to our projects, such as poor usability, lack of language support, and limited access to technology. We endeavour to create the structural support and the necessary preconditions for bottom-up innovation by others. We do not form agreements in which one organization is given access to material or functionality that others are denied. Where possible, we aim to preserve and support frictionless use of the material in the projects, so that people can share it widely and easily.</div><br />
:::::: Thoughts? Please forgive the "power of threes" and running alliterations. :-) I worry that this section is now trying to say too much; possibly split after "technology"? I'm not particularly attached to my wording, so don't worry about offending. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 05:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Communication==<br />
Do you think https://xkcd.com/802/ [https://xkcd.com/802_large/] applies to the WMF? (In particular, the proportions in the two maps on the top <s>right</s> left being zoomed.) --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Nemo, could you clarify which proportions you refer to by naming them? Top right is "Unread Updates". --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Ouch. I meant left, of course. :) Thanks, [[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Right to fork==<br />
Again nothing. [[Talk:Terms of use/Archives/2011-12-06#Right to Fork]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
* Probably more of a Wikimedia principle than a Wikimedia Foundation principle. Perhaps we need a separate list? :-) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 09:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
*: I doubt it: «principles intended to guide the work of the Wikimedia Foundation». Who else do you suggest to task with ensuring the right to fork? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: Sue asked me to explore some language around this, so I've taken a first crack at it with [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5334873&oldid=5334652 this edit].--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 23:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::: Thanks! Much better. I'll let the experts comment on the specific wording and if it covers all the essential (people would like to have something more than page history dumps, but what exactly is tricky). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 23:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::: If this idea is developed any further could someone ping me? I'm interested for obvious reasons. Thanks. -- [[User:ArielGlenn|ArielGlenn]] ([[User talk:ArielGlenn|talk]]) 09:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Internationalism ==<br />
<br />
«''When we consider the community'' as a whole, we aim to consider all its languages and geographies and to avoid global initiatives that favor communities speaking only our languages» (emphasis added).<br />
I note that you're only talking of how you consider the community; what about «initiatives that favor communities speaking only our languages» in general? For instance, roughly how much of the WMF spending goes on initiatives that favor only English-language people (projects, users etc., readers) or only the USA? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Right to influence ==<br />
<br />
«Their work has earned [...] financial support sustaining the Wikimedia Foundation [...] and the global community has therefore earned the right to influence the work of the organizations»: it ''seems'' that you're stating that the only reason why someone has the "right to influence" the work is that they bring in dollars. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Transparency ==<br />
<br />
This section says "including employee guidelines". What happened to the public sharing of the [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Employee_Handbook Employee Handbook]? -- [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A|2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A]] 18:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
: I asked about this recently. It doesn't really seem relevant to this kind of document, though. There's a thread on wikimedia-l, I think, if you want to follow up. :-) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 21:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:: It explicitly says "As a matter of general practice, unless there’s a particular reason not to, we aim to publish internal organizational policies and procedures, including employee guidelines, financial policies, etc." I think it does belong here, because what the employees do is relevant, particularly to the donors who are essentially paying us. I agree the current reality around such employee procedures, etc. is not quite consistent with the document. There is some stuff on Office Wiki (a private WMF wiki for employees) that does not need to be confidential. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 23:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::: If only there were someone with access to both wikis with the technical know-how to move the pages. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 03:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::I'm pretty sure the staff handbook contains (amongst other things) access info to our healthcare providers, and other non-public information which should be stripped. I think that if someone did have the access and technical know-how to move the pages and acted on it, they'd swiftly find themselves losing the access ;p. As a general statement, the document ''should'' be moved over - but I imagine they want to get it finished and stable before combing through it to identify elements inappropriate for public consumption (otherwise you end up having to do multiple sweeps). [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 03:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::There are also sections which have been vetted by Legal and should not be open for editing by the public. This is one of the problems.--[[User:Jorm (WMF)|Jorm (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jorm (WMF)|talk]]) 23:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::: The legal team has no issue creating redacted PDFs. They just did for the [[NDA]]s. But they shouldn't be releasing documents in this way, of course. I've started some notes at [[legal docs]] for anyone interested. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 06:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Independence ==<br />
<br />
"Skillsets" is not a proper word. -- [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A|2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A]] 18:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
: Context, "Similarly, our Board of Trustees selection process is designed to encourage representation of different voices and skillsets, rather than recognizing donors or celebrities."<br />
: What would you recommend instead? "skill sets"? Something else? (This level of minor word tweaking you can really just do yourself, but I'm happy to proxy the edit for you from the talk page, if you'd like.) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 20:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: "Skillsets" is a reasonable word, but if the IP objects strenuously, we could use "sets of skills", which is rather po-faced. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 05:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::"Skillsets" is a perfectly cromulent word, even if my spell checker doesn't like it. If you're picky, write it as "skill sets". :) --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Frictionless and copyleft ==<br />
<br />
You might want to clarify this does not mean abandoning copyleft. Though not all WMF wikis use copyleft, many do, and there is general understanding of its benefits. I want to ensure people don't come later and start arguing that e.g. all new wikis should be non-copyleft to avoid "friction". [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 23:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Surely by definition, 'avoiding friction in reuse' would be 'copyleft' - it's talking about freedom for others to reuse our work, not freedom for us to reuse the work of others. Which WMF wikis are non-copyleft? [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 04:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:: Wikinews and Wikidata, for two. Copyleft licences are overly restrictive for wider re-use in some contexts. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 05:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Aha, we're talking less- rather than more-restrictive; my mistake :). [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 05:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Duplicate of [[wmf:Values]]? ==<br />
<br />
Hi. I wonder if these guiding principles aren't in some ways a duplicate of (or perhaps an update to) [[wmf:Values]]. What's the purpose of this document? Is it going to live alongside the [[wmf:mission|mission statement]], [[wmf:vision|vision statement]], etc.? Or will it end up being a Board resolution? Or something else? --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 04:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:It is similar, but more detailed than the values statement. I think the guiding principles are pretty well done, and cover some additional ground. It is worth considering if they could supersede the values statement, but there is some value in having a shorter document too. The guiding principles draft says, "It is likely that these principles will be presented to the Board of Trustees for their approval, at a future Board meeting." [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 16:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Free formats ==<br />
<br />
In re: ''All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software,'' can you clarify whether or not this is meant to mean that we will provide every file in free formats and thus not ''require'' the use of non-free software to view the file or does this mean that we will not provide the file in non-free formats at all? There seems to be some contention both internally and externally surrounding the possibility of providing non-free formats. I, personally, full appreciate having available to me free-formats, but when all of my devices have hardware-accelerated H.264 decoding, I would prefer to save cpu cycles and my battery when watching videos from commons. Similarly, there are some mobile devices that only support non-free formats and thus we currently do not support those users. -[[User:Pgehres (WMF)|Peter Gehres (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Pgehres (WMF)|talk]]) 05:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:We're working on that issue with legal internally... I'm certainly trying to push advocacy for explicit support of multi-format stack as officially acceptable, and would prefer clearer language on this as well. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Quality ==<br />
<br />
It strikes me that there is a glaring omission here. The current list of principles is a good set of ideologies, but surely the Wikimedia Foundation values high-quality content as much as it does the abstract principles like transparency and accountability. I understand that the Foundation does not generally (nor should) directly involve itself in the creation or judging of content on the projects, but certainly one of its core duties is encouraging or enabling the content creation, and one of the core implicit principles is that the content of the projects ought to be high-quality, comprehensive, authoritative, and so on (to the degree such quality descriptors are applicable to each project). To me, it seems like the omission of any principle that actually addresses the content of the projects is likely a matter of something being so obvious it didn't seem to need saying. I think it is important nonetheless, though. [[User:Dominic|Dominic]] ([[User talk:Dominic|talk]]) 06:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
: I agree. I think reiterating the [[wmf:mission statement|mission statement]] might be good here. (Related to the section above about [[wmf:values]], this page seems to be doing a bit of wheel reinvention....) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 06:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Ads? ==<br />
<br />
Is being ad-free a guiding principle? Relatedly, is being neutral? --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 07:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:On the neutrality issue... that seems perhaps too WIkipedia-specific? Wikivoyage, for instance, has [[:wikivoyage:Wikivoyage:Be fair|no neutrality policy]]. It seems like being independent is really the principle here, related to being ad-free, and that actually extends to other things like not being reliant on a few major donors. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think being ad-free is ''something we think is really great'', but the relevant guiding principle is indeed independence. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Mm, it's a little more than "really great"; Sue, Jimmy, and other board members have repeatedly stated for the record that Wikipedia will never show ads. So it's not accurate to present this as merely a strong preference; it has long been a firm commitment. (All this not to contradict that the principle here ''is'' independence rather than ''no ads''.) [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 22:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::IMO a commitment to not put ads on the site is more of a ''position'' than a ''principle''. We certainly don't advocate against advertisement culture the way we advocate for free speech and access to information. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 23:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Agreed. (your first comment did not acknowledge it was a committed position.) [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 23:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Free speech ==<br />
<br />
"Another crack at alternative wording: We aim to balance appropriately between our goal of being active internationally and our desire to minimize legal risk to the projects."<br />
:^ I worry this version doesn't actually say anything about being pro-free speech or making information available to everyone. One way to improve our international activity and lower our risk profile would be to censor information for certain countries to comply with local censorship or blasphemy laws, but I think we wouldn't consider that acceptable. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 19:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Thank you ==<br />
<br />
I just checked this page because I had a free moment (I am in an all-day annual planning meeting) and I want to say thank you to everyone who's contributing here -- this is a really useful conversation. Some of the language folks are proposing is really helpful, and there are a couple of places where the comments show that the existing language isn't nearly as clear as I thought it was. So this is good. I'll come back sometime over the next week, but please meanwhile continue to develop new needed language through discussion here -- it's very, very helpful. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]])<br />
<br />
== Wikimedia Brasil Statement of Principles ==<br />
Hi, I would like to suggest also the reading of the Statement of Principles made by the group of volunteers of Wikimedia in Brazil, in 2009, which has nice thoughts and can inspire a little those reading here:<br />
* [[:br:chapter:Wikimedia:Statement of Principles|Wikimedia Brasil - Statement of Principles]]<br />
I would like later, when I find time, to make comments on the internationalization section. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Tom]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 22:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Transparency: lack of IRS Form 990 ==<br />
<br />
Hello,<br />
<br />
The text mention we disclose the IRS form 990. The Financial page at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Financial_reports only shows the 2010-2011 form, thus we are missing the 2011-2012 form which should have been filled last year. [[User:Hashar|Ashar Voultoiz]] ([[User talk:Hashar|talk]]) 11:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:This isn't missing, just not there yet. :) The 2010-2011 form ([[:wmf:File:Form 990 - FY 10-11 - Public.pdf|here]]) was uploaded in May 2012. Previous years have been uploaded in [[:wmf::File:WMF 2009 2010 Form 990.pdf|April]], [[:wmf:File:WMF 2008 Form 990.pdf|May]], [[:wmf:File:WMF 2007 Form 990.pdf|May]] and [[:wmf:File:WMF 2006 Form 990.pdf|September]] of the year following the expiration of the fiscal year. Forms 990 are not due until the 15th day of the fifth month after the end of the fiscal year, with up to 180 days of extension if necessary. Last year's form 990 is still on schedule with previous years, and I'm sure it'll be uploaded sooner if ready. --[[User:Mdennis (WMF)|Maggie Dennis (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mdennis (WMF)|talk]]) 14:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Entities ==<br />
<br />
Thank you Sue for sharing and drafting this document in public! Reading the document – while understanding that it is aimed to describe current practice – I was a bit saddened to not see "movement entities" described in the context of partnership and cooperation in achieving the common goals. (There is some mention about giving movement entities money and freedom to do what they want, but I feel this does not live fully up to the [[mission]] statement, either in practice or at the level of principles.) –[[User:Bdamokos|Bence]] ([[User talk:Bdamokos|talk]]) 13:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)</div>Sue Gardnerhttps://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resolution_talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles/Archive_1&diff=328094Resolution talk:Wikimedia Foundation Guiding Principles/Archive 12013-04-01T21:48:15Z<p>Sue Gardner: /* Freedom and open source */ moving to resolve this thread</p>
<hr />
<div>== Freedom and open source ==<br />
"As an organization, we strive to use open source tools over proprietary ones, although we use proprietary or closed tools (such as software, operating systems, etc.) where there is currently no open-source tool that will effectively meet our needs." - Is there a requirement and process in place which forces people to publish an evaluation which open-source tools were considered and tested for a task in order to identify which specific functionality was only provided by closed-source tools? --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 18:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:<br />
:Well, maybe that is my impression because I work remotely, but I've seen some proprietary files been shared and proprietary softwares being used when we could have free software. For instance, microsoft documents or apple softwares. And I've heard the wifi network in SF office works better with apple stuff, which is kind of weird - I've visited SF office only once and I checked that, but I've heard the same from other online meetings. For pragmatical reasons, sometimes I know using some closed softwares can deliver things faster tho. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Ezalvarenga]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 19:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:I agree we could use a little more discipline on this. e.g. I'm not ''convinced'' all Mac users in the office would truly be significantly less effective at their work on Ubuntu machines. I do acknowledge some may be. I think it warrants some nudging/pushing, though. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 20:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::I think there's a huge distinction between closed source tools for personal productivity, and closed source tools for supporting the projects. This should be clarified in the text of the principles, because the current state of affairs is that we require FOSS when it comes to what is actually necessary for the projects to run, and we obviously don't when it comes to the office IT. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 22:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Thanks. In my initial posting I had shared tools in production (servers, webservices, etc.) in mind, but did not mean to refer to personal computers of individuals - that would be under the "personal freedom" category, and a published evaluation feels like overkill for such private cases. --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::Hi, Aklapper, I don't have time today to make a longer comment, but for the personal freedom, if everybody begin to use closed formats, people who wants to use open formats will be forced to use also closed ones. If a person doesn't want to buy an apple computer, but the wifi network forces people to do so or make their lifes with other hardwares difficult, sorry, a serious policy about that should change. Yes, people can choose whatever they want on their personal computers, but if the majority is using what is fashion, a conscious minitority will not have freedom to choose what they want. As an example, I do use sometimes closed softwares, like skype, but only when really necessary, like a partner or co-worker that prefers to use it. And I know the pain it is sometimes to use only Linux since 1998. :) In Brazil, at least, in the government level, we are trying to [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/thackday/WCmyz2jltF8/sKDd0xCPQaQJ BURN ALL THE DOCS]! There are also [https://groups.google.com/group/thackday/browse_thread/thread/4f94fbf09e4b6f54 bills] under way. ;D P. S. I could not even imagine close softwares on the server side. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Ezalvarenga]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 12:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Responding to a couple of you here. No, AKlapper, AFAIK there is no formal documented requirement/process for evaluation of when the Wikimedia Foundation uses a proprietary tool instead of an open source one. To date we've been small enough, and had a sufficient proportion of the staff who're personally dedicated to open source values, such that evaluation has tended to happen informally on a case-by-case basis, and it's worked reasonably well. Like, we made an organizational commitment to use CiviCRM early and we've stuck with that, and similarly I know that Finance & Admin uses proprietary accounting tools because early on some research was done that determined there was no acceptable open-source tool. I think those were both reasonable outcomes. Over the years we've toyed with the idea of developing a formal evaluation policy, but we have not done it. If you're suggesting we should, I would generally agree, but I also wouldn't say it's the thing Office IT should prioritize as most important and most urgent.<br />
<br />
More generally, in response to Ezalvarenga and Ijon, yes, I'd agree that our actual practices are likely imperfect -- there are probably some people at the Wikimedia Foundation using proprietary tools for individual use that could be replaced by open source tools. For example, I know that Legal has at some times used Microsoft Word for documents shared with external firms, when they probably could've insisted on using OpenOffice or LibreOffice without too much of a productivity hit.<br />
<br />
Frankly, individuals using proprietary tools has been a pretty big pain point for the Wikimedia Foundation. It's understandable: individual staff have widely varying levels of personal commitment to FLOSS, people want to be effective at work and so they want to use the tools that support them best, and people's work, and their needs, vary. No-one wants to be told they have no choice but to use X, whether X is Ubuntu/Thunderbird/LibreOffice or IE/Outlook/Word. That's utterly reasonable. So it's complex, and we're not going to capture a lot of complexity in a short statement. <br />
<br />
StevenW had proposed we modify the language here to distinguish between site production tools and personal/individual tools. Can somebody propose language for that, and for anything else here that might need clarification or finetuning? Feel free to make a change and I'll revert it or finetune it if I feel I need to. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Related reading: [[FLOSS-Exchange]]. I think focusing on the ideal (and its rationale, which Erik sort of touched on with his "right to fork" [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5334873&oldid=5334652 addition]), instead of what individuals might do, is a reasonable compromise. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 07:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think the line should be what's shared by the organization (or teams within the organization) and personal. For anything shared, we should make it free software/open source unless it's really unworkable (and even then, we should always keep an eye out for moving to free software as it improves). But if you want to use MS Word on your personal machine to write PHP that fully meets our coding conventions, more power to you ;). This basically [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&oldid=5335910#Freedom_and_open_source matches] the current text. But there are some cases where free software is workable for shared tools but we're not currently using them; as I said, we should try to change that. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Agreed with SteveW and others above that there's some distinction between what we share, what we use personally, and what we require others to use. Apple users in the office? Who cares, they're mostly running FOSS on top of Apple -- most of our ops folks and engineers live in a terminal and use standard Unix tools. Adobe Photoshop and proprietary-format files for graphics work? Maybe we do care, because you can't always use the PSD files without it. (I always advocate for SVG format for graphics, especially anything we intend to use in software or on sites that may need to be revisioned in the future.) Google Apps for email? Who cares, email is interoperable. Google Hangouts for video conferencing internally? Who cares? Google Hangouts for video conferencing including open community participation? Runs on Linux, but requires a proprietary plugin; not ideal but we accept it as the best compromise of several options for now. Maybe we care but we can live with it. etc. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::So the text now reads like this: <br />
<br />
::''The Wikimedia Foundation is deeply rooted in the values of the free culture and free software movements. With the exception of "fair use" material, all information in Wikimedia projects can be freely shared, freely distributed, freely modified and freely used for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, in perpetuity.''<br />
::''All code written by the Wikimedia Foundation is licensed under an applicable open source license. We realize our obligations not just to share code, but to cultivate a healthy community of contributors around the source code, and to work with upstream projects and contribute back improvements to their code.''<br />
::''All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software.''<br />
::''Consistent with the above principles, we support the right of third parties to make and maintain licensing-compliant copies and forks of Wikimedia content and Wikimedia-developed code, regardless of motivation or purpose. While we are generally not able to directly assist such efforts, we enable them by making available copies of Wikimedia content in bulk, and avoiding critical dependencies on proprietary code or services for maintaining a largely functionally equivalent fork.''<br />
::''As an organization, we strive to use open source tools over proprietary ones, although we use proprietary or closed tools (such as software, operating systems, etc.) where there is currently no open-source tool that will effectively meet our needs.''<br />
<br />
::Does this work for everybody? I could add some language specifically around personal tool use, but I feel like "where there's no open-source tool that would effectively meet our needs" covers it. Like, you use Illustrator if Gimp isn't good enough for what you need. Let me know if anyone feels like this language isn't clear/accurate: otherwise I'll consider this thread resolved. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 21:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Quick suggestion... ==<br />
<br />
[https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASue_Gardner%2FWikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5332950&oldid=5331958 ], which I made before seeing the request to comment first. Anyway, "serving every human being" seems a bit disingenuous, since we really aim to serve every literate human being with access to data and a digital device. ;-) The goal of providing equal access to all seems fairer, and more in line the the section's comments about well, accessibility. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 00:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:"equal access to all" is, er, equally disingenuous, as, by your own phrase, we're providing equal access only to "every literate human being with access to data and a digital device".<br />
:Furthermore, I actually do think we ''strive'' to serve every human being. Remember the free knowledge the Wikimedia community creates and shares is consumed offline too, not to mention the huge value of secondary use -- the knowledge worked into presentations, newspapers, books, radio and TV programs -- all consumed by hundreds of millions ''more'' than the group consuming it directly from our Web sites. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 00:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Yeah, I agree with Ijon. The language is "aims to" and "endeavours to," so I think it's appropriately framed as aspirational. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Actually, it's not quite that limited. We do generally serve literate people, but there are actually readings of many articles (e.g. see [[:w:Template:Spoken Wikipedia|Template:Spoken Wikipedia]], I'm sure among others). There are also various mechanisms for printing Wikipedia (some in-house, some just people trying to make money by selling Wikipedia books), so you don't need a digital device. The fact that we've consistently used fully free licenses for our content (except fair use extracts) has facilitated all of that. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Commons serves non-literate people indirectly. {{Smiley}} —[[User:Tom Morris|Tom Morris]] ([[User talk:Tom Morris|talk]]) 19:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Getting rich ==<br />
<br />
On «nobody is getting rich by working at the Wikimedia Foundation»: define "rich". For instance, I'm a student but I'm very rich compared to most world population and richer than millions of Italians (so, when serving in my university board I raised tuition fees for myself/my income range). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Yeah obviously "getting rich" is relative. It's only when you compare [[:wiktionary:apples and oranges|apples to apples]] and look at other tech and nonprofit compensation schemes that you see what is meant. In any case, it's pretty awesome that we want to put that among our guiding principles, right? <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Edit conflict with StevenW! And yeah, Steven, I agree. I think the key word here is "getting." Nemo is correct of course that by world population standards, everybody who works at the Wikimedia Foundation is rich. But we were born rich, we did not "get" rich through our work at the Wikimedia Foundation. The point here is that working at the Wikimedia Foundation is not a path to dramatically improving one's personal wealth. Thanks. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::I tend to see those negative statements ("'''not''' getting rich") as putting things in people's head that you don't want there in the first place. You say "not getting rich" (and I am on par with both Steven's and your interpretation on this) and all people seem to read/hear is "rich". Maybe we should try to find a positive statement for this? I'm kind of stuck though for a good one. "If you want to get rich, go work somewhere else"? -- ok, that one is stupid, but maybe you get my point? [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 21:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::I suspected that the point was in ''getting'', however this is tricky. One may get "richer" by going to work in the WMF for career reasons, compared to the previous work (or country?), comparatively getting "poorer" than possible in some other place, however the latter is mostly impossible to prove. "Nobody is getting richer" would be clearer but is technically wrong.<br />
:::Maybe: "we aim at level of income not being an important [the most important? one of the most important?] motivation[s] for someone to stay at the WMF", which implies there are different/contrasting motivations (presumably honest ;) ) without getting lost in defining which, and that income may be sacrificed. This is probably what is meant hear; no idea if it is positive enough as per notafish. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC) <small>P.s.: Steven, personally I don't care that much if someone gets rich at the WMF, as long as it's not by fleeing with the cash. :) I just like clarity.</small><br />
::::Seems a bit "off" for Sue Gardner to be commenting on "not getting rich" when her salary exceeds that of about 99% of American wage earners. -- [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A|2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A]] 18:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Reasonable travel costs==<br />
«We aim to incur only reasonable travel costs: the general policy is to travel economy class and stay in moderately-priced hotels»: were $225K for staff (and board) at Wikimania reasonable? [[Talk:Wikimedia budget#Wikimania travel question]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:How much is that per person sent to Wikimania that year? I think looking at the total for shock value is unfair. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Nemo we're not making a commitment here to reduce travel costs, or to minimize travel. (I wouldn't want to do that: with a growing staff that operates as part of a global community that stages many international events such as Wikimania, the chapters' meeting and various hackathons, it strikes me that a focus on reducing travel costs would be a net negative not a net plus. I expect travel costs to be a not-insubstantial chunk of the Wikimedia Foundation budget: that seems eminently reasonable to me given the nature of our work.) The point here is simply that when we travel, we aim to do it moderately not luxuriously. The nuts-and-bolts of how we do that are captured in [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Travel_policy the travel policy], but the purpose of this statement is simply to summarize the overall intent. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::So in short yes, you think it's reasonable. :) <small>I don't know if it was: while you do or can know all the details on the alternatives and other considerations, I can't judge — no opinion at all.</small> Given that "reasonable" conveys little, you may consider removing «to incur only reasonable travel costs: the general policy is » and leaving only the straightforward part of the statement.<br />
:::Ideally (IMHO), we'd include some other criteria, like the impact:cost ratio (which you hinted to), usage of cheapest means of transportation, miscellaneous synergies (dumb example: double rooms instead of single where possible? and other more impactful stuff), with the disclaimer that all this must be applied fairly (see other section on benefits/reimbursements). I have no idea what are the current practices on all this so I don't know where to start, but I'm confident a compact form is possible. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Title or position==<br />
«People at the Wikimedia Foundation get the same benefits regardless of their title or position». <br />
*Who's "people"? Are you including all managers, trustees and employees?<br />
*What's "benefits" and how do you measure if "salaries" are "fair"? Are you considering only accessories or also the actual wage, before or after taxes, pension contributions etc.?<br />
*What are you including in "title or position" (or other comparison for "fair")? For instance, remote worker vs. office worker, full time vs. part time, staff vs. contractor.<br />
--[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:*Well, people does include at least all staff if you read further "regardless of their title or position". This should include everyone. As for Trustees, you've got a point, "people" is not clear and should probably be changed to "Staff" when it comes to benefits. I do not believe Trustees get benefits, even though they might benefit from insurance and related stuff when it comes to their work for the Foundation. It might make sense here to differentiate between staff/volunteers or something along those lines. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 14:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::To be clear: yes, the statement's intended to refer to all staff, and I can change the word "people" to "staff." There is detail available in the document [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/2a/Wikimedia_Foundation_Compensation_Practices.pdf Wikimedia Foundation Compensation Practices]. And for Notafish, yes, the trustees don't get any benefits. Expenses they incur on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation are reimbursed as per the policies, but they receive no compensation in the form of salary or other benefits. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::I think Staff makes sense in that context, thanks for clarifying. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 21:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC) <small>(Sue, it's '''n'''otafish, with a small '''n''', and I'm stupidly particular about it. If you want a capital, go with Delphine ;)</small><br />
:::::Thank you, Sue, this clarifies the first point: only two left in this section. :)<br />
:::::On "benefits", the exact meaning of the word (or lexical equivalent) varies quite a lot across jurisdictions and fiscal systems, as far as I know, so it's not safe to assume everyone will get what you mean. I understand that reimbursements are a different matter, but it would be nice if they were fair and independent from title etc., too. (I suppose they already mostly are?) --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::: Yeah, in the U.S. "benefits" is generally understood not to include salary (people talk about "salary plus benefits") (it's basically everything ''but'' salary). However, that might not be true in other countries/languages. Also, the 401(k) maximum match is a fixed percentage of salary. While the percentage is the same across position, the amount (n% × salary) technically is not. However, it's true this is a fine distinction. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
*'Staff' is normally understood to mean Employees + Contractors, where contractors are afforded fewer benefits (if any at all). I'd suggest amending to specify 'Employees at...'. [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 23:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
**I'd kind of like us to provide fair benefits to all staff including international contractors, but of course jurisdictions make things.... difficult. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 19:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Accountable==<br />
«The Wikimedia Foundation wants to be accountable to [...]». Please clarify how the concept of accountability applies here: «responsible for your decisions or actions and expected to explain them when you are asked»[http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/accountable] (are there processes to be responsible of your actions in front of the readers, receive their questions and explain? etc.). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Sure, of course there are processes to be responsible to the readers of the projects. Reader surveys. User testing. OTRS. The blogs. The annual reports. The regular publication of activity reports, performance reports, financial statements. Social media. Engagement with charity watchdog groups. Public mailing lists. Bugzilla. Office hours on IRC. Events for donors. This page, and many other on-wiki consultations related to feature development, policy development, and so forth. There are probably lots I am forgetting :-) Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Shared power==<br />
This section seems entirely useless, in that it lists a lot of minor ephemeral details from the ''here and now'' and no actual "principles" that may "guide" any action. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:The purpose of this section is to explicitly acknowledge that the Wikimedia Foundation works in partnership with a global community of volunteers -- that the Wikimedia Foundation is not the sole or even primary actor in fulfilling the Wikimedia mission, and that it needs to conduct itself accordingly, by creating mechanisms and processes enabling the community to have influence on its actions. Because we are interdependent partners. I think this is a pretty fundamental and important point to make, because in this regard we are different from practically everybody else. (What I mean by that: eBay and Facebook and Yelp may also have a social purpose or utility, but their primary purpose is to make money, and "community members" are a resource to be managed by the company to that end. In our case, the primary purpose of the movement is to make knowledge freely available to everyone around the world, and the Wikimedia Foundation and the global community of volunteers play different and complementary roles in achieving that shared goal.) So I wonder if that's not clear -- if my wording is just mucky. If so, can someone help propose better, more useful language? Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]])<br />
:The shared power section does mention volunteer "developers". However, I would like to see more emphasis on this. Something like "The Wikimedia Foundation strives to continually increase its partnership with outside developers, project managers, and system adminstrators so we can technically improve the sites together". This is an area where we've had some success, but more can definitely be done. The reason I said "outside" not "volunteer" is that they may be paid to work on something like MediaWiki, just not paid ''by'' WMF. The Apache Software Foundation is an example of an organization where many (not all) developers are paid (by various companies organizations), but they partner together to get things done. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==United States==<br />
On «support successful job candidates in attaining the legal right to work in the United States»: why only USA? What if they want to move elsewhere? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Maybe this should become "...to work from a WMF office in the United States", in case that's what's meant here. --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Or rather: Support succesful job candidates in attaining the legal right to work in the US should the need arise". Or something along those lines. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 14:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Yeah -- you're correct, we also support remote workers when people don't want to relocate and the job doesn't require it. I will reword :-) [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Here's what I changed it too -- let me know if this is clearer. "We aim to recruit talented people regardless of where they live, and depending on their preferences and the needs of the job, we support them in working remotely or relocating to the United States." Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::Does the trick, as far as I'm concerned. :) [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 21:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::::Yes, much clearer, thanks. <br />
::::::Ideally you'd be completely nation-neutral and support them in relocating to another country of their choice too, if suitable for them, and you could remove the "to the United States" bit. However, I understand this is an edge case. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::::Relocations are done because the WMF feels the employee should be in-office. Up until we open an office somewhere else I can't imagine that spending donor funds moving people to a country 'because they want to live there' would be optimal. [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 23:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Serving every human being==<br />
This section looks weird being 7 sections away from «Freedom and open source» with «All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software» etc. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The emphasis on the development of new features is undue and likely to grate on both engineering staff and community, in my opinion. It is out of step with the custodian role which many individuals in both groups identify with. We should express a stronger commitment to high availability and site performance. --[[User:Ori.livneh|Ori.livneh]] ([[User talk:Ori.livneh|talk]]) 10:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Oh ha, Ori.livneh I think that's just clumsy wording on my part. I can see how it's easy to misread, but what you think I said is not what I meant to be saying. I'll revise. I'll also move this chunk up to be nearer to Freedom and Open Source. Thanks to you both [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Also, it talks about these being directed at "readers", and hoping to support them in starting to contribute - but we should probably also talk about supporting existing contributors. :-) [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 20:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: On Sue's request, I've tried to address these points with [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5334886&oldid=5334873 this edit].--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 23:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: It's better (thanks, Sue, Erik, and James) but it's still not quite right, in my opinion: rather than rank engineering priorities (features, performance, availability) and then work backwards to explain the values that motivate them (access, participation), I think the section ought to lead with a statement of values, and then explain how our engineering priorities reflect our effort to realize these values maximally. --[[User:Ori.livneh|Ori.livneh]] ([[User talk:Ori.livneh|talk]]) 11:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::: Want to take a crack at drafting something on talk?--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 20:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::: How about:<br />
:::::: <div style="border:1px solid silver; background:#eee; margin:0.5em; padding:1em 2em;">The Wikimedia Foundation aims to make <span style="background: #d8ecff;">the</span> material in the Wikimedia projects broadly accessible to all. <span style="background: #d8ecff;">We work to enable for the world education from, entertainment by, and engagement with our projects' content, and participation in the communities and processes that create them.</span> Ensuring <span style="background: #d8ecff;">the</span> continued reliability, availability and responsiveness of all Wikimedia sites and services is our first priority. In prioritizing new products and features, our goal is to impact the largest-possible number of readers and contributors, and to eliminate barriers that could preclude people from accessing or contributing to our projects, such as poor usability, lack of language support, and limited access to technology. We endeavour to create the structural support and the necessary preconditions for bottom-up innovation by others. We do not form agreements in which one organization is given access to material or functionality that others are denied. Where possible, we aim to preserve and support frictionless use of the material in the projects, so that people can share it widely and easily.</div><br />
:::::: Thoughts? Please forgive the "power of threes" and running alliterations. :-) I worry that this section is now trying to say too much; possibly split after "technology"? I'm not particularly attached to my wording, so don't worry about offending. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 05:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Communication==<br />
Do you think https://xkcd.com/802/ [https://xkcd.com/802_large/] applies to the WMF? (In particular, the proportions in the two maps on the top <s>right</s> left being zoomed.) --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Nemo, could you clarify which proportions you refer to by naming them? Top right is "Unread Updates". --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Ouch. I meant left, of course. :) Thanks, [[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Right to fork==<br />
Again nothing. [[Talk:Terms of use/Archives/2011-12-06#Right to Fork]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
* Probably more of a Wikimedia principle than a Wikimedia Foundation principle. Perhaps we need a separate list? :-) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 09:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
*: I doubt it: «principles intended to guide the work of the Wikimedia Foundation». Who else do you suggest to task with ensuring the right to fork? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: Sue asked me to explore some language around this, so I've taken a first crack at it with [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5334873&oldid=5334652 this edit].--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 23:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::: Thanks! Much better. I'll let the experts comment on the specific wording and if it covers all the essential (people would like to have something more than page history dumps, but what exactly is tricky). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 23:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::: If this idea is developed any further could someone ping me? I'm interested for obvious reasons. Thanks. -- [[User:ArielGlenn|ArielGlenn]] ([[User talk:ArielGlenn|talk]]) 09:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Internationalism ==<br />
<br />
«''When we consider the community'' as a whole, we aim to consider all its languages and geographies and to avoid global initiatives that favor communities speaking only our languages» (emphasis added).<br />
I note that you're only talking of how you consider the community; what about «initiatives that favor communities speaking only our languages» in general? For instance, roughly how much of the WMF spending goes on initiatives that favor only English-language people (projects, users etc., readers) or only the USA? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Right to influence ==<br />
<br />
«Their work has earned [...] financial support sustaining the Wikimedia Foundation [...] and the global community has therefore earned the right to influence the work of the organizations»: it ''seems'' that you're stating that the only reason why someone has the "right to influence" the work is that they bring in dollars. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Transparency ==<br />
<br />
This section says "including employee guidelines". What happened to the public sharing of the [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Employee_Handbook Employee Handbook]? -- [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A|2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A]] 18:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
: I asked about this recently. It doesn't really seem relevant to this kind of document, though. There's a thread on wikimedia-l, I think, if you want to follow up. :-) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 21:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:: It explicitly says "As a matter of general practice, unless there’s a particular reason not to, we aim to publish internal organizational policies and procedures, including employee guidelines, financial policies, etc." I think it does belong here, because what the employees do is relevant, particularly to the donors who are essentially paying us. I agree the current reality around such employee procedures, etc. is not quite consistent with the document. There is some stuff on Office Wiki (a private WMF wiki for employees) that does not need to be confidential. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 23:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::: If only there were someone with access to both wikis with the technical know-how to move the pages. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 03:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::I'm pretty sure the staff handbook contains (amongst other things) access info to our healthcare providers, and other non-public information which should be stripped. I think that if someone did have the access and technical know-how to move the pages and acted on it, they'd swiftly find themselves losing the access ;p. As a general statement, the document ''should'' be moved over - but I imagine they want to get it finished and stable before combing through it to identify elements inappropriate for public consumption (otherwise you end up having to do multiple sweeps). [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 03:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::There are also sections which have been vetted by Legal and should not be open for editing by the public. This is one of the problems.--[[User:Jorm (WMF)|Jorm (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jorm (WMF)|talk]]) 23:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::: The legal team has no issue creating redacted PDFs. They just did for the [[NDA]]s. But they shouldn't be releasing documents in this way, of course. I've started some notes at [[legal docs]] for anyone interested. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 06:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Independence ==<br />
<br />
"Skillsets" is not a proper word. -- [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A|2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A]] 18:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
: Context, "Similarly, our Board of Trustees selection process is designed to encourage representation of different voices and skillsets, rather than recognizing donors or celebrities."<br />
: What would you recommend instead? "skill sets"? Something else? (This level of minor word tweaking you can really just do yourself, but I'm happy to proxy the edit for you from the talk page, if you'd like.) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 20:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: "Skillsets" is a reasonable word, but if the IP objects strenuously, we could use "sets of skills", which is rather po-faced. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 05:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::"Skillsets" is a perfectly cromulent word, even if my spell checker doesn't like it. If you're picky, write it as "skill sets". :) --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Frictionless and copyleft ==<br />
<br />
You might want to clarify this does not mean abandoning copyleft. Though not all WMF wikis use copyleft, many do, and there is general understanding of its benefits. I want to ensure people don't come later and start arguing that e.g. all new wikis should be non-copyleft to avoid "friction". [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 23:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Surely by definition, 'avoiding friction in reuse' would be 'copyleft' - it's talking about freedom for others to reuse our work, not freedom for us to reuse the work of others. Which WMF wikis are non-copyleft? [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 04:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:: Wikinews and Wikidata, for two. Copyleft licences are overly restrictive for wider re-use in some contexts. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 05:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Aha, we're talking less- rather than more-restrictive; my mistake :). [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 05:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Duplicate of [[wmf:Values]]? ==<br />
<br />
Hi. I wonder if these guiding principles aren't in some ways a duplicate of (or perhaps an update to) [[wmf:Values]]. What's the purpose of this document? Is it going to live alongside the [[wmf:mission|mission statement]], [[wmf:vision|vision statement]], etc.? Or will it end up being a Board resolution? Or something else? --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 04:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:It is similar, but more detailed than the values statement. I think the guiding principles are pretty well done, and cover some additional ground. It is worth considering if they could supersede the values statement, but there is some value in having a shorter document too. The guiding principles draft says, "It is likely that these principles will be presented to the Board of Trustees for their approval, at a future Board meeting." [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 16:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Free formats ==<br />
<br />
In re: ''All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software,'' can you clarify whether or not this is meant to mean that we will provide every file in free formats and thus not ''require'' the use of non-free software to view the file or does this mean that we will not provide the file in non-free formats at all? There seems to be some contention both internally and externally surrounding the possibility of providing non-free formats. I, personally, full appreciate having available to me free-formats, but when all of my devices have hardware-accelerated H.264 decoding, I would prefer to save cpu cycles and my battery when watching videos from commons. Similarly, there are some mobile devices that only support non-free formats and thus we currently do not support those users. -[[User:Pgehres (WMF)|Peter Gehres (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Pgehres (WMF)|talk]]) 05:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:We're working on that issue with legal internally... I'm certainly trying to push advocacy for explicit support of multi-format stack as officially acceptable, and would prefer clearer language on this as well. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Quality ==<br />
<br />
It strikes me that there is a glaring omission here. The current list of principles is a good set of ideologies, but surely the Wikimedia Foundation values high-quality content as much as it does the abstract principles like transparency and accountability. I understand that the Foundation does not generally (nor should) directly involve itself in the creation or judging of content on the projects, but certainly one of its core duties is encouraging or enabling the content creation, and one of the core implicit principles is that the content of the projects ought to be high-quality, comprehensive, authoritative, and so on (to the degree such quality descriptors are applicable to each project). To me, it seems like the omission of any principle that actually addresses the content of the projects is likely a matter of something being so obvious it didn't seem to need saying. I think it is important nonetheless, though. [[User:Dominic|Dominic]] ([[User talk:Dominic|talk]]) 06:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
: I agree. I think reiterating the [[wmf:mission statement|mission statement]] might be good here. (Related to the section above about [[wmf:values]], this page seems to be doing a bit of wheel reinvention....) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 06:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Ads? ==<br />
<br />
Is being ad-free a guiding principle? Relatedly, is being neutral? --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 07:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:On the neutrality issue... that seems perhaps too WIkipedia-specific? Wikivoyage, for instance, has [[:wikivoyage:Wikivoyage:Be fair|no neutrality policy]]. It seems like being independent is really the principle here, related to being ad-free, and that actually extends to other things like not being reliant on a few major donors. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think being ad-free is ''something we think is really great'', but the relevant guiding principle is indeed independence. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Mm, it's a little more than "really great"; Sue, Jimmy, and other board members have repeatedly stated for the record that Wikipedia will never show ads. So it's not accurate to present this as merely a strong preference; it has long been a firm commitment. (All this not to contradict that the principle here ''is'' independence rather than ''no ads''.) [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 22:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::IMO a commitment to not put ads on the site is more of a ''position'' than a ''principle''. We certainly don't advocate against advertisement culture the way we advocate for free speech and access to information. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 23:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Agreed. (your first comment did not acknowledge it was a committed position.) [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 23:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Free speech ==<br />
<br />
"Another crack at alternative wording: We aim to balance appropriately between our goal of being active internationally and our desire to minimize legal risk to the projects."<br />
:^ I worry this version doesn't actually say anything about being pro-free speech or making information available to everyone. One way to improve our international activity and lower our risk profile would be to censor information for certain countries to comply with local censorship or blasphemy laws, but I think we wouldn't consider that acceptable. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 19:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Thank you ==<br />
<br />
I just checked this page because I had a free moment (I am in an all-day annual planning meeting) and I want to say thank you to everyone who's contributing here -- this is a really useful conversation. Some of the language folks are proposing is really helpful, and there are a couple of places where the comments show that the existing language isn't nearly as clear as I thought it was. So this is good. I'll come back sometime over the next week, but please meanwhile continue to develop new needed language through discussion here -- it's very, very helpful. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]])<br />
<br />
== Wikimedia Brasil Statement of Principles ==<br />
Hi, I would like to suggest also the reading of the Statement of Principles made by the group of volunteers of Wikimedia in Brazil, in 2009, which has nice thoughts and can inspire a little those reading here:<br />
* [[:br:chapter:Wikimedia:Statement of Principles|Wikimedia Brasil - Statement of Principles]]<br />
I would like later, when I find time, to make comments on the internationalization section. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Tom]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 22:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Transparency: lack of IRS Form 990 ==<br />
<br />
Hello,<br />
<br />
The text mention we disclose the IRS form 990. The Financial page at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Financial_reports only shows the 2010-2011 form, thus we are missing the 2011-2012 form which should have been filled last year. [[User:Hashar|Ashar Voultoiz]] ([[User talk:Hashar|talk]]) 11:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:This isn't missing, just not there yet. :) The 2010-2011 form ([[:wmf:File:Form 990 - FY 10-11 - Public.pdf|here]]) was uploaded in May 2012. Previous years have been uploaded in [[:wmf::File:WMF 2009 2010 Form 990.pdf|April]], [[:wmf:File:WMF 2008 Form 990.pdf|May]], [[:wmf:File:WMF 2007 Form 990.pdf|May]] and [[:wmf:File:WMF 2006 Form 990.pdf|September]] of the year following the expiration of the fiscal year. Forms 990 are not due until the 15th day of the fifth month after the end of the fiscal year, with up to 180 days of extension if necessary. Last year's form 990 is still on schedule with previous years, and I'm sure it'll be uploaded sooner if ready. --[[User:Mdennis (WMF)|Maggie Dennis (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mdennis (WMF)|talk]]) 14:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Entities ==<br />
<br />
Thank you Sue for sharing and drafting this document in public! Reading the document – while understanding that it is aimed to describe current practice – I was a bit saddened to not see "movement entities" described in the context of partnership and cooperation in achieving the common goals. (There is some mention about giving movement entities money and freedom to do what they want, but I feel this does not live fully up to the [[mission]] statement, either in practice or at the level of principles.) –[[User:Bdamokos|Bence]] ([[User talk:Bdamokos|talk]]) 13:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)</div>Sue Gardnerhttps://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resolution_talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles/Archive_1&diff=328083Resolution talk:Wikimedia Foundation Guiding Principles/Archive 12013-03-25T20:42:34Z<p>Sue Gardner: /* Thank you */ new section</p>
<hr />
<div>== Freedom and open source ==<br />
"As an organization, we strive to use open source tools over proprietary ones, although we use proprietary or closed tools (such as software, operating systems, etc.) where there is currently no open-source tool that will effectively meet our needs." - Is there a requirement and process in place which forces people to publish an evaluation which open-source tools were considered and tested for a task in order to identify which specific functionality was only provided by closed-source tools? --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 18:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:<br />
:Well, maybe that is my impression because I work remotely, but I've seen some proprietary files been shared and proprietary softwares being used when we could have free software. For instance, microsoft documents or apple softwares. And I've heard the wifi network in SF office works better with apple stuff, which is kind of weird - I've visited SF office only once and I checked that, but I've heard the same from other online meetings. For pragmatical reasons, sometimes I know using some closed softwares can deliver things faster tho. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Ezalvarenga]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 19:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:I agree we could use a little more discipline on this. e.g. I'm not ''convinced'' all Mac users in the office would truly be significantly less effective at their work on Ubuntu machines. I do acknowledge some may be. I think it warrants some nudging/pushing, though. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 20:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::I think there's a huge distinction between closed source tools for personal productivity, and closed source tools for supporting the projects. This should be clarified in the text of the principles, because the current state of affairs is that we require FOSS when it comes to what is actually necessary for the projects to run, and we obviously don't when it comes to the office IT. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 22:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Thanks. In my initial posting I had shared tools in production (servers, webservices, etc.) in mind, but did not mean to refer to personal computers of individuals - that would be under the "personal freedom" category, and a published evaluation feels like overkill for such private cases. --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::Hi, Aklapper, I don't have time today to make a longer comment, but for the personal freedom, if everybody begin to use closed formats, people who wants to use open formats will be forced to use also closed ones. If a person doesn't want to buy an apple computer, but the wifi network forces people to do so or make their lifes with other hardwares difficult, sorry, a serious policy about that should change. Yes, people can choose whatever they want on their personal computers, but if the majority is using what is fashion, a conscious minitority will not have freedom to choose what they want. As an example, I do use sometimes closed softwares, like skype, but only when really necessary, like a partner or co-worker that prefers to use it. And I know the pain it is sometimes to use only Linux since 1998. :) In Brazil, at least, in the government level, we are trying to [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/thackday/WCmyz2jltF8/sKDd0xCPQaQJ BURN ALL THE DOCS]! There are also [https://groups.google.com/group/thackday/browse_thread/thread/4f94fbf09e4b6f54 bills] under way. ;D P. S. I could not even imagine close softwares on the server side. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Ezalvarenga]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 12:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Responding to a couple of you here. No, AKlapper, AFAIK there is no formal documented requirement/process for evaluation of when the Wikimedia Foundation uses a proprietary tool instead of an open source one. To date we've been small enough, and had a sufficient proportion of the staff who're personally dedicated to open source values, such that evaluation has tended to happen informally on a case-by-case basis, and it's worked reasonably well. Like, we made an organizational commitment to use CiviCRM early and we've stuck with that, and similarly I know that Finance & Admin uses proprietary accounting tools because early on some research was done that determined there was no acceptable open-source tool. I think those were both reasonable outcomes. Over the years we've toyed with the idea of developing a formal evaluation policy, but we have not done it. If you're suggesting we should, I would generally agree, but I also wouldn't say it's the thing Office IT should prioritize as most important and most urgent.<br />
<br />
More generally, in response to Ezalvarenga and Ijon, yes, I'd agree that our actual practices are likely imperfect -- there are probably some people at the Wikimedia Foundation using proprietary tools for individual use that could be replaced by open source tools. For example, I know that Legal has at some times used Microsoft Word for documents shared with external firms, when they probably could've insisted on using OpenOffice or LibreOffice without too much of a productivity hit.<br />
<br />
Frankly, individuals using proprietary tools has been a pretty big pain point for the Wikimedia Foundation. It's understandable: individual staff have widely varying levels of personal commitment to FLOSS, people want to be effective at work and so they want to use the tools that support them best, and people's work, and their needs, vary. No-one wants to be told they have no choice but to use X, whether X is Ubuntu/Thunderbird/LibreOffice or IE/Outlook/Word. That's utterly reasonable. So it's complex, and we're not going to capture a lot of complexity in a short statement. <br />
<br />
StevenW had proposed we modify the language here to distinguish between site production tools and personal/individual tools. Can somebody propose language for that, and for anything else here that might need clarification or finetuning? Feel free to make a change and I'll revert it or finetune it if I feel I need to. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Related reading: [[FLOSS-Exchange]]. I think focusing on the ideal (and its rationale, which Erik sort of touched on with his "right to fork" [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5334873&oldid=5334652 addition]), instead of what individuals might do, is a reasonable compromise. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 07:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think the line should be what's shared by the organization (or teams within the organization) and personal. For anything shared, we should make it free software/open source unless it's really unworkable (and even then, we should always keep an eye out for moving to free software as it improves). But if you want to use MS Word on your personal machine to write PHP that fully meets our coding conventions, more power to you ;). This basically [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&oldid=5335910#Freedom_and_open_source matches] the current text. But there are some cases where free software is workable for shared tools but we're not currently using them; as I said, we should try to change that. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Agreed with SteveW and others above that there's some distinction between what we share, what we use personally, and what we require others to use. Apple users in the office? Who cares, they're mostly running FOSS on top of Apple -- most of our ops folks and engineers live in a terminal and use standard Unix tools. Adobe Photoshop and proprietary-format files for graphics work? Maybe we do care, because you can't always use the PSD files without it. (I always advocate for SVG format for graphics, especially anything we intend to use in software or on sites that may need to be revisioned in the future.) Google Apps for email? Who cares, email is interoperable. Google Hangouts for video conferencing internally? Who cares? Google Hangouts for video conferencing including open community participation? Runs on Linux, but requires a proprietary plugin; not ideal but we accept it as the best compromise of several options for now. Maybe we care but we can live with it. etc. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Quick suggestion... ==<br />
<br />
[https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASue_Gardner%2FWikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5332950&oldid=5331958 ], which I made before seeing the request to comment first. Anyway, "serving every human being" seems a bit disingenuous, since we really aim to serve every literate human being with access to data and a digital device. ;-) The goal of providing equal access to all seems fairer, and more in line the the section's comments about well, accessibility. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 00:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:"equal access to all" is, er, equally disingenuous, as, by your own phrase, we're providing equal access only to "every literate human being with access to data and a digital device".<br />
:Furthermore, I actually do think we ''strive'' to serve every human being. Remember the free knowledge the Wikimedia community creates and shares is consumed offline too, not to mention the huge value of secondary use -- the knowledge worked into presentations, newspapers, books, radio and TV programs -- all consumed by hundreds of millions ''more'' than the group consuming it directly from our Web sites. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 00:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Yeah, I agree with Ijon. The language is "aims to" and "endeavours to," so I think it's appropriately framed as aspirational. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Actually, it's not quite that limited. We do generally serve literate people, but there are actually readings of many articles (e.g. see [[:w:Template:Spoken Wikipedia|Template:Spoken Wikipedia]], I'm sure among others). There are also various mechanisms for printing Wikipedia (some in-house, some just people trying to make money by selling Wikipedia books), so you don't need a digital device. The fact that we've consistently used fully free licenses for our content (except fair use extracts) has facilitated all of that. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Getting rich ==<br />
<br />
On «nobody is getting rich by working at the Wikimedia Foundation»: define "rich". For instance, I'm a student but I'm very rich compared to most world population and richer than millions of Italians (so, when serving in my university board I raised tuition fees for myself/my income range). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Yeah obviously "getting rich" is relative. It's only when you compare [[:wiktionary:apples and oranges|apples to apples]] and look at other tech and nonprofit compensation schemes that you see what is meant. In any case, it's pretty awesome that we want to put that among our guiding principles, right? <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Edit conflict with StevenW! And yeah, Steven, I agree. I think the key word here is "getting." Nemo is correct of course that by world population standards, everybody who works at the Wikimedia Foundation is rich. But we were born rich, we did not "get" rich through our work at the Wikimedia Foundation. The point here is that working at the Wikimedia Foundation is not a path to dramatically improving one's personal wealth. Thanks. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::I tend to see those negative statements ("'''not''' getting rich") as putting things in people's head that you don't want there in the first place. You say "not getting rich" (and I am on par with both Steven's and your interpretation on this) and all people seem to read/hear is "rich". Maybe we should try to find a positive statement for this? I'm kind of stuck though for a good one. "If you want to get rich, go work somewhere else"? -- ok, that one is stupid, but maybe you get my point? [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 21:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::I suspected that the point was in ''getting'', however this is tricky. One may get "richer" by going to work in the WMF for career reasons, compared to the previous work (or country?), comparatively getting "poorer" than possible in some other place, however the latter is mostly impossible to prove. "Nobody is getting richer" would be clearer but is technically wrong.<br />
:::Maybe: "we aim at level of income not being an important [the most important? one of the most important?] motivation[s] for someone to stay at the WMF", which implies there are different/contrasting motivations (presumably honest ;) ) without getting lost in defining which, and that income may be sacrificed. This is probably what is meant hear; no idea if it is positive enough as per notafish. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC) <small>P.s.: Steven, personally I don't care that much if someone gets rich at the WMF, as long as it's not by fleeing with the cash. :) I just like clarity.</small><br />
::::Seems a bit "off" for Sue Gardner to be commenting on "not getting rich" when her salary exceeds that of about 99% of American wage earners. -- [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A|2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A]] 18:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Reasonable travel costs==<br />
«We aim to incur only reasonable travel costs: the general policy is to travel economy class and stay in moderately-priced hotels»: were $225K for staff (and board) at Wikimania reasonable? [[Talk:Wikimedia budget#Wikimania travel question]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:How much is that per person sent to Wikimania that year? I think looking at the total for shock value is unfair. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Nemo we're not making a commitment here to reduce travel costs, or to minimize travel. (I wouldn't want to do that: with a growing staff that operates as part of a global community that stages many international events such as Wikimania, the chapters' meeting and various hackathons, it strikes me that a focus on reducing travel costs would be a net negative not a net plus. I expect travel costs to be a not-insubstantial chunk of the Wikimedia Foundation budget: that seems eminently reasonable to me given the nature of our work.) The point here is simply that when we travel, we aim to do it moderately not luxuriously. The nuts-and-bolts of how we do that are captured in [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Travel_policy the travel policy], but the purpose of this statement is simply to summarize the overall intent. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::So in short yes, you think it's reasonable. :) <small>I don't know if it was: while you do or can know all the details on the alternatives and other considerations, I can't judge — no opinion at all.</small> Given that "reasonable" conveys little, you may consider removing «to incur only reasonable travel costs: the general policy is » and leaving only the straightforward part of the statement.<br />
:::Ideally (IMHO), we'd include some other criteria, like the impact:cost ratio (which you hinted to), usage of cheapest means of transportation, miscellaneous synergies (dumb example: double rooms instead of single where possible? and other more impactful stuff), with the disclaimer that all this must be applied fairly (see other section on benefits/reimbursements). I have no idea what are the current practices on all this so I don't know where to start, but I'm confident a compact form is possible. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Title or position==<br />
«People at the Wikimedia Foundation get the same benefits regardless of their title or position». <br />
*Who's "people"? Are you including all managers, trustees and employees?<br />
*What's "benefits" and how do you measure if "salaries" are "fair"? Are you considering only accessories or also the actual wage, before or after taxes, pension contributions etc.?<br />
*What are you including in "title or position" (or other comparison for "fair")? For instance, remote worker vs. office worker, full time vs. part time, staff vs. contractor.<br />
--[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:*Well, people does include at least all staff if you read further "regardless of their title or position". This should include everyone. As for Trustees, you've got a point, "people" is not clear and should probably be changed to "Staff" when it comes to benefits. I do not believe Trustees get benefits, even though they might benefit from insurance and related stuff when it comes to their work for the Foundation. It might make sense here to differentiate between staff/volunteers or something along those lines. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 14:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::To be clear: yes, the statement's intended to refer to all staff, and I can change the word "people" to "staff." There is detail available in the document [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/2a/Wikimedia_Foundation_Compensation_Practices.pdf Wikimedia Foundation Compensation Practices]. And for Notafish, yes, the trustees don't get any benefits. Expenses they incur on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation are reimbursed as per the policies, but they receive no compensation in the form of salary or other benefits. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::I think Staff makes sense in that context, thanks for clarifying. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 21:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC) <small>(Sue, it's '''n'''otafish, with a small '''n''', and I'm stupidly particular about it. If you want a capital, go with Delphine ;)</small><br />
:::::Thank you, Sue, this clarifies the first point: only two left in this section. :)<br />
:::::On "benefits", the exact meaning of the word (or lexical equivalent) varies quite a lot across jurisdictions and fiscal systems, as far as I know, so it's not safe to assume everyone will get what you mean. I understand that reimbursements are a different matter, but it would be nice if they were fair and independent from title etc., too. (I suppose they already mostly are?) --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::: Yeah, in the U.S. "benefits" is generally understood not to include salary (people talk about "salary plus benefits") (it's basically everything ''but'' salary). However, that might not be true in other countries/languages. Also, the 401(k) maximum match is a fixed percentage of salary. While the percentage is the same across position, the amount (n% × salary) technically is not. However, it's true this is a fine distinction. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
*'Staff' is normally understood to mean Employees + Contractors, where contractors are afforded fewer benefits (if any at all). I'd suggest amending to specify 'Employees at...'. [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 23:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
**I'd kind of like us to provide fair benefits to all staff including international contractors, but of course jurisdictions make things.... difficult. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 19:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Accountable==<br />
«The Wikimedia Foundation wants to be accountable to [...]». Please clarify how the concept of accountability applies here: «responsible for your decisions or actions and expected to explain them when you are asked»[http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/accountable] (are there processes to be responsible of your actions in front of the readers, receive their questions and explain? etc.). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Sure, of course there are processes to be responsible to the readers of the projects. Reader surveys. User testing. OTRS. The blogs. The annual reports. The regular publication of activity reports, performance reports, financial statements. Social media. Engagement with charity watchdog groups. Public mailing lists. Bugzilla. Office hours on IRC. Events for donors. This page, and many other on-wiki consultations related to feature development, policy development, and so forth. There are probably lots I am forgetting :-) Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Shared power==<br />
This section seems entirely useless, in that it lists a lot of minor ephemeral details from the ''here and now'' and no actual "principles" that may "guide" any action. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:The purpose of this section is to explicitly acknowledge that the Wikimedia Foundation works in partnership with a global community of volunteers -- that the Wikimedia Foundation is not the sole or even primary actor in fulfilling the Wikimedia mission, and that it needs to conduct itself accordingly, by creating mechanisms and processes enabling the community to have influence on its actions. Because we are interdependent partners. I think this is a pretty fundamental and important point to make, because in this regard we are different from practically everybody else. (What I mean by that: eBay and Facebook and Yelp may also have a social purpose or utility, but their primary purpose is to make money, and "community members" are a resource to be managed by the company to that end. In our case, the primary purpose of the movement is to make knowledge freely available to everyone around the world, and the Wikimedia Foundation and the global community of volunteers play different and complementary roles in achieving that shared goal.) So I wonder if that's not clear -- if my wording is just mucky. If so, can someone help propose better, more useful language? Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]])<br />
:The shared power section does mention volunteer "developers". However, I would like to see more emphasis on this. Something like "The Wikimedia Foundation strives to continually increase its partnership with outside developers, project managers, and system adminstrators so we can technically improve the sites together". This is an area where we've had some success, but more can definitely be done. The reason I said "outside" not "volunteer" is that they may be paid to work on something like MediaWiki, just not paid ''by'' WMF. The Apache Software Foundation is an example of an organization where many (not all) developers are paid (by various companies organizations), but they partner together to get things done. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 20:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==United States==<br />
On «support successful job candidates in attaining the legal right to work in the United States»: why only USA? What if they want to move elsewhere? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Maybe this should become "...to work from a WMF office in the United States", in case that's what's meant here. --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Or rather: Support succesful job candidates in attaining the legal right to work in the US should the need arise". Or something along those lines. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 14:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Yeah -- you're correct, we also support remote workers when people don't want to relocate and the job doesn't require it. I will reword :-) [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Here's what I changed it too -- let me know if this is clearer. "We aim to recruit talented people regardless of where they live, and depending on their preferences and the needs of the job, we support them in working remotely or relocating to the United States." Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::Does the trick, as far as I'm concerned. :) [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 21:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::::Yes, much clearer, thanks. <br />
::::::Ideally you'd be completely nation-neutral and support them in relocating to another country of their choice too, if suitable for them, and you could remove the "to the United States" bit. However, I understand this is an edge case. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 00:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::::Relocations are done because the WMF feels the employee should be in-office. Up until we open an office somewhere else I can't imagine that spending donor funds moving people to a country 'because they want to live there' would be optimal. [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 23:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Serving every human being==<br />
This section looks weird being 7 sections away from «Freedom and open source» with «All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software» etc. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The emphasis on the development of new features is undue and likely to grate on both engineering staff and community, in my opinion. It is out of step with the custodian role which many individuals in both groups identify with. We should express a stronger commitment to high availability and site performance. --[[User:Ori.livneh|Ori.livneh]] ([[User talk:Ori.livneh|talk]]) 10:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Oh ha, Ori.livneh I think that's just clumsy wording on my part. I can see how it's easy to misread, but what you think I said is not what I meant to be saying. I'll revise. I'll also move this chunk up to be nearer to Freedom and Open Source. Thanks to you both [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Also, it talks about these being directed at "readers", and hoping to support them in starting to contribute - but we should probably also talk about supporting existing contributors. :-) [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 20:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: On Sue's request, I've tried to address these points with [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5334886&oldid=5334873 this edit].--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 23:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: It's better (thanks, Sue, Erik, and James) but it's still not quite right, in my opinion: rather than rank engineering priorities (features, performance, availability) and then work backwards to explain the values that motivate them (access, participation), I think the section ought to lead with a statement of values, and then explain how our engineering priorities reflect our effort to realize these values maximally. --[[User:Ori.livneh|Ori.livneh]] ([[User talk:Ori.livneh|talk]]) 11:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::: Want to take a crack at drafting something on talk?--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 20:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::: How about:<br />
:::::: <div style="border:1px solid silver; background:#eee; margin:0.5em; padding:1em 2em;">The Wikimedia Foundation aims to make <span style="background: #d8ecff;">the</span> material in the Wikimedia projects broadly accessible to all. <span style="background: #d8ecff;">We work to enable for the world education from, entertainment by, and engagement with our projects' content, and participation in the communities and processes that create them.</span> Ensuring <span style="background: #d8ecff;">the</span> continued reliability, availability and responsiveness of all Wikimedia sites and services is our first priority. In prioritizing new products and features, our goal is to impact the largest-possible number of readers and contributors, and to eliminate barriers that could preclude people from accessing or contributing to our projects, such as poor usability, lack of language support, and limited access to technology. We endeavour to create the structural support and the necessary preconditions for bottom-up innovation by others. We do not form agreements in which one organization is given access to material or functionality that others are denied. Where possible, we aim to preserve and support frictionless use of the material in the projects, so that people can share it widely and easily.</div><br />
:::::: Thoughts? Please forgive the "power of threes" and running alliterations. :-) I worry that this section is now trying to say too much; possibly split after "technology"? I'm not particularly attached to my wording, so don't worry about offending. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 05:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Communication==<br />
Do you think https://xkcd.com/802/ [https://xkcd.com/802_large/] applies to the WMF? (In particular, the proportions in the two maps on the top <s>right</s> left being zoomed.) --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Nemo, could you clarify which proportions you refer to by naming them? Top right is "Unread Updates". --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Ouch. I meant left, of course. :) Thanks, [[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Right to fork==<br />
Again nothing. [[Talk:Terms of use/Archives/2011-12-06#Right to Fork]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
* Probably more of a Wikimedia principle than a Wikimedia Foundation principle. Perhaps we need a separate list? :-) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 09:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
*: I doubt it: «principles intended to guide the work of the Wikimedia Foundation». Who else do you suggest to task with ensuring the right to fork? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: Sue asked me to explore some language around this, so I've taken a first crack at it with [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sue_Gardner/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5334873&oldid=5334652 this edit].--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 23:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::: Thanks! Much better. I'll let the experts comment on the specific wording and if it covers all the essential (people would like to have something more than page history dumps, but what exactly is tricky). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 23:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Internationalism ==<br />
<br />
«''When we consider the community'' as a whole, we aim to consider all its languages and geographies and to avoid global initiatives that favor communities speaking only our languages» (emphasis added).<br />
I note that you're only talking of how you consider the community; what about «initiatives that favor communities speaking only our languages» in general? For instance, roughly how much of the WMF spending goes on initiatives that favor only English-language people (projects, users etc., readers) or only the USA? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Right to influence ==<br />
<br />
«Their work has earned [...] financial support sustaining the Wikimedia Foundation [...] and the global community has therefore earned the right to influence the work of the organizations»: it ''seems'' that you're stating that the only reason why someone has the "right to influence" the work is that they bring in dollars. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Transparency ==<br />
<br />
This section says "including employee guidelines". What happened to the public sharing of the [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Employee_Handbook Employee Handbook]? -- [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A|2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A]] 18:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
: I asked about this recently. It doesn't really seem relevant to this kind of document, though. There's a thread on wikimedia-l, I think, if you want to follow up. :-) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 21:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:: It explicitly says "As a matter of general practice, unless there’s a particular reason not to, we aim to publish internal organizational policies and procedures, including employee guidelines, financial policies, etc." I think it does belong here, because what the employees do is relevant, particularly to the donors who are essentially paying us. I agree the current reality around such employee procedures, etc. is not quite consistent with the document. There is some stuff on Office Wiki (a private WMF wiki for employees) that does not need to be confidential. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 23:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::: If only there were someone with access to both wikis with the technical know-how to move the pages. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 03:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::I'm pretty sure the staff handbook contains (amongst other things) access info to our healthcare providers, and other non-public information which should be stripped. I think that if someone did have the access and technical know-how to move the pages and acted on it, they'd swiftly find themselves losing the access ;p. As a general statement, the document ''should'' be moved over - but I imagine they want to get it finished and stable before combing through it to identify elements inappropriate for public consumption (otherwise you end up having to do multiple sweeps). [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 03:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Independence ==<br />
<br />
"Skillsets" is not a proper word. -- [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A|2001:558:1400:10:456A:2BA3:C990:8D0A]] 18:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
: Context, "Similarly, our Board of Trustees selection process is designed to encourage representation of different voices and skillsets, rather than recognizing donors or celebrities."<br />
: What would you recommend instead? "skill sets"? Something else? (This level of minor word tweaking you can really just do yourself, but I'm happy to proxy the edit for you from the talk page, if you'd like.) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 20:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: "Skillsets" is a reasonable word, but if the IP objects strenuously, we could use "sets of skills", which is rather po-faced. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 05:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::"Skillsets" is a perfectly cromulent word, even if my spell checker doesn't like it. If you're picky, write it as "skill sets". :) --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Frictionless and copyleft ==<br />
<br />
You might want to clarify this does not mean abandoning copyleft. Though not all WMF wikis use copyleft, many do, and there is general understanding of its benefits. I want to ensure people don't come later and start arguing that e.g. all new wikis should be non-copyleft to avoid "friction". [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] | [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 23:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Surely by definition, 'avoiding friction in reuse' would be 'copyleft' - it's talking about freedom for others to reuse our work, not freedom for us to reuse the work of others. Which WMF wikis are non-copyleft? [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 04:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:: Wikinews and Wikidata, for two. Copyleft licences are overly restrictive for wider re-use in some contexts. [[User:Jdforrester (WMF)|Jdforrester (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jdforrester (WMF)|talk]]) 05:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Aha, we're talking less- rather than more-restrictive; my mistake :). [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 05:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Duplicate of [[wmf:Values]]? ==<br />
<br />
Hi. I wonder if these guiding principles aren't in some ways a duplicate of (or perhaps an update to) [[wmf:Values]]. What's the purpose of this document? Is it going to live alongside the [[wmf:mission|mission statement]], [[wmf:vision|vision statement]], etc.? Or will it end up being a Board resolution? Or something else? --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 04:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Free formats ==<br />
<br />
In re: ''All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software,'' can you clarify whether or not this is meant to mean that we will provide every file in free formats and thus not ''require'' the use of non-free software to view the file or does this mean that we will not provide the file in non-free formats at all? There seems to be some contention both internally and externally surrounding the possibility of providing non-free formats. I, personally, full appreciate having available to me free-formats, but when all of my devices have hardware-accelerated H.264 decoding, I would prefer to save cpu cycles and my battery when watching videos from commons. Similarly, there are some mobile devices that only support non-free formats and thus we currently do not support those users. -[[User:Pgehres (WMF)|Peter Gehres (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Pgehres (WMF)|talk]]) 05:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:We're working on that issue with legal internally... I'm certainly trying to push advocacy for explicit support of multi-format stack as officially acceptable, and would prefer clearer language on this as well. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Quality ==<br />
<br />
It strikes me that there is a glaring omission here. The current list of principles is a good set of ideologies, but surely the Wikimedia Foundation values high-quality content as much as it does the abstract principles like transparency and accountability. I understand that the Foundation does not generally (nor should) directly involve itself in the creation or judging of content on the projects, but certainly one of its core duties is encouraging or enabling the content creation, and one of the core implicit principles is that the content of the projects ought to be high-quality, comprehensive, authoritative, and so on (to the degree such quality descriptors are applicable to each project). To me, it seems like the omission of any principle that actually addresses the content of the projects is likely a matter of something being so obvious it didn't seem to need saying. I think it is important nonetheless, though. [[User:Dominic|Dominic]] ([[User talk:Dominic|talk]]) 06:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
: I agree. I think reiterating the [[wmf:mission statement|mission statement]] might be good here. (Related to the section above about [[wmf:values]], this page seems to be doing a bit of wheel reinvention....) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 06:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Ads? ==<br />
<br />
Is being ad-free a guiding principle? Relatedly, is being neutral? --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 07:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:On the neutrality issue... that seems perhaps too WIkipedia-specific? Wikivoyage, for instance, has [[:wikivoyage:Wikivoyage:Be fair|no neutrality policy]]. It seems like being independent is really the principle here, related to being ad-free, and that actually extends to other things like not being reliant on a few major donors. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think being ad-free is ''something we think is really great'', but the relevant guiding principle is indeed independence. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 18:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Mm, it's a little more than "really great"; Sue, Jimmy, and other board members have repeatedly stated for the record that Wikipedia will never show ads. So it's not accurate to present this as merely a strong preference; it has long been a firm commitment. (All this not to contradict that the principle here ''is'' independence rather than ''no ads''.) [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 22:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::IMO a commitment to not put ads on the site is more of a ''position'' than a ''principle''. We certainly don't advocate against advertisement culture the way we advocate for free speech and access to information. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 23:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Agreed. (your first comment did not acknowledge it was a committed position.) [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 23:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Free speech ==<br />
<br />
"Another crack at alternative wording: We aim to balance appropriately between our goal of being active internationally and our desire to minimize legal risk to the projects."<br />
:^ I worry this version doesn't actually say anything about being pro-free speech or making information available to everyone. One way to improve our international activity and lower our risk profile would be to censor information for certain countries to comply with local censorship or blasphemy laws, but I think we wouldn't consider that acceptable. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|brion]] ([[User talk:Brion VIBBER|talk]]) 19:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Thank you ==<br />
<br />
I just checked this page because I had a free moment (I am in an all-day annual planning meeting) and I want to say thank you to everyone who's contributing here -- this is a really useful conversation. Some of the language folks are proposing is really helpful, and there are a couple of places where the comments show that the existing language isn't nearly as clear as I thought it was. So this is good. I'll come back sometime over the next week, but please meanwhile continue to develop new needed language through discussion here -- it's very, very helpful. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]])</div>Sue Gardnerhttps://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resolution_talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles/Archive_1&diff=328031Resolution talk:Wikimedia Foundation Guiding Principles/Archive 12013-03-20T19:31:26Z<p>Sue Gardner: /* Serving every human being */ responding to Ori and Nemo</p>
<hr />
<div>== Freedom and open source ==<br />
"As an organization, we strive to use open source tools over proprietary ones, although we use proprietary or closed tools (such as software, operating systems, etc.) where there is currently no open-source tool that will effectively meet our needs." - Is there a requirement and process in place which forces people to publish an evaluation which open-source tools were considered and tested for a task in order to identify which specific functionality was only provided by closed-source tools? --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 18:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:<br />
:Well, maybe that is my impression because I work remotely, but I've seen some proprietary files been shared and proprietary softwares being used when we could have free software. For instance, microsoft documents or apple softwares. And I've heard the wifi network in SF office works better with apple stuff, which is kind of weird - I've visited SF office only once and I checked that, but I've heard the same from other online meetings. For pragmatical reasons, sometimes I know using some closed softwares can deliver things faster tho. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Ezalvarenga]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 19:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:I agree we could use a little more discipline on this. e.g. I'm not ''convinced'' all Mac users in the office would truly be significantly less effective at their work on Ubuntu machines. I do acknowledge some may be. I think it warrants some nudging/pushing, though. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 20:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::I think there's a huge distinction between closed source tools for personal productivity, and closed source tools for supporting the projects. This should be clarified in the text of the principles, because the current state of affairs is that we require FOSS when it comes to what is actually necessary for the projects to run, and we obviously don't when it comes to the office IT. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 22:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Thanks. In my initial posting I had shared tools in production (servers, webservices, etc.) in mind, but did not mean to refer to personal computers of individuals - that would be under the "personal freedom" category, and a published evaluation feels like overkill for such private cases. --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::Hi, Aklapper, I don't have time today to make a longer comment, but for the personal freedom, if everybody begin to use closed formats, people who wants to use open formats will be forced to use also closed ones. If a person doesn't want to buy an apple computer, but the wifi network forces people to do so or make their lifes with other hardwares difficult, sorry, a serious policy about that should change. Yes, people can choose whatever they want on their personal computers, but if the majority is using what is fashion, a conscious minitority will not have freedom to choose what they want. As an example, I do use sometimes closed softwares, like skype, but only when really necessary, like a partner or co-worker that prefers to use it. And I know the pain it is sometimes to use only Linux since 1998. :) In Brazil, at least, in the government level, we are trying to [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/thackday/WCmyz2jltF8/sKDd0xCPQaQJ BURN ALL THE DOCS]! There are also [https://groups.google.com/group/thackday/browse_thread/thread/4f94fbf09e4b6f54 bills] under way. ;D P. S. I could not even imagine close softwares on the server side. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Ezalvarenga]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 12:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Responding to a couple of you here. No, AKlapper, AFAIK there is no formal documented requirement/process for evaluation of when the Wikimedia Foundation uses a proprietary tool instead of an open source one. To date we've been small enough, and had a sufficient proportion of the staff who're personally dedicated to open source values, such that evaluation has tended to happen informally on a case-by-case basis, and it's worked reasonably well. Like, we made an organizational commitment to use CiviCRM early and we've stuck with that, and similarly I know that Finance & Admin uses proprietary accounting tools because early on some research was done that determined there was no acceptable open-source tool. I think those were both reasonable outcomes. Over the years we've toyed with the idea of developing a formal evaluation policy, but we have not done it. If you're suggesting we should, I would generally agree, but I also wouldn't say it's the thing Office IT should prioritize as most important and most urgent.<br />
<br />
More generally, in response to Ezalvarenga and Ijon, yes, I'd agree that our actual practices are likely imperfect -- there are probably some people at the Wikimedia Foundation using proprietary tools for individual use that could be replaced by open source tools. For example, I know that Legal has at some times used Microsoft Word for documents shared with external firms, when they probably could've insisted on using OpenOffice or LibreOffice without too much of a productivity hit.<br />
<br />
Frankly, individuals using proprietary tools has been a pretty big pain point for the Wikimedia Foundation. It's understandable: individual staff have widely varying levels of personal commitment to FLOSS, people want to be effective at work and so they want to use the tools that support them best, and people's work, and their needs, vary. No-one wants to be told they have no choice but to use X, whether X is Ubuntu/Thunderbird/LibreOffice or IE/Outlook/Word. That's utterly reasonable. So it's complex, and we're not going to capture a lot of complexity in a short statement. <br />
<br />
StevenW had proposed we modify the language here to distinguish between site production tools and personal/individual tools. Can somebody propose language for that, and for anything else here that might need clarification or finetuning? Feel free to make a change and I'll revert it or finetune it if I feel I need to. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Quick suggestion... ==<br />
<br />
[https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASue_Gardner%2FWikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5332950&oldid=5331958 ], which I made before seeing the request to comment first. Anyway, "serving every human being" seems a bit disingenuous, since we really aim to serve every literate human being with access to data and a digital device. ;-) The goal of providing equal access to all seems fairer, and more in line the the section's comments about well, accessibility. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 00:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:"equal access to all" is, er, equally disingenuous, as, by your own phrase, we're providing equal access only to "every literate human being with access to data and a digital device".<br />
:Furthermore, I actually do think we ''strive'' to serve every human being. Remember the free knowledge the Wikimedia community creates and shares is consumed offline too, not to mention the huge value of secondary use -- the knowledge worked into presentations, newspapers, books, radio and TV programs -- all consumed by hundreds of millions ''more'' than the group consuming it directly from our Web sites. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 00:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Yeah, I agree with Ijon. The language is "aims to" and "endeavours to," so I think it's appropriately framed as aspirational. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Getting rich ==<br />
<br />
On «nobody is getting rich by working at the Wikimedia Foundation»: define "rich". For instance, I'm a student but I'm very rich compared to most world population and richer than millions of Italians (so, when serving in my university board I raised tuition fees for myself/my income range). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Yeah obviously "getting rich" is relative. It's only when you compare [[:wiktionary:apples and oranges|apples to apples]] and look at other tech and nonprofit compensation schemes that you see what is meant. In any case, it's pretty awesome that we want to put that among our guiding principles, right? <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Edit conflict with StevenW! And yeah, Steven, I agree. I think the key word here is "getting." Nemo is correct of course that by world population standards, everybody who works at the Wikimedia Foundation is rich. But we were born rich, we did not "get" rich through our work at the Wikimedia Foundation. The point here is that working at the Wikimedia Foundation is not a path to dramatically improving one's personal wealth. Thanks. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Reasonable travel costs==<br />
«We aim to incur only reasonable travel costs: the general policy is to travel economy class and stay in moderately-priced hotels»: were $225K for staff (and board) at Wikimania reasonable? [[Talk:Wikimedia budget#Wikimania travel question]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:How much is that per person sent to Wikimania that year? I think looking at the total for shock value is unfair. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Nemo we're not making a commitment here to reduce travel costs, or to minimize travel. (I wouldn't want to do that: with a growing staff that operates as part of a global community that stages many international events such as Wikimania, the chapters' meeting and various hackathons, it strikes me that a focus on reducing travel costs would be a net negative not a net plus. I expect travel costs to be a not-insubstantial chunk of the Wikimedia Foundation budget: that seems eminently reasonable to me given the nature of our work.) The point here is simply that when we travel, we aim to do it moderately not luxuriously. The nuts-and-bolts of how we do that are captured in [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Travel_policy the travel policy], but the purpose of this statement is simply to summarize the overall intent. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Title or position==<br />
«People at the Wikimedia Foundation get the same benefits regardless of their title or position». <br />
*Who's "people"? Are you including all managers, trustees and employees?<br />
*What's "benefits" and how do you measure if "salaries" are "fair"? Are you considering only accessories or also the actual wage, before or after taxes, pension contributions etc.?<br />
*What are you including in "title or position" (or other comparison for "fair")? For instance, remote worker vs. office worker, full time vs. part time, staff vs. contractor.<br />
--[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:*Well, people does include at least all staff if you read further "regardless of their title or position". This should include everyone. As for Trustees, you've got a point, "people" is not clear and should probably be changed to "Staff" when it comes to benefits. I do not believe Trustees get benefits, even though they might benefit from insurance and related stuff when it comes to their work for the Foundation. It might make sense here to differentiate between staff/volunteers or something along those lines. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 14:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::To be clear: yes, the statement's intended to refer to all staff, and I can change the word "people" to "staff." There is detail available in the document [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/2a/Wikimedia_Foundation_Compensation_Practices.pdf Wikimedia Foundation Compensation Practices]. And for Notafish, yes, the trustees don't get any benefits. Expenses they incur on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation are reimbursed as per the policies, but they receive no compensation in the form of salary or other benefits. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Accountable==<br />
«The Wikimedia Foundation wants to be accountable to [...]». Please clarify how the concept of accountability applies here: «responsible for your decisions or actions and expected to explain them when you are asked»[http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/accountable] (are there processes to be responsible of your actions in front of the readers, receive their questions and explain? etc.). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Sure, of course there are processes to be responsible to the readers of the projects. Reader surveys. User testing. OTRS. The blogs. The annual reports. The regular publication of activity reports, performance reports, financial statements. Social media. Engagement with charity watchdog groups. Public mailing lists. Bugzilla. Office hours on IRC. Events for donors. This page, and many other on-wiki consultations related to feature development, policy development, and so forth. There are probably lots I am forgetting :-) Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Shared power==<br />
This section seems entirely useless, in that it lists a lot of minor ephemeral details from the ''here and now'' and no actual "principles" that may "guide" any action. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:The purpose of this section is to explicitly acknowledge that the Wikimedia Foundation works in partnership with a global community of volunteers -- that the Wikimedia Foundation is not the sole or even primary actor in fulfilling the Wikimedia mission, and that it needs to conduct itself accordingly, by creating mechanisms and processes enabling the community to have influence on its actions. Because we are interdependent partners. I think this is a pretty fundamental and important point to make, because in this regard we are different from practically everybody else. (What I mean by that: eBay and Facebook and Yelp may also have a social purpose or utility, but their primary purpose is to make money, and "community members" are a resource to be managed by the company to that end. In our case, the primary purpose of the movement is to make knowledge freely available to everyone around the world, and the Wikimedia Foundation and the global community of volunteers play different and complementary roles in achieving that shared goal.) So I wonder if that's not clear -- if my wording is just mucky. If so, can someone help propose better, more useful language? Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]])<br />
<br />
==United States==<br />
On «support successful job candidates in attaining the legal right to work in the United States»: why only USA? What if they want to move elsewhere? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Maybe this should become "...to work from a WMF office in the United States", in case that's what's meant here. --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Or rather: Support succesful job candidates in attaining the legal right to work in the US should the need arise". Or something along those lines. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 14:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Yeah -- you're correct, we also support remote workers when people don't want to relocate and the job doesn't require it. I will reword :-) [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Here's what I changed it too -- let me know if this is clearer. "We aim to recruit talented people regardless of where they live, and depending on their preferences and the needs of the job, we support them in working remotely or relocating to the United States." Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Serving every human being==<br />
This section looks weird being 7 sections away from «Freedom and open source» with «All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software» etc. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The emphasis on the development of new features is undue and likely to grate on both engineering staff and community, in my opinion. It is out of step with the custodian role which many individuals in both groups identify with. We should express a stronger commitment to high availability and site performance. --[[User:Ori.livneh|Ori.livneh]] ([[User talk:Ori.livneh|talk]]) 10:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Oh ha, Ori.livneh I think that's just clumsy wording on my part. I can see how it's easy to misread, but what you think I said is not what I meant to be saying. I'll revise. I'll also move this chunk up to be nearer to Freedom and Open Source. Thanks to you both [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Communication==<br />
Do you think https://xkcd.com/802/ [https://xkcd.com/802_large/] applies to the WMF? (In particular, the proportions in the two maps on the top <s>right</s> left being zoomed.) --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Nemo, could you clarify which proportions you refer to by naming them? Top right is "Unread Updates". --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Ouch. I meant left, of course. :) Thanks, [[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Right to fork==<br />
Again nothing. [[Talk:Terms of use/Archives/2011-12-06#Right to Fork]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
* Probably more of a Wikimedia principle than a Wikimedia Foundation principle. Perhaps we need a separate list? :-) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 09:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
*: I doubt it: «principles intended to guide the work of the Wikimedia Foundation». Who else do you suggest to task with ensuring the right to fork? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Internationalism ==<br />
<br />
«''When we consider the community'' as a whole, we aim to consider all its languages and geographies and to avoid global initiatives that favor communities speaking only our languages» (emphasis added).<br />
I note that you're only talking of how you consider the community; what about «initiatives that favor communities speaking only our languages» in general? For instance, roughly how much of the WMF spending goes on initiatives that favor only English-language people (projects, users etc., readers) or only the USA? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Right to influence ==<br />
<br />
«Their work has earned [...] financial support sustaining the Wikimedia Foundation [...] and the global community has therefore earned the right to influence the work of the organizations»: it ''seems'' that you're stating that the only reason why someone has the "right to influence" the work is that they bring in dollars. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)</div>Sue Gardnerhttps://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resolution_talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles/Archive_1&diff=328030Resolution talk:Wikimedia Foundation Guiding Principles/Archive 12013-03-20T19:29:13Z<p>Sue Gardner: /* United States */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Freedom and open source ==<br />
"As an organization, we strive to use open source tools over proprietary ones, although we use proprietary or closed tools (such as software, operating systems, etc.) where there is currently no open-source tool that will effectively meet our needs." - Is there a requirement and process in place which forces people to publish an evaluation which open-source tools were considered and tested for a task in order to identify which specific functionality was only provided by closed-source tools? --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 18:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:<br />
:Well, maybe that is my impression because I work remotely, but I've seen some proprietary files been shared and proprietary softwares being used when we could have free software. For instance, microsoft documents or apple softwares. And I've heard the wifi network in SF office works better with apple stuff, which is kind of weird - I've visited SF office only once and I checked that, but I've heard the same from other online meetings. For pragmatical reasons, sometimes I know using some closed softwares can deliver things faster tho. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Ezalvarenga]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 19:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:I agree we could use a little more discipline on this. e.g. I'm not ''convinced'' all Mac users in the office would truly be significantly less effective at their work on Ubuntu machines. I do acknowledge some may be. I think it warrants some nudging/pushing, though. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 20:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::I think there's a huge distinction between closed source tools for personal productivity, and closed source tools for supporting the projects. This should be clarified in the text of the principles, because the current state of affairs is that we require FOSS when it comes to what is actually necessary for the projects to run, and we obviously don't when it comes to the office IT. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 22:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Thanks. In my initial posting I had shared tools in production (servers, webservices, etc.) in mind, but did not mean to refer to personal computers of individuals - that would be under the "personal freedom" category, and a published evaluation feels like overkill for such private cases. --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::Hi, Aklapper, I don't have time today to make a longer comment, but for the personal freedom, if everybody begin to use closed formats, people who wants to use open formats will be forced to use also closed ones. If a person doesn't want to buy an apple computer, but the wifi network forces people to do so or make their lifes with other hardwares difficult, sorry, a serious policy about that should change. Yes, people can choose whatever they want on their personal computers, but if the majority is using what is fashion, a conscious minitority will not have freedom to choose what they want. As an example, I do use sometimes closed softwares, like skype, but only when really necessary, like a partner or co-worker that prefers to use it. And I know the pain it is sometimes to use only Linux since 1998. :) In Brazil, at least, in the government level, we are trying to [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/thackday/WCmyz2jltF8/sKDd0xCPQaQJ BURN ALL THE DOCS]! There are also [https://groups.google.com/group/thackday/browse_thread/thread/4f94fbf09e4b6f54 bills] under way. ;D P. S. I could not even imagine close softwares on the server side. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Ezalvarenga]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 12:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Responding to a couple of you here. No, AKlapper, AFAIK there is no formal documented requirement/process for evaluation of when the Wikimedia Foundation uses a proprietary tool instead of an open source one. To date we've been small enough, and had a sufficient proportion of the staff who're personally dedicated to open source values, such that evaluation has tended to happen informally on a case-by-case basis, and it's worked reasonably well. Like, we made an organizational commitment to use CiviCRM early and we've stuck with that, and similarly I know that Finance & Admin uses proprietary accounting tools because early on some research was done that determined there was no acceptable open-source tool. I think those were both reasonable outcomes. Over the years we've toyed with the idea of developing a formal evaluation policy, but we have not done it. If you're suggesting we should, I would generally agree, but I also wouldn't say it's the thing Office IT should prioritize as most important and most urgent.<br />
<br />
More generally, in response to Ezalvarenga and Ijon, yes, I'd agree that our actual practices are likely imperfect -- there are probably some people at the Wikimedia Foundation using proprietary tools for individual use that could be replaced by open source tools. For example, I know that Legal has at some times used Microsoft Word for documents shared with external firms, when they probably could've insisted on using OpenOffice or LibreOffice without too much of a productivity hit.<br />
<br />
Frankly, individuals using proprietary tools has been a pretty big pain point for the Wikimedia Foundation. It's understandable: individual staff have widely varying levels of personal commitment to FLOSS, people want to be effective at work and so they want to use the tools that support them best, and people's work, and their needs, vary. No-one wants to be told they have no choice but to use X, whether X is Ubuntu/Thunderbird/LibreOffice or IE/Outlook/Word. That's utterly reasonable. So it's complex, and we're not going to capture a lot of complexity in a short statement. <br />
<br />
StevenW had proposed we modify the language here to distinguish between site production tools and personal/individual tools. Can somebody propose language for that, and for anything else here that might need clarification or finetuning? Feel free to make a change and I'll revert it or finetune it if I feel I need to. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Quick suggestion... ==<br />
<br />
[https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASue_Gardner%2FWikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5332950&oldid=5331958 ], which I made before seeing the request to comment first. Anyway, "serving every human being" seems a bit disingenuous, since we really aim to serve every literate human being with access to data and a digital device. ;-) The goal of providing equal access to all seems fairer, and more in line the the section's comments about well, accessibility. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 00:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:"equal access to all" is, er, equally disingenuous, as, by your own phrase, we're providing equal access only to "every literate human being with access to data and a digital device".<br />
:Furthermore, I actually do think we ''strive'' to serve every human being. Remember the free knowledge the Wikimedia community creates and shares is consumed offline too, not to mention the huge value of secondary use -- the knowledge worked into presentations, newspapers, books, radio and TV programs -- all consumed by hundreds of millions ''more'' than the group consuming it directly from our Web sites. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 00:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Yeah, I agree with Ijon. The language is "aims to" and "endeavours to," so I think it's appropriately framed as aspirational. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Getting rich ==<br />
<br />
On «nobody is getting rich by working at the Wikimedia Foundation»: define "rich". For instance, I'm a student but I'm very rich compared to most world population and richer than millions of Italians (so, when serving in my university board I raised tuition fees for myself/my income range). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Yeah obviously "getting rich" is relative. It's only when you compare [[:wiktionary:apples and oranges|apples to apples]] and look at other tech and nonprofit compensation schemes that you see what is meant. In any case, it's pretty awesome that we want to put that among our guiding principles, right? <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Edit conflict with StevenW! And yeah, Steven, I agree. I think the key word here is "getting." Nemo is correct of course that by world population standards, everybody who works at the Wikimedia Foundation is rich. But we were born rich, we did not "get" rich through our work at the Wikimedia Foundation. The point here is that working at the Wikimedia Foundation is not a path to dramatically improving one's personal wealth. Thanks. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Reasonable travel costs==<br />
«We aim to incur only reasonable travel costs: the general policy is to travel economy class and stay in moderately-priced hotels»: were $225K for staff (and board) at Wikimania reasonable? [[Talk:Wikimedia budget#Wikimania travel question]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:How much is that per person sent to Wikimania that year? I think looking at the total for shock value is unfair. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Nemo we're not making a commitment here to reduce travel costs, or to minimize travel. (I wouldn't want to do that: with a growing staff that operates as part of a global community that stages many international events such as Wikimania, the chapters' meeting and various hackathons, it strikes me that a focus on reducing travel costs would be a net negative not a net plus. I expect travel costs to be a not-insubstantial chunk of the Wikimedia Foundation budget: that seems eminently reasonable to me given the nature of our work.) The point here is simply that when we travel, we aim to do it moderately not luxuriously. The nuts-and-bolts of how we do that are captured in [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Travel_policy the travel policy], but the purpose of this statement is simply to summarize the overall intent. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Title or position==<br />
«People at the Wikimedia Foundation get the same benefits regardless of their title or position». <br />
*Who's "people"? Are you including all managers, trustees and employees?<br />
*What's "benefits" and how do you measure if "salaries" are "fair"? Are you considering only accessories or also the actual wage, before or after taxes, pension contributions etc.?<br />
*What are you including in "title or position" (or other comparison for "fair")? For instance, remote worker vs. office worker, full time vs. part time, staff vs. contractor.<br />
--[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:*Well, people does include at least all staff if you read further "regardless of their title or position". This should include everyone. As for Trustees, you've got a point, "people" is not clear and should probably be changed to "Staff" when it comes to benefits. I do not believe Trustees get benefits, even though they might benefit from insurance and related stuff when it comes to their work for the Foundation. It might make sense here to differentiate between staff/volunteers or something along those lines. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 14:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::To be clear: yes, the statement's intended to refer to all staff, and I can change the word "people" to "staff." There is detail available in the document [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/2a/Wikimedia_Foundation_Compensation_Practices.pdf Wikimedia Foundation Compensation Practices]. And for Notafish, yes, the trustees don't get any benefits. Expenses they incur on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation are reimbursed as per the policies, but they receive no compensation in the form of salary or other benefits. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Accountable==<br />
«The Wikimedia Foundation wants to be accountable to [...]». Please clarify how the concept of accountability applies here: «responsible for your decisions or actions and expected to explain them when you are asked»[http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/accountable] (are there processes to be responsible of your actions in front of the readers, receive their questions and explain? etc.). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Sure, of course there are processes to be responsible to the readers of the projects. Reader surveys. User testing. OTRS. The blogs. The annual reports. The regular publication of activity reports, performance reports, financial statements. Social media. Engagement with charity watchdog groups. Public mailing lists. Bugzilla. Office hours on IRC. Events for donors. This page, and many other on-wiki consultations related to feature development, policy development, and so forth. There are probably lots I am forgetting :-) Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Shared power==<br />
This section seems entirely useless, in that it lists a lot of minor ephemeral details from the ''here and now'' and no actual "principles" that may "guide" any action. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:The purpose of this section is to explicitly acknowledge that the Wikimedia Foundation works in partnership with a global community of volunteers -- that the Wikimedia Foundation is not the sole or even primary actor in fulfilling the Wikimedia mission, and that it needs to conduct itself accordingly, by creating mechanisms and processes enabling the community to have influence on its actions. Because we are interdependent partners. I think this is a pretty fundamental and important point to make, because in this regard we are different from practically everybody else. (What I mean by that: eBay and Facebook and Yelp may also have a social purpose or utility, but their primary purpose is to make money, and "community members" are a resource to be managed by the company to that end. In our case, the primary purpose of the movement is to make knowledge freely available to everyone around the world, and the Wikimedia Foundation and the global community of volunteers play different and complementary roles in achieving that shared goal.) So I wonder if that's not clear -- if my wording is just mucky. If so, can someone help propose better, more useful language? Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]])<br />
<br />
==United States==<br />
On «support successful job candidates in attaining the legal right to work in the United States»: why only USA? What if they want to move elsewhere? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Maybe this should become "...to work from a WMF office in the United States", in case that's what's meant here. --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Or rather: Support succesful job candidates in attaining the legal right to work in the US should the need arise". Or something along those lines. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 14:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Yeah -- you're correct, we also support remote workers when people don't want to relocate and the job doesn't require it. I will reword :-) [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Here's what I changed it too -- let me know if this is clearer. "We aim to recruit talented people regardless of where they live, and depending on their preferences and the needs of the job, we support them in working remotely or relocating to the United States." Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Serving every human being==<br />
This section looks weird being 7 sections away from «Freedom and open source» with «All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software» etc. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The emphasis on the development of new features is undue and likely to grate on both engineering staff and community, in my opinion. It is out of step with the custodian role which many individuals in both groups identify with. We should express a stronger commitment to high availability and site performance. --[[User:Ori.livneh|Ori.livneh]] ([[User talk:Ori.livneh|talk]]) 10:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Communication==<br />
Do you think https://xkcd.com/802/ [https://xkcd.com/802_large/] applies to the WMF? (In particular, the proportions in the two maps on the top <s>right</s> left being zoomed.) --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Nemo, could you clarify which proportions you refer to by naming them? Top right is "Unread Updates". --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Ouch. I meant left, of course. :) Thanks, [[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Right to fork==<br />
Again nothing. [[Talk:Terms of use/Archives/2011-12-06#Right to Fork]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
* Probably more of a Wikimedia principle than a Wikimedia Foundation principle. Perhaps we need a separate list? :-) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 09:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
*: I doubt it: «principles intended to guide the work of the Wikimedia Foundation». Who else do you suggest to task with ensuring the right to fork? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Internationalism ==<br />
<br />
«''When we consider the community'' as a whole, we aim to consider all its languages and geographies and to avoid global initiatives that favor communities speaking only our languages» (emphasis added).<br />
I note that you're only talking of how you consider the community; what about «initiatives that favor communities speaking only our languages» in general? For instance, roughly how much of the WMF spending goes on initiatives that favor only English-language people (projects, users etc., readers) or only the USA? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Right to influence ==<br />
<br />
«Their work has earned [...] financial support sustaining the Wikimedia Foundation [...] and the global community has therefore earned the right to influence the work of the organizations»: it ''seems'' that you're stating that the only reason why someone has the "right to influence" the work is that they bring in dollars. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)</div>Sue Gardnerhttps://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resolution_talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles/Archive_1&diff=328029Resolution talk:Wikimedia Foundation Guiding Principles/Archive 12013-03-20T19:21:59Z<p>Sue Gardner: /* United States */ yes, we also support remote workers</p>
<hr />
<div>== Freedom and open source ==<br />
"As an organization, we strive to use open source tools over proprietary ones, although we use proprietary or closed tools (such as software, operating systems, etc.) where there is currently no open-source tool that will effectively meet our needs." - Is there a requirement and process in place which forces people to publish an evaluation which open-source tools were considered and tested for a task in order to identify which specific functionality was only provided by closed-source tools? --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 18:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:<br />
:Well, maybe that is my impression because I work remotely, but I've seen some proprietary files been shared and proprietary softwares being used when we could have free software. For instance, microsoft documents or apple softwares. And I've heard the wifi network in SF office works better with apple stuff, which is kind of weird - I've visited SF office only once and I checked that, but I've heard the same from other online meetings. For pragmatical reasons, sometimes I know using some closed softwares can deliver things faster tho. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Ezalvarenga]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 19:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:I agree we could use a little more discipline on this. e.g. I'm not ''convinced'' all Mac users in the office would truly be significantly less effective at their work on Ubuntu machines. I do acknowledge some may be. I think it warrants some nudging/pushing, though. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 20:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::I think there's a huge distinction between closed source tools for personal productivity, and closed source tools for supporting the projects. This should be clarified in the text of the principles, because the current state of affairs is that we require FOSS when it comes to what is actually necessary for the projects to run, and we obviously don't when it comes to the office IT. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 22:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Thanks. In my initial posting I had shared tools in production (servers, webservices, etc.) in mind, but did not mean to refer to personal computers of individuals - that would be under the "personal freedom" category, and a published evaluation feels like overkill for such private cases. --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::Hi, Aklapper, I don't have time today to make a longer comment, but for the personal freedom, if everybody begin to use closed formats, people who wants to use open formats will be forced to use also closed ones. If a person doesn't want to buy an apple computer, but the wifi network forces people to do so or make their lifes with other hardwares difficult, sorry, a serious policy about that should change. Yes, people can choose whatever they want on their personal computers, but if the majority is using what is fashion, a conscious minitority will not have freedom to choose what they want. As an example, I do use sometimes closed softwares, like skype, but only when really necessary, like a partner or co-worker that prefers to use it. And I know the pain it is sometimes to use only Linux since 1998. :) In Brazil, at least, in the government level, we are trying to [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/thackday/WCmyz2jltF8/sKDd0xCPQaQJ BURN ALL THE DOCS]! There are also [https://groups.google.com/group/thackday/browse_thread/thread/4f94fbf09e4b6f54 bills] under way. ;D P. S. I could not even imagine close softwares on the server side. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Ezalvarenga]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 12:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Responding to a couple of you here. No, AKlapper, AFAIK there is no formal documented requirement/process for evaluation of when the Wikimedia Foundation uses a proprietary tool instead of an open source one. To date we've been small enough, and had a sufficient proportion of the staff who're personally dedicated to open source values, such that evaluation has tended to happen informally on a case-by-case basis, and it's worked reasonably well. Like, we made an organizational commitment to use CiviCRM early and we've stuck with that, and similarly I know that Finance & Admin uses proprietary accounting tools because early on some research was done that determined there was no acceptable open-source tool. I think those were both reasonable outcomes. Over the years we've toyed with the idea of developing a formal evaluation policy, but we have not done it. If you're suggesting we should, I would generally agree, but I also wouldn't say it's the thing Office IT should prioritize as most important and most urgent.<br />
<br />
More generally, in response to Ezalvarenga and Ijon, yes, I'd agree that our actual practices are likely imperfect -- there are probably some people at the Wikimedia Foundation using proprietary tools for individual use that could be replaced by open source tools. For example, I know that Legal has at some times used Microsoft Word for documents shared with external firms, when they probably could've insisted on using OpenOffice or LibreOffice without too much of a productivity hit.<br />
<br />
Frankly, individuals using proprietary tools has been a pretty big pain point for the Wikimedia Foundation. It's understandable: individual staff have widely varying levels of personal commitment to FLOSS, people want to be effective at work and so they want to use the tools that support them best, and people's work, and their needs, vary. No-one wants to be told they have no choice but to use X, whether X is Ubuntu/Thunderbird/LibreOffice or IE/Outlook/Word. That's utterly reasonable. So it's complex, and we're not going to capture a lot of complexity in a short statement. <br />
<br />
StevenW had proposed we modify the language here to distinguish between site production tools and personal/individual tools. Can somebody propose language for that, and for anything else here that might need clarification or finetuning? Feel free to make a change and I'll revert it or finetune it if I feel I need to. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Quick suggestion... ==<br />
<br />
[https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASue_Gardner%2FWikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5332950&oldid=5331958 ], which I made before seeing the request to comment first. Anyway, "serving every human being" seems a bit disingenuous, since we really aim to serve every literate human being with access to data and a digital device. ;-) The goal of providing equal access to all seems fairer, and more in line the the section's comments about well, accessibility. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 00:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:"equal access to all" is, er, equally disingenuous, as, by your own phrase, we're providing equal access only to "every literate human being with access to data and a digital device".<br />
:Furthermore, I actually do think we ''strive'' to serve every human being. Remember the free knowledge the Wikimedia community creates and shares is consumed offline too, not to mention the huge value of secondary use -- the knowledge worked into presentations, newspapers, books, radio and TV programs -- all consumed by hundreds of millions ''more'' than the group consuming it directly from our Web sites. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 00:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Yeah, I agree with Ijon. The language is "aims to" and "endeavours to," so I think it's appropriately framed as aspirational. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Getting rich ==<br />
<br />
On «nobody is getting rich by working at the Wikimedia Foundation»: define "rich". For instance, I'm a student but I'm very rich compared to most world population and richer than millions of Italians (so, when serving in my university board I raised tuition fees for myself/my income range). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Yeah obviously "getting rich" is relative. It's only when you compare [[:wiktionary:apples and oranges|apples to apples]] and look at other tech and nonprofit compensation schemes that you see what is meant. In any case, it's pretty awesome that we want to put that among our guiding principles, right? <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Edit conflict with StevenW! And yeah, Steven, I agree. I think the key word here is "getting." Nemo is correct of course that by world population standards, everybody who works at the Wikimedia Foundation is rich. But we were born rich, we did not "get" rich through our work at the Wikimedia Foundation. The point here is that working at the Wikimedia Foundation is not a path to dramatically improving one's personal wealth. Thanks. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Reasonable travel costs==<br />
«We aim to incur only reasonable travel costs: the general policy is to travel economy class and stay in moderately-priced hotels»: were $225K for staff (and board) at Wikimania reasonable? [[Talk:Wikimedia budget#Wikimania travel question]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:How much is that per person sent to Wikimania that year? I think looking at the total for shock value is unfair. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Nemo we're not making a commitment here to reduce travel costs, or to minimize travel. (I wouldn't want to do that: with a growing staff that operates as part of a global community that stages many international events such as Wikimania, the chapters' meeting and various hackathons, it strikes me that a focus on reducing travel costs would be a net negative not a net plus. I expect travel costs to be a not-insubstantial chunk of the Wikimedia Foundation budget: that seems eminently reasonable to me given the nature of our work.) The point here is simply that when we travel, we aim to do it moderately not luxuriously. The nuts-and-bolts of how we do that are captured in [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Travel_policy the travel policy], but the purpose of this statement is simply to summarize the overall intent. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Title or position==<br />
«People at the Wikimedia Foundation get the same benefits regardless of their title or position». <br />
*Who's "people"? Are you including all managers, trustees and employees?<br />
*What's "benefits" and how do you measure if "salaries" are "fair"? Are you considering only accessories or also the actual wage, before or after taxes, pension contributions etc.?<br />
*What are you including in "title or position" (or other comparison for "fair")? For instance, remote worker vs. office worker, full time vs. part time, staff vs. contractor.<br />
--[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:*Well, people does include at least all staff if you read further "regardless of their title or position". This should include everyone. As for Trustees, you've got a point, "people" is not clear and should probably be changed to "Staff" when it comes to benefits. I do not believe Trustees get benefits, even though they might benefit from insurance and related stuff when it comes to their work for the Foundation. It might make sense here to differentiate between staff/volunteers or something along those lines. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 14:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::To be clear: yes, the statement's intended to refer to all staff, and I can change the word "people" to "staff." There is detail available in the document [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/2a/Wikimedia_Foundation_Compensation_Practices.pdf Wikimedia Foundation Compensation Practices]. And for Notafish, yes, the trustees don't get any benefits. Expenses they incur on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation are reimbursed as per the policies, but they receive no compensation in the form of salary or other benefits. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Accountable==<br />
«The Wikimedia Foundation wants to be accountable to [...]». Please clarify how the concept of accountability applies here: «responsible for your decisions or actions and expected to explain them when you are asked»[http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/accountable] (are there processes to be responsible of your actions in front of the readers, receive their questions and explain? etc.). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Sure, of course there are processes to be responsible to the readers of the projects. Reader surveys. User testing. OTRS. The blogs. The annual reports. The regular publication of activity reports, performance reports, financial statements. Social media. Engagement with charity watchdog groups. Public mailing lists. Bugzilla. Office hours on IRC. Events for donors. This page, and many other on-wiki consultations related to feature development, policy development, and so forth. There are probably lots I am forgetting :-) Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Shared power==<br />
This section seems entirely useless, in that it lists a lot of minor ephemeral details from the ''here and now'' and no actual "principles" that may "guide" any action. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:The purpose of this section is to explicitly acknowledge that the Wikimedia Foundation works in partnership with a global community of volunteers -- that the Wikimedia Foundation is not the sole or even primary actor in fulfilling the Wikimedia mission, and that it needs to conduct itself accordingly, by creating mechanisms and processes enabling the community to have influence on its actions. Because we are interdependent partners. I think this is a pretty fundamental and important point to make, because in this regard we are different from practically everybody else. (What I mean by that: eBay and Facebook and Yelp may also have a social purpose or utility, but their primary purpose is to make money, and "community members" are a resource to be managed by the company to that end. In our case, the primary purpose of the movement is to make knowledge freely available to everyone around the world, and the Wikimedia Foundation and the global community of volunteers play different and complementary roles in achieving that shared goal.) So I wonder if that's not clear -- if my wording is just mucky. If so, can someone help propose better, more useful language? Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]])<br />
<br />
==United States==<br />
On «support successful job candidates in attaining the legal right to work in the United States»: why only USA? What if they want to move elsewhere? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Maybe this should become "...to work from a WMF office in the United States", in case that's what's meant here. --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Or rather: Support succesful job candidates in attaining the legal right to work in the US should the need arise". Or something along those lines. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 14:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Yeah -- you're correct, we also support remote workers when people don't want to relocate and the job doesn't require it. I will reword :-) [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Serving every human being==<br />
This section looks weird being 7 sections away from «Freedom and open source» with «All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software» etc. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The emphasis on the development of new features is undue and likely to grate on both engineering staff and community, in my opinion. It is out of step with the custodian role which many individuals in both groups identify with. We should express a stronger commitment to high availability and site performance. --[[User:Ori.livneh|Ori.livneh]] ([[User talk:Ori.livneh|talk]]) 10:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Communication==<br />
Do you think https://xkcd.com/802/ [https://xkcd.com/802_large/] applies to the WMF? (In particular, the proportions in the two maps on the top <s>right</s> left being zoomed.) --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Nemo, could you clarify which proportions you refer to by naming them? Top right is "Unread Updates". --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Ouch. I meant left, of course. :) Thanks, [[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Right to fork==<br />
Again nothing. [[Talk:Terms of use/Archives/2011-12-06#Right to Fork]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
* Probably more of a Wikimedia principle than a Wikimedia Foundation principle. Perhaps we need a separate list? :-) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 09:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
*: I doubt it: «principles intended to guide the work of the Wikimedia Foundation». Who else do you suggest to task with ensuring the right to fork? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Internationalism ==<br />
<br />
«''When we consider the community'' as a whole, we aim to consider all its languages and geographies and to avoid global initiatives that favor communities speaking only our languages» (emphasis added).<br />
I note that you're only talking of how you consider the community; what about «initiatives that favor communities speaking only our languages» in general? For instance, roughly how much of the WMF spending goes on initiatives that favor only English-language people (projects, users etc., readers) or only the USA? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Right to influence ==<br />
<br />
«Their work has earned [...] financial support sustaining the Wikimedia Foundation [...] and the global community has therefore earned the right to influence the work of the organizations»: it ''seems'' that you're stating that the only reason why someone has the "right to influence" the work is that they bring in dollars. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)</div>Sue Gardnerhttps://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resolution_talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles/Archive_1&diff=328028Resolution talk:Wikimedia Foundation Guiding Principles/Archive 12013-03-20T19:20:36Z<p>Sue Gardner: /* Shared power */ replying to Nemo</p>
<hr />
<div>== Freedom and open source ==<br />
"As an organization, we strive to use open source tools over proprietary ones, although we use proprietary or closed tools (such as software, operating systems, etc.) where there is currently no open-source tool that will effectively meet our needs." - Is there a requirement and process in place which forces people to publish an evaluation which open-source tools were considered and tested for a task in order to identify which specific functionality was only provided by closed-source tools? --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 18:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:<br />
:Well, maybe that is my impression because I work remotely, but I've seen some proprietary files been shared and proprietary softwares being used when we could have free software. For instance, microsoft documents or apple softwares. And I've heard the wifi network in SF office works better with apple stuff, which is kind of weird - I've visited SF office only once and I checked that, but I've heard the same from other online meetings. For pragmatical reasons, sometimes I know using some closed softwares can deliver things faster tho. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Ezalvarenga]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 19:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:I agree we could use a little more discipline on this. e.g. I'm not ''convinced'' all Mac users in the office would truly be significantly less effective at their work on Ubuntu machines. I do acknowledge some may be. I think it warrants some nudging/pushing, though. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 20:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::I think there's a huge distinction between closed source tools for personal productivity, and closed source tools for supporting the projects. This should be clarified in the text of the principles, because the current state of affairs is that we require FOSS when it comes to what is actually necessary for the projects to run, and we obviously don't when it comes to the office IT. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 22:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Thanks. In my initial posting I had shared tools in production (servers, webservices, etc.) in mind, but did not mean to refer to personal computers of individuals - that would be under the "personal freedom" category, and a published evaluation feels like overkill for such private cases. --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::Hi, Aklapper, I don't have time today to make a longer comment, but for the personal freedom, if everybody begin to use closed formats, people who wants to use open formats will be forced to use also closed ones. If a person doesn't want to buy an apple computer, but the wifi network forces people to do so or make their lifes with other hardwares difficult, sorry, a serious policy about that should change. Yes, people can choose whatever they want on their personal computers, but if the majority is using what is fashion, a conscious minitority will not have freedom to choose what they want. As an example, I do use sometimes closed softwares, like skype, but only when really necessary, like a partner or co-worker that prefers to use it. And I know the pain it is sometimes to use only Linux since 1998. :) In Brazil, at least, in the government level, we are trying to [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/thackday/WCmyz2jltF8/sKDd0xCPQaQJ BURN ALL THE DOCS]! There are also [https://groups.google.com/group/thackday/browse_thread/thread/4f94fbf09e4b6f54 bills] under way. ;D P. S. I could not even imagine close softwares on the server side. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Ezalvarenga]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 12:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Responding to a couple of you here. No, AKlapper, AFAIK there is no formal documented requirement/process for evaluation of when the Wikimedia Foundation uses a proprietary tool instead of an open source one. To date we've been small enough, and had a sufficient proportion of the staff who're personally dedicated to open source values, such that evaluation has tended to happen informally on a case-by-case basis, and it's worked reasonably well. Like, we made an organizational commitment to use CiviCRM early and we've stuck with that, and similarly I know that Finance & Admin uses proprietary accounting tools because early on some research was done that determined there was no acceptable open-source tool. I think those were both reasonable outcomes. Over the years we've toyed with the idea of developing a formal evaluation policy, but we have not done it. If you're suggesting we should, I would generally agree, but I also wouldn't say it's the thing Office IT should prioritize as most important and most urgent.<br />
<br />
More generally, in response to Ezalvarenga and Ijon, yes, I'd agree that our actual practices are likely imperfect -- there are probably some people at the Wikimedia Foundation using proprietary tools for individual use that could be replaced by open source tools. For example, I know that Legal has at some times used Microsoft Word for documents shared with external firms, when they probably could've insisted on using OpenOffice or LibreOffice without too much of a productivity hit.<br />
<br />
Frankly, individuals using proprietary tools has been a pretty big pain point for the Wikimedia Foundation. It's understandable: individual staff have widely varying levels of personal commitment to FLOSS, people want to be effective at work and so they want to use the tools that support them best, and people's work, and their needs, vary. No-one wants to be told they have no choice but to use X, whether X is Ubuntu/Thunderbird/LibreOffice or IE/Outlook/Word. That's utterly reasonable. So it's complex, and we're not going to capture a lot of complexity in a short statement. <br />
<br />
StevenW had proposed we modify the language here to distinguish between site production tools and personal/individual tools. Can somebody propose language for that, and for anything else here that might need clarification or finetuning? Feel free to make a change and I'll revert it or finetune it if I feel I need to. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Quick suggestion... ==<br />
<br />
[https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASue_Gardner%2FWikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5332950&oldid=5331958 ], which I made before seeing the request to comment first. Anyway, "serving every human being" seems a bit disingenuous, since we really aim to serve every literate human being with access to data and a digital device. ;-) The goal of providing equal access to all seems fairer, and more in line the the section's comments about well, accessibility. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 00:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:"equal access to all" is, er, equally disingenuous, as, by your own phrase, we're providing equal access only to "every literate human being with access to data and a digital device".<br />
:Furthermore, I actually do think we ''strive'' to serve every human being. Remember the free knowledge the Wikimedia community creates and shares is consumed offline too, not to mention the huge value of secondary use -- the knowledge worked into presentations, newspapers, books, radio and TV programs -- all consumed by hundreds of millions ''more'' than the group consuming it directly from our Web sites. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 00:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Yeah, I agree with Ijon. The language is "aims to" and "endeavours to," so I think it's appropriately framed as aspirational. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Getting rich ==<br />
<br />
On «nobody is getting rich by working at the Wikimedia Foundation»: define "rich". For instance, I'm a student but I'm very rich compared to most world population and richer than millions of Italians (so, when serving in my university board I raised tuition fees for myself/my income range). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Yeah obviously "getting rich" is relative. It's only when you compare [[:wiktionary:apples and oranges|apples to apples]] and look at other tech and nonprofit compensation schemes that you see what is meant. In any case, it's pretty awesome that we want to put that among our guiding principles, right? <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Edit conflict with StevenW! And yeah, Steven, I agree. I think the key word here is "getting." Nemo is correct of course that by world population standards, everybody who works at the Wikimedia Foundation is rich. But we were born rich, we did not "get" rich through our work at the Wikimedia Foundation. The point here is that working at the Wikimedia Foundation is not a path to dramatically improving one's personal wealth. Thanks. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Reasonable travel costs==<br />
«We aim to incur only reasonable travel costs: the general policy is to travel economy class and stay in moderately-priced hotels»: were $225K for staff (and board) at Wikimania reasonable? [[Talk:Wikimedia budget#Wikimania travel question]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:How much is that per person sent to Wikimania that year? I think looking at the total for shock value is unfair. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Nemo we're not making a commitment here to reduce travel costs, or to minimize travel. (I wouldn't want to do that: with a growing staff that operates as part of a global community that stages many international events such as Wikimania, the chapters' meeting and various hackathons, it strikes me that a focus on reducing travel costs would be a net negative not a net plus. I expect travel costs to be a not-insubstantial chunk of the Wikimedia Foundation budget: that seems eminently reasonable to me given the nature of our work.) The point here is simply that when we travel, we aim to do it moderately not luxuriously. The nuts-and-bolts of how we do that are captured in [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Travel_policy the travel policy], but the purpose of this statement is simply to summarize the overall intent. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Title or position==<br />
«People at the Wikimedia Foundation get the same benefits regardless of their title or position». <br />
*Who's "people"? Are you including all managers, trustees and employees?<br />
*What's "benefits" and how do you measure if "salaries" are "fair"? Are you considering only accessories or also the actual wage, before or after taxes, pension contributions etc.?<br />
*What are you including in "title or position" (or other comparison for "fair")? For instance, remote worker vs. office worker, full time vs. part time, staff vs. contractor.<br />
--[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:*Well, people does include at least all staff if you read further "regardless of their title or position". This should include everyone. As for Trustees, you've got a point, "people" is not clear and should probably be changed to "Staff" when it comes to benefits. I do not believe Trustees get benefits, even though they might benefit from insurance and related stuff when it comes to their work for the Foundation. It might make sense here to differentiate between staff/volunteers or something along those lines. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 14:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::To be clear: yes, the statement's intended to refer to all staff, and I can change the word "people" to "staff." There is detail available in the document [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/2a/Wikimedia_Foundation_Compensation_Practices.pdf Wikimedia Foundation Compensation Practices]. And for Notafish, yes, the trustees don't get any benefits. Expenses they incur on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation are reimbursed as per the policies, but they receive no compensation in the form of salary or other benefits. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Accountable==<br />
«The Wikimedia Foundation wants to be accountable to [...]». Please clarify how the concept of accountability applies here: «responsible for your decisions or actions and expected to explain them when you are asked»[http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/accountable] (are there processes to be responsible of your actions in front of the readers, receive their questions and explain? etc.). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Sure, of course there are processes to be responsible to the readers of the projects. Reader surveys. User testing. OTRS. The blogs. The annual reports. The regular publication of activity reports, performance reports, financial statements. Social media. Engagement with charity watchdog groups. Public mailing lists. Bugzilla. Office hours on IRC. Events for donors. This page, and many other on-wiki consultations related to feature development, policy development, and so forth. There are probably lots I am forgetting :-) Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Shared power==<br />
This section seems entirely useless, in that it lists a lot of minor ephemeral details from the ''here and now'' and no actual "principles" that may "guide" any action. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:The purpose of this section is to explicitly acknowledge that the Wikimedia Foundation works in partnership with a global community of volunteers -- that the Wikimedia Foundation is not the sole or even primary actor in fulfilling the Wikimedia mission, and that it needs to conduct itself accordingly, by creating mechanisms and processes enabling the community to have influence on its actions. Because we are interdependent partners. I think this is a pretty fundamental and important point to make, because in this regard we are different from practically everybody else. (What I mean by that: eBay and Facebook and Yelp may also have a social purpose or utility, but their primary purpose is to make money, and "community members" are a resource to be managed by the company to that end. In our case, the primary purpose of the movement is to make knowledge freely available to everyone around the world, and the Wikimedia Foundation and the global community of volunteers play different and complementary roles in achieving that shared goal.) So I wonder if that's not clear -- if my wording is just mucky. If so, can someone help propose better, more useful language? Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]])<br />
<br />
==United States==<br />
On «support successful job candidates in attaining the legal right to work in the United States»: why only USA? What if they want to move elsewhere? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Maybe this should become "...to work from a WMF office in the United States", in case that's what's meant here. --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Or rather: Support succesful job candidates in attaining the legal right to work in the US should the need arise". Or something along those lines. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 14:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Serving every human being==<br />
This section looks weird being 7 sections away from «Freedom and open source» with «All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software» etc. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The emphasis on the development of new features is undue and likely to grate on both engineering staff and community, in my opinion. It is out of step with the custodian role which many individuals in both groups identify with. We should express a stronger commitment to high availability and site performance. --[[User:Ori.livneh|Ori.livneh]] ([[User talk:Ori.livneh|talk]]) 10:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Communication==<br />
Do you think https://xkcd.com/802/ [https://xkcd.com/802_large/] applies to the WMF? (In particular, the proportions in the two maps on the top <s>right</s> left being zoomed.) --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Nemo, could you clarify which proportions you refer to by naming them? Top right is "Unread Updates". --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Ouch. I meant left, of course. :) Thanks, [[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Right to fork==<br />
Again nothing. [[Talk:Terms of use/Archives/2011-12-06#Right to Fork]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
* Probably more of a Wikimedia principle than a Wikimedia Foundation principle. Perhaps we need a separate list? :-) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 09:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
*: I doubt it: «principles intended to guide the work of the Wikimedia Foundation». Who else do you suggest to task with ensuring the right to fork? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Internationalism ==<br />
<br />
«''When we consider the community'' as a whole, we aim to consider all its languages and geographies and to avoid global initiatives that favor communities speaking only our languages» (emphasis added).<br />
I note that you're only talking of how you consider the community; what about «initiatives that favor communities speaking only our languages» in general? For instance, roughly how much of the WMF spending goes on initiatives that favor only English-language people (projects, users etc., readers) or only the USA? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Right to influence ==<br />
<br />
«Their work has earned [...] financial support sustaining the Wikimedia Foundation [...] and the global community has therefore earned the right to influence the work of the organizations»: it ''seems'' that you're stating that the only reason why someone has the "right to influence" the work is that they bring in dollars. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)</div>Sue Gardnerhttps://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resolution_talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles/Archive_1&diff=328027Resolution talk:Wikimedia Foundation Guiding Principles/Archive 12013-03-20T19:09:39Z<p>Sue Gardner: /* Accountable */ responding to Nemo</p>
<hr />
<div>== Freedom and open source ==<br />
"As an organization, we strive to use open source tools over proprietary ones, although we use proprietary or closed tools (such as software, operating systems, etc.) where there is currently no open-source tool that will effectively meet our needs." - Is there a requirement and process in place which forces people to publish an evaluation which open-source tools were considered and tested for a task in order to identify which specific functionality was only provided by closed-source tools? --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 18:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:<br />
:Well, maybe that is my impression because I work remotely, but I've seen some proprietary files been shared and proprietary softwares being used when we could have free software. For instance, microsoft documents or apple softwares. And I've heard the wifi network in SF office works better with apple stuff, which is kind of weird - I've visited SF office only once and I checked that, but I've heard the same from other online meetings. For pragmatical reasons, sometimes I know using some closed softwares can deliver things faster tho. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Ezalvarenga]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 19:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:I agree we could use a little more discipline on this. e.g. I'm not ''convinced'' all Mac users in the office would truly be significantly less effective at their work on Ubuntu machines. I do acknowledge some may be. I think it warrants some nudging/pushing, though. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 20:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::I think there's a huge distinction between closed source tools for personal productivity, and closed source tools for supporting the projects. This should be clarified in the text of the principles, because the current state of affairs is that we require FOSS when it comes to what is actually necessary for the projects to run, and we obviously don't when it comes to the office IT. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 22:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Thanks. In my initial posting I had shared tools in production (servers, webservices, etc.) in mind, but did not mean to refer to personal computers of individuals - that would be under the "personal freedom" category, and a published evaluation feels like overkill for such private cases. --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::Hi, Aklapper, I don't have time today to make a longer comment, but for the personal freedom, if everybody begin to use closed formats, people who wants to use open formats will be forced to use also closed ones. If a person doesn't want to buy an apple computer, but the wifi network forces people to do so or make their lifes with other hardwares difficult, sorry, a serious policy about that should change. Yes, people can choose whatever they want on their personal computers, but if the majority is using what is fashion, a conscious minitority will not have freedom to choose what they want. As an example, I do use sometimes closed softwares, like skype, but only when really necessary, like a partner or co-worker that prefers to use it. And I know the pain it is sometimes to use only Linux since 1998. :) In Brazil, at least, in the government level, we are trying to [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/thackday/WCmyz2jltF8/sKDd0xCPQaQJ BURN ALL THE DOCS]! There are also [https://groups.google.com/group/thackday/browse_thread/thread/4f94fbf09e4b6f54 bills] under way. ;D P. S. I could not even imagine close softwares on the server side. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Ezalvarenga]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 12:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Responding to a couple of you here. No, AKlapper, AFAIK there is no formal documented requirement/process for evaluation of when the Wikimedia Foundation uses a proprietary tool instead of an open source one. To date we've been small enough, and had a sufficient proportion of the staff who're personally dedicated to open source values, such that evaluation has tended to happen informally on a case-by-case basis, and it's worked reasonably well. Like, we made an organizational commitment to use CiviCRM early and we've stuck with that, and similarly I know that Finance & Admin uses proprietary accounting tools because early on some research was done that determined there was no acceptable open-source tool. I think those were both reasonable outcomes. Over the years we've toyed with the idea of developing a formal evaluation policy, but we have not done it. If you're suggesting we should, I would generally agree, but I also wouldn't say it's the thing Office IT should prioritize as most important and most urgent.<br />
<br />
More generally, in response to Ezalvarenga and Ijon, yes, I'd agree that our actual practices are likely imperfect -- there are probably some people at the Wikimedia Foundation using proprietary tools for individual use that could be replaced by open source tools. For example, I know that Legal has at some times used Microsoft Word for documents shared with external firms, when they probably could've insisted on using OpenOffice or LibreOffice without too much of a productivity hit.<br />
<br />
Frankly, individuals using proprietary tools has been a pretty big pain point for the Wikimedia Foundation. It's understandable: individual staff have widely varying levels of personal commitment to FLOSS, people want to be effective at work and so they want to use the tools that support them best, and people's work, and their needs, vary. No-one wants to be told they have no choice but to use X, whether X is Ubuntu/Thunderbird/LibreOffice or IE/Outlook/Word. That's utterly reasonable. So it's complex, and we're not going to capture a lot of complexity in a short statement. <br />
<br />
StevenW had proposed we modify the language here to distinguish between site production tools and personal/individual tools. Can somebody propose language for that, and for anything else here that might need clarification or finetuning? Feel free to make a change and I'll revert it or finetune it if I feel I need to. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Quick suggestion... ==<br />
<br />
[https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASue_Gardner%2FWikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5332950&oldid=5331958 ], which I made before seeing the request to comment first. Anyway, "serving every human being" seems a bit disingenuous, since we really aim to serve every literate human being with access to data and a digital device. ;-) The goal of providing equal access to all seems fairer, and more in line the the section's comments about well, accessibility. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 00:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:"equal access to all" is, er, equally disingenuous, as, by your own phrase, we're providing equal access only to "every literate human being with access to data and a digital device".<br />
:Furthermore, I actually do think we ''strive'' to serve every human being. Remember the free knowledge the Wikimedia community creates and shares is consumed offline too, not to mention the huge value of secondary use -- the knowledge worked into presentations, newspapers, books, radio and TV programs -- all consumed by hundreds of millions ''more'' than the group consuming it directly from our Web sites. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 00:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Yeah, I agree with Ijon. The language is "aims to" and "endeavours to," so I think it's appropriately framed as aspirational. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Getting rich ==<br />
<br />
On «nobody is getting rich by working at the Wikimedia Foundation»: define "rich". For instance, I'm a student but I'm very rich compared to most world population and richer than millions of Italians (so, when serving in my university board I raised tuition fees for myself/my income range). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Yeah obviously "getting rich" is relative. It's only when you compare [[:wiktionary:apples and oranges|apples to apples]] and look at other tech and nonprofit compensation schemes that you see what is meant. In any case, it's pretty awesome that we want to put that among our guiding principles, right? <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Edit conflict with StevenW! And yeah, Steven, I agree. I think the key word here is "getting." Nemo is correct of course that by world population standards, everybody who works at the Wikimedia Foundation is rich. But we were born rich, we did not "get" rich through our work at the Wikimedia Foundation. The point here is that working at the Wikimedia Foundation is not a path to dramatically improving one's personal wealth. Thanks. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Reasonable travel costs==<br />
«We aim to incur only reasonable travel costs: the general policy is to travel economy class and stay in moderately-priced hotels»: were $225K for staff (and board) at Wikimania reasonable? [[Talk:Wikimedia budget#Wikimania travel question]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:How much is that per person sent to Wikimania that year? I think looking at the total for shock value is unfair. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Nemo we're not making a commitment here to reduce travel costs, or to minimize travel. (I wouldn't want to do that: with a growing staff that operates as part of a global community that stages many international events such as Wikimania, the chapters' meeting and various hackathons, it strikes me that a focus on reducing travel costs would be a net negative not a net plus. I expect travel costs to be a not-insubstantial chunk of the Wikimedia Foundation budget: that seems eminently reasonable to me given the nature of our work.) The point here is simply that when we travel, we aim to do it moderately not luxuriously. The nuts-and-bolts of how we do that are captured in [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Travel_policy the travel policy], but the purpose of this statement is simply to summarize the overall intent. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Title or position==<br />
«People at the Wikimedia Foundation get the same benefits regardless of their title or position». <br />
*Who's "people"? Are you including all managers, trustees and employees?<br />
*What's "benefits" and how do you measure if "salaries" are "fair"? Are you considering only accessories or also the actual wage, before or after taxes, pension contributions etc.?<br />
*What are you including in "title or position" (or other comparison for "fair")? For instance, remote worker vs. office worker, full time vs. part time, staff vs. contractor.<br />
--[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:*Well, people does include at least all staff if you read further "regardless of their title or position". This should include everyone. As for Trustees, you've got a point, "people" is not clear and should probably be changed to "Staff" when it comes to benefits. I do not believe Trustees get benefits, even though they might benefit from insurance and related stuff when it comes to their work for the Foundation. It might make sense here to differentiate between staff/volunteers or something along those lines. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 14:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::To be clear: yes, the statement's intended to refer to all staff, and I can change the word "people" to "staff." There is detail available in the document [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/2a/Wikimedia_Foundation_Compensation_Practices.pdf Wikimedia Foundation Compensation Practices]. And for Notafish, yes, the trustees don't get any benefits. Expenses they incur on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation are reimbursed as per the policies, but they receive no compensation in the form of salary or other benefits. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Accountable==<br />
«The Wikimedia Foundation wants to be accountable to [...]». Please clarify how the concept of accountability applies here: «responsible for your decisions or actions and expected to explain them when you are asked»[http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/accountable] (are there processes to be responsible of your actions in front of the readers, receive their questions and explain? etc.). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Sure, of course there are processes to be responsible to the readers of the projects. Reader surveys. User testing. OTRS. The blogs. The annual reports. The regular publication of activity reports, performance reports, financial statements. Social media. Engagement with charity watchdog groups. Public mailing lists. Bugzilla. Office hours on IRC. Events for donors. This page, and many other on-wiki consultations related to feature development, policy development, and so forth. There are probably lots I am forgetting :-) Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 19:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Shared power==<br />
This section seems entirely useless, in that it lists a lot of minor ephemeral details from the ''here and now'' and no actual "principles" that may "guide" any action. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==United States==<br />
On «support successful job candidates in attaining the legal right to work in the United States»: why only USA? What if they want to move elsewhere? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Maybe this should become "...to work from a WMF office in the United States", in case that's what's meant here. --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Or rather: Support succesful job candidates in attaining the legal right to work in the US should the need arise". Or something along those lines. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 14:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Serving every human being==<br />
This section looks weird being 7 sections away from «Freedom and open source» with «All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software» etc. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The emphasis on the development of new features is undue and likely to grate on both engineering staff and community, in my opinion. It is out of step with the custodian role which many individuals in both groups identify with. We should express a stronger commitment to high availability and site performance. --[[User:Ori.livneh|Ori.livneh]] ([[User talk:Ori.livneh|talk]]) 10:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Communication==<br />
Do you think https://xkcd.com/802/ [https://xkcd.com/802_large/] applies to the WMF? (In particular, the proportions in the two maps on the top <s>right</s> left being zoomed.) --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Nemo, could you clarify which proportions you refer to by naming them? Top right is "Unread Updates". --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Ouch. I meant left, of course. :) Thanks, [[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Right to fork==<br />
Again nothing. [[Talk:Terms of use/Archives/2011-12-06#Right to Fork]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
* Probably more of a Wikimedia principle than a Wikimedia Foundation principle. Perhaps we need a separate list? :-) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 09:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
*: I doubt it: «principles intended to guide the work of the Wikimedia Foundation». Who else do you suggest to task with ensuring the right to fork? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Internationalism ==<br />
<br />
«''When we consider the community'' as a whole, we aim to consider all its languages and geographies and to avoid global initiatives that favor communities speaking only our languages» (emphasis added).<br />
I note that you're only talking of how you consider the community; what about «initiatives that favor communities speaking only our languages» in general? For instance, roughly how much of the WMF spending goes on initiatives that favor only English-language people (projects, users etc., readers) or only the USA? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Right to influence ==<br />
<br />
«Their work has earned [...] financial support sustaining the Wikimedia Foundation [...] and the global community has therefore earned the right to influence the work of the organizations»: it ''seems'' that you're stating that the only reason why someone has the "right to influence" the work is that they bring in dollars. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)</div>Sue Gardnerhttps://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resolution_talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles/Archive_1&diff=328026Resolution talk:Wikimedia Foundation Guiding Principles/Archive 12013-03-20T18:56:54Z<p>Sue Gardner: /* Title or position */ replying to Nemo, Notafish</p>
<hr />
<div>== Freedom and open source ==<br />
"As an organization, we strive to use open source tools over proprietary ones, although we use proprietary or closed tools (such as software, operating systems, etc.) where there is currently no open-source tool that will effectively meet our needs." - Is there a requirement and process in place which forces people to publish an evaluation which open-source tools were considered and tested for a task in order to identify which specific functionality was only provided by closed-source tools? --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 18:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:<br />
:Well, maybe that is my impression because I work remotely, but I've seen some proprietary files been shared and proprietary softwares being used when we could have free software. For instance, microsoft documents or apple softwares. And I've heard the wifi network in SF office works better with apple stuff, which is kind of weird - I've visited SF office only once and I checked that, but I've heard the same from other online meetings. For pragmatical reasons, sometimes I know using some closed softwares can deliver things faster tho. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Ezalvarenga]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 19:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:I agree we could use a little more discipline on this. e.g. I'm not ''convinced'' all Mac users in the office would truly be significantly less effective at their work on Ubuntu machines. I do acknowledge some may be. I think it warrants some nudging/pushing, though. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 20:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::I think there's a huge distinction between closed source tools for personal productivity, and closed source tools for supporting the projects. This should be clarified in the text of the principles, because the current state of affairs is that we require FOSS when it comes to what is actually necessary for the projects to run, and we obviously don't when it comes to the office IT. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 22:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Thanks. In my initial posting I had shared tools in production (servers, webservices, etc.) in mind, but did not mean to refer to personal computers of individuals - that would be under the "personal freedom" category, and a published evaluation feels like overkill for such private cases. --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::Hi, Aklapper, I don't have time today to make a longer comment, but for the personal freedom, if everybody begin to use closed formats, people who wants to use open formats will be forced to use also closed ones. If a person doesn't want to buy an apple computer, but the wifi network forces people to do so or make their lifes with other hardwares difficult, sorry, a serious policy about that should change. Yes, people can choose whatever they want on their personal computers, but if the majority is using what is fashion, a conscious minitority will not have freedom to choose what they want. As an example, I do use sometimes closed softwares, like skype, but only when really necessary, like a partner or co-worker that prefers to use it. And I know the pain it is sometimes to use only Linux since 1998. :) In Brazil, at least, in the government level, we are trying to [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/thackday/WCmyz2jltF8/sKDd0xCPQaQJ BURN ALL THE DOCS]! There are also [https://groups.google.com/group/thackday/browse_thread/thread/4f94fbf09e4b6f54 bills] under way. ;D P. S. I could not even imagine close softwares on the server side. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Ezalvarenga]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 12:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Responding to a couple of you here. No, AKlapper, AFAIK there is no formal documented requirement/process for evaluation of when the Wikimedia Foundation uses a proprietary tool instead of an open source one. To date we've been small enough, and had a sufficient proportion of the staff who're personally dedicated to open source values, such that evaluation has tended to happen informally on a case-by-case basis, and it's worked reasonably well. Like, we made an organizational commitment to use CiviCRM early and we've stuck with that, and similarly I know that Finance & Admin uses proprietary accounting tools because early on some research was done that determined there was no acceptable open-source tool. I think those were both reasonable outcomes. Over the years we've toyed with the idea of developing a formal evaluation policy, but we have not done it. If you're suggesting we should, I would generally agree, but I also wouldn't say it's the thing Office IT should prioritize as most important and most urgent.<br />
<br />
More generally, in response to Ezalvarenga and Ijon, yes, I'd agree that our actual practices are likely imperfect -- there are probably some people at the Wikimedia Foundation using proprietary tools for individual use that could be replaced by open source tools. For example, I know that Legal has at some times used Microsoft Word for documents shared with external firms, when they probably could've insisted on using OpenOffice or LibreOffice without too much of a productivity hit.<br />
<br />
Frankly, individuals using proprietary tools has been a pretty big pain point for the Wikimedia Foundation. It's understandable: individual staff have widely varying levels of personal commitment to FLOSS, people want to be effective at work and so they want to use the tools that support them best, and people's work, and their needs, vary. No-one wants to be told they have no choice but to use X, whether X is Ubuntu/Thunderbird/LibreOffice or IE/Outlook/Word. That's utterly reasonable. So it's complex, and we're not going to capture a lot of complexity in a short statement. <br />
<br />
StevenW had proposed we modify the language here to distinguish between site production tools and personal/individual tools. Can somebody propose language for that, and for anything else here that might need clarification or finetuning? Feel free to make a change and I'll revert it or finetune it if I feel I need to. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Quick suggestion... ==<br />
<br />
[https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASue_Gardner%2FWikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5332950&oldid=5331958 ], which I made before seeing the request to comment first. Anyway, "serving every human being" seems a bit disingenuous, since we really aim to serve every literate human being with access to data and a digital device. ;-) The goal of providing equal access to all seems fairer, and more in line the the section's comments about well, accessibility. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 00:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:"equal access to all" is, er, equally disingenuous, as, by your own phrase, we're providing equal access only to "every literate human being with access to data and a digital device".<br />
:Furthermore, I actually do think we ''strive'' to serve every human being. Remember the free knowledge the Wikimedia community creates and shares is consumed offline too, not to mention the huge value of secondary use -- the knowledge worked into presentations, newspapers, books, radio and TV programs -- all consumed by hundreds of millions ''more'' than the group consuming it directly from our Web sites. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 00:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Yeah, I agree with Ijon. The language is "aims to" and "endeavours to," so I think it's appropriately framed as aspirational. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Getting rich ==<br />
<br />
On «nobody is getting rich by working at the Wikimedia Foundation»: define "rich". For instance, I'm a student but I'm very rich compared to most world population and richer than millions of Italians (so, when serving in my university board I raised tuition fees for myself/my income range). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Yeah obviously "getting rich" is relative. It's only when you compare [[:wiktionary:apples and oranges|apples to apples]] and look at other tech and nonprofit compensation schemes that you see what is meant. In any case, it's pretty awesome that we want to put that among our guiding principles, right? <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Edit conflict with StevenW! And yeah, Steven, I agree. I think the key word here is "getting." Nemo is correct of course that by world population standards, everybody who works at the Wikimedia Foundation is rich. But we were born rich, we did not "get" rich through our work at the Wikimedia Foundation. The point here is that working at the Wikimedia Foundation is not a path to dramatically improving one's personal wealth. Thanks. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Reasonable travel costs==<br />
«We aim to incur only reasonable travel costs: the general policy is to travel economy class and stay in moderately-priced hotels»: were $225K for staff (and board) at Wikimania reasonable? [[Talk:Wikimedia budget#Wikimania travel question]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:How much is that per person sent to Wikimania that year? I think looking at the total for shock value is unfair. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Nemo we're not making a commitment here to reduce travel costs, or to minimize travel. (I wouldn't want to do that: with a growing staff that operates as part of a global community that stages many international events such as Wikimania, the chapters' meeting and various hackathons, it strikes me that a focus on reducing travel costs would be a net negative not a net plus. I expect travel costs to be a not-insubstantial chunk of the Wikimedia Foundation budget: that seems eminently reasonable to me given the nature of our work.) The point here is simply that when we travel, we aim to do it moderately not luxuriously. The nuts-and-bolts of how we do that are captured in [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Travel_policy the travel policy], but the purpose of this statement is simply to summarize the overall intent. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Title or position==<br />
«People at the Wikimedia Foundation get the same benefits regardless of their title or position». <br />
*Who's "people"? Are you including all managers, trustees and employees?<br />
*What's "benefits" and how do you measure if "salaries" are "fair"? Are you considering only accessories or also the actual wage, before or after taxes, pension contributions etc.?<br />
*What are you including in "title or position" (or other comparison for "fair")? For instance, remote worker vs. office worker, full time vs. part time, staff vs. contractor.<br />
--[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:*Well, people does include at least all staff if you read further "regardless of their title or position". This should include everyone. As for Trustees, you've got a point, "people" is not clear and should probably be changed to "Staff" when it comes to benefits. I do not believe Trustees get benefits, even though they might benefit from insurance and related stuff when it comes to their work for the Foundation. It might make sense here to differentiate between staff/volunteers or something along those lines. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 14:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::To be clear: yes, the statement's intended to refer to all staff, and I can change the word "people" to "staff." There is detail available in the document [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/2a/Wikimedia_Foundation_Compensation_Practices.pdf Wikimedia Foundation Compensation Practices]. And for Notafish, yes, the trustees don't get any benefits. Expenses they incur on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation are reimbursed as per the policies, but they receive no compensation in the form of salary or other benefits. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Accountable==<br />
«The Wikimedia Foundation wants to be accountable to [...]». Please clarify how the concept of accountability applies here: «responsible for your decisions or actions and expected to explain them when you are asked»[http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/accountable] (are there processes to be responsible of your actions in front of the readers, receive their questions and explain? etc.). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Shared power==<br />
This section seems entirely useless, in that it lists a lot of minor ephemeral details from the ''here and now'' and no actual "principles" that may "guide" any action. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==United States==<br />
On «support successful job candidates in attaining the legal right to work in the United States»: why only USA? What if they want to move elsewhere? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Maybe this should become "...to work from a WMF office in the United States", in case that's what's meant here. --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Or rather: Support succesful job candidates in attaining the legal right to work in the US should the need arise". Or something along those lines. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 14:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Serving every human being==<br />
This section looks weird being 7 sections away from «Freedom and open source» with «All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software» etc. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The emphasis on the development of new features is undue and likely to grate on both engineering staff and community, in my opinion. It is out of step with the custodian role which many individuals in both groups identify with. We should express a stronger commitment to high availability and site performance. --[[User:Ori.livneh|Ori.livneh]] ([[User talk:Ori.livneh|talk]]) 10:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Communication==<br />
Do you think https://xkcd.com/802/ [https://xkcd.com/802_large/] applies to the WMF? (In particular, the proportions in the two maps on the top <s>right</s> left being zoomed.) --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Nemo, could you clarify which proportions you refer to by naming them? Top right is "Unread Updates". --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Ouch. I meant left, of course. :) Thanks, [[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Right to fork==<br />
Again nothing. [[Talk:Terms of use/Archives/2011-12-06#Right to Fork]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
* Probably more of a Wikimedia principle than a Wikimedia Foundation principle. Perhaps we need a separate list? :-) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 09:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
*: I doubt it: «principles intended to guide the work of the Wikimedia Foundation». Who else do you suggest to task with ensuring the right to fork? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Internationalism ==<br />
<br />
«''When we consider the community'' as a whole, we aim to consider all its languages and geographies and to avoid global initiatives that favor communities speaking only our languages» (emphasis added).<br />
I note that you're only talking of how you consider the community; what about «initiatives that favor communities speaking only our languages» in general? For instance, roughly how much of the WMF spending goes on initiatives that favor only English-language people (projects, users etc., readers) or only the USA? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Right to influence ==<br />
<br />
«Their work has earned [...] financial support sustaining the Wikimedia Foundation [...] and the global community has therefore earned the right to influence the work of the organizations»: it ''seems'' that you're stating that the only reason why someone has the "right to influence" the work is that they bring in dollars. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)</div>Sue Gardnerhttps://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resolution_talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles/Archive_1&diff=328025Resolution talk:Wikimedia Foundation Guiding Principles/Archive 12013-03-20T18:47:43Z<p>Sue Gardner: /* Reasonable travel costs */ replying to Nemo</p>
<hr />
<div>== Freedom and open source ==<br />
"As an organization, we strive to use open source tools over proprietary ones, although we use proprietary or closed tools (such as software, operating systems, etc.) where there is currently no open-source tool that will effectively meet our needs." - Is there a requirement and process in place which forces people to publish an evaluation which open-source tools were considered and tested for a task in order to identify which specific functionality was only provided by closed-source tools? --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 18:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:<br />
:Well, maybe that is my impression because I work remotely, but I've seen some proprietary files been shared and proprietary softwares being used when we could have free software. For instance, microsoft documents or apple softwares. And I've heard the wifi network in SF office works better with apple stuff, which is kind of weird - I've visited SF office only once and I checked that, but I've heard the same from other online meetings. For pragmatical reasons, sometimes I know using some closed softwares can deliver things faster tho. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Ezalvarenga]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 19:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:I agree we could use a little more discipline on this. e.g. I'm not ''convinced'' all Mac users in the office would truly be significantly less effective at their work on Ubuntu machines. I do acknowledge some may be. I think it warrants some nudging/pushing, though. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 20:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::I think there's a huge distinction between closed source tools for personal productivity, and closed source tools for supporting the projects. This should be clarified in the text of the principles, because the current state of affairs is that we require FOSS when it comes to what is actually necessary for the projects to run, and we obviously don't when it comes to the office IT. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 22:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Thanks. In my initial posting I had shared tools in production (servers, webservices, etc.) in mind, but did not mean to refer to personal computers of individuals - that would be under the "personal freedom" category, and a published evaluation feels like overkill for such private cases. --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::Hi, Aklapper, I don't have time today to make a longer comment, but for the personal freedom, if everybody begin to use closed formats, people who wants to use open formats will be forced to use also closed ones. If a person doesn't want to buy an apple computer, but the wifi network forces people to do so or make their lifes with other hardwares difficult, sorry, a serious policy about that should change. Yes, people can choose whatever they want on their personal computers, but if the majority is using what is fashion, a conscious minitority will not have freedom to choose what they want. As an example, I do use sometimes closed softwares, like skype, but only when really necessary, like a partner or co-worker that prefers to use it. And I know the pain it is sometimes to use only Linux since 1998. :) In Brazil, at least, in the government level, we are trying to [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/thackday/WCmyz2jltF8/sKDd0xCPQaQJ BURN ALL THE DOCS]! There are also [https://groups.google.com/group/thackday/browse_thread/thread/4f94fbf09e4b6f54 bills] under way. ;D P. S. I could not even imagine close softwares on the server side. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Ezalvarenga]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 12:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Responding to a couple of you here. No, AKlapper, AFAIK there is no formal documented requirement/process for evaluation of when the Wikimedia Foundation uses a proprietary tool instead of an open source one. To date we've been small enough, and had a sufficient proportion of the staff who're personally dedicated to open source values, such that evaluation has tended to happen informally on a case-by-case basis, and it's worked reasonably well. Like, we made an organizational commitment to use CiviCRM early and we've stuck with that, and similarly I know that Finance & Admin uses proprietary accounting tools because early on some research was done that determined there was no acceptable open-source tool. I think those were both reasonable outcomes. Over the years we've toyed with the idea of developing a formal evaluation policy, but we have not done it. If you're suggesting we should, I would generally agree, but I also wouldn't say it's the thing Office IT should prioritize as most important and most urgent.<br />
<br />
More generally, in response to Ezalvarenga and Ijon, yes, I'd agree that our actual practices are likely imperfect -- there are probably some people at the Wikimedia Foundation using proprietary tools for individual use that could be replaced by open source tools. For example, I know that Legal has at some times used Microsoft Word for documents shared with external firms, when they probably could've insisted on using OpenOffice or LibreOffice without too much of a productivity hit.<br />
<br />
Frankly, individuals using proprietary tools has been a pretty big pain point for the Wikimedia Foundation. It's understandable: individual staff have widely varying levels of personal commitment to FLOSS, people want to be effective at work and so they want to use the tools that support them best, and people's work, and their needs, vary. No-one wants to be told they have no choice but to use X, whether X is Ubuntu/Thunderbird/LibreOffice or IE/Outlook/Word. That's utterly reasonable. So it's complex, and we're not going to capture a lot of complexity in a short statement. <br />
<br />
StevenW had proposed we modify the language here to distinguish between site production tools and personal/individual tools. Can somebody propose language for that, and for anything else here that might need clarification or finetuning? Feel free to make a change and I'll revert it or finetune it if I feel I need to. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Quick suggestion... ==<br />
<br />
[https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASue_Gardner%2FWikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5332950&oldid=5331958 ], which I made before seeing the request to comment first. Anyway, "serving every human being" seems a bit disingenuous, since we really aim to serve every literate human being with access to data and a digital device. ;-) The goal of providing equal access to all seems fairer, and more in line the the section's comments about well, accessibility. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 00:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:"equal access to all" is, er, equally disingenuous, as, by your own phrase, we're providing equal access only to "every literate human being with access to data and a digital device".<br />
:Furthermore, I actually do think we ''strive'' to serve every human being. Remember the free knowledge the Wikimedia community creates and shares is consumed offline too, not to mention the huge value of secondary use -- the knowledge worked into presentations, newspapers, books, radio and TV programs -- all consumed by hundreds of millions ''more'' than the group consuming it directly from our Web sites. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 00:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Yeah, I agree with Ijon. The language is "aims to" and "endeavours to," so I think it's appropriately framed as aspirational. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Getting rich ==<br />
<br />
On «nobody is getting rich by working at the Wikimedia Foundation»: define "rich". For instance, I'm a student but I'm very rich compared to most world population and richer than millions of Italians (so, when serving in my university board I raised tuition fees for myself/my income range). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Yeah obviously "getting rich" is relative. It's only when you compare [[:wiktionary:apples and oranges|apples to apples]] and look at other tech and nonprofit compensation schemes that you see what is meant. In any case, it's pretty awesome that we want to put that among our guiding principles, right? <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Edit conflict with StevenW! And yeah, Steven, I agree. I think the key word here is "getting." Nemo is correct of course that by world population standards, everybody who works at the Wikimedia Foundation is rich. But we were born rich, we did not "get" rich through our work at the Wikimedia Foundation. The point here is that working at the Wikimedia Foundation is not a path to dramatically improving one's personal wealth. Thanks. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Reasonable travel costs==<br />
«We aim to incur only reasonable travel costs: the general policy is to travel economy class and stay in moderately-priced hotels»: were $225K for staff (and board) at Wikimania reasonable? [[Talk:Wikimedia budget#Wikimania travel question]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:How much is that per person sent to Wikimania that year? I think looking at the total for shock value is unfair. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Nemo we're not making a commitment here to reduce travel costs, or to minimize travel. (I wouldn't want to do that: with a growing staff that operates as part of a global community that stages many international events such as Wikimania, the chapters' meeting and various hackathons, it strikes me that a focus on reducing travel costs would be a net negative not a net plus. I expect travel costs to be a not-insubstantial chunk of the Wikimedia Foundation budget: that seems eminently reasonable to me given the nature of our work.) The point here is simply that when we travel, we aim to do it moderately not luxuriously. The nuts-and-bolts of how we do that are captured in [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Travel_policy the travel policy], but the purpose of this statement is simply to summarize the overall intent. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Title or position==<br />
«People at the Wikimedia Foundation get the same benefits regardless of their title or position». <br />
*Who's "people"? Are you including all managers, trustees and employees?<br />
*What's "benefits" and how do you measure if "salaries" are "fair"? Are you considering only accessories or also the actual wage, before or after taxes, pension contributions etc.?<br />
*What are you including in "title or position" (or other comparison for "fair")? For instance, remote worker vs. office worker, full time vs. part time, staff vs. contractor.<br />
--[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:*Well, people does include at least all staff if you read further "regardless of their title or position". This should include everyone. As for Trustees, you've got a point, "people" is not clear and should probably be changed to "Staff" when it comes to benefits. I do not believe Trustees get benefits, even though they might benefit from insurance and related stuff when it comes to their work for the Foundation. It might make sense here to differentiate between staff/volunteers or something along those lines. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 14:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Accountable==<br />
«The Wikimedia Foundation wants to be accountable to [...]». Please clarify how the concept of accountability applies here: «responsible for your decisions or actions and expected to explain them when you are asked»[http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/accountable] (are there processes to be responsible of your actions in front of the readers, receive their questions and explain? etc.). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Shared power==<br />
This section seems entirely useless, in that it lists a lot of minor ephemeral details from the ''here and now'' and no actual "principles" that may "guide" any action. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==United States==<br />
On «support successful job candidates in attaining the legal right to work in the United States»: why only USA? What if they want to move elsewhere? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Maybe this should become "...to work from a WMF office in the United States", in case that's what's meant here. --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Or rather: Support succesful job candidates in attaining the legal right to work in the US should the need arise". Or something along those lines. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 14:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Serving every human being==<br />
This section looks weird being 7 sections away from «Freedom and open source» with «All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software» etc. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The emphasis on the development of new features is undue and likely to grate on both engineering staff and community, in my opinion. It is out of step with the custodian role which many individuals in both groups identify with. We should express a stronger commitment to high availability and site performance. --[[User:Ori.livneh|Ori.livneh]] ([[User talk:Ori.livneh|talk]]) 10:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Communication==<br />
Do you think https://xkcd.com/802/ [https://xkcd.com/802_large/] applies to the WMF? (In particular, the proportions in the two maps on the top <s>right</s> left being zoomed.) --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Nemo, could you clarify which proportions you refer to by naming them? Top right is "Unread Updates". --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Ouch. I meant left, of course. :) Thanks, [[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Right to fork==<br />
Again nothing. [[Talk:Terms of use/Archives/2011-12-06#Right to Fork]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
* Probably more of a Wikimedia principle than a Wikimedia Foundation principle. Perhaps we need a separate list? :-) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 09:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
*: I doubt it: «principles intended to guide the work of the Wikimedia Foundation». Who else do you suggest to task with ensuring the right to fork? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Internationalism ==<br />
<br />
«''When we consider the community'' as a whole, we aim to consider all its languages and geographies and to avoid global initiatives that favor communities speaking only our languages» (emphasis added).<br />
I note that you're only talking of how you consider the community; what about «initiatives that favor communities speaking only our languages» in general? For instance, roughly how much of the WMF spending goes on initiatives that favor only English-language people (projects, users etc., readers) or only the USA? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Right to influence ==<br />
<br />
«Their work has earned [...] financial support sustaining the Wikimedia Foundation [...] and the global community has therefore earned the right to influence the work of the organizations»: it ''seems'' that you're stating that the only reason why someone has the "right to influence" the work is that they bring in dollars. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)</div>Sue Gardnerhttps://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resolution_talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles/Archive_1&diff=328024Resolution talk:Wikimedia Foundation Guiding Principles/Archive 12013-03-20T18:40:35Z<p>Sue Gardner: /* Getting rich */ replying to Nemo</p>
<hr />
<div>== Freedom and open source ==<br />
"As an organization, we strive to use open source tools over proprietary ones, although we use proprietary or closed tools (such as software, operating systems, etc.) where there is currently no open-source tool that will effectively meet our needs." - Is there a requirement and process in place which forces people to publish an evaluation which open-source tools were considered and tested for a task in order to identify which specific functionality was only provided by closed-source tools? --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 18:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:<br />
:Well, maybe that is my impression because I work remotely, but I've seen some proprietary files been shared and proprietary softwares being used when we could have free software. For instance, microsoft documents or apple softwares. And I've heard the wifi network in SF office works better with apple stuff, which is kind of weird - I've visited SF office only once and I checked that, but I've heard the same from other online meetings. For pragmatical reasons, sometimes I know using some closed softwares can deliver things faster tho. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Ezalvarenga]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 19:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:I agree we could use a little more discipline on this. e.g. I'm not ''convinced'' all Mac users in the office would truly be significantly less effective at their work on Ubuntu machines. I do acknowledge some may be. I think it warrants some nudging/pushing, though. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 20:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::I think there's a huge distinction between closed source tools for personal productivity, and closed source tools for supporting the projects. This should be clarified in the text of the principles, because the current state of affairs is that we require FOSS when it comes to what is actually necessary for the projects to run, and we obviously don't when it comes to the office IT. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 22:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Thanks. In my initial posting I had shared tools in production (servers, webservices, etc.) in mind, but did not mean to refer to personal computers of individuals - that would be under the "personal freedom" category, and a published evaluation feels like overkill for such private cases. --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::Hi, Aklapper, I don't have time today to make a longer comment, but for the personal freedom, if everybody begin to use closed formats, people who wants to use open formats will be forced to use also closed ones. If a person doesn't want to buy an apple computer, but the wifi network forces people to do so or make their lifes with other hardwares difficult, sorry, a serious policy about that should change. Yes, people can choose whatever they want on their personal computers, but if the majority is using what is fashion, a conscious minitority will not have freedom to choose what they want. As an example, I do use sometimes closed softwares, like skype, but only when really necessary, like a partner or co-worker that prefers to use it. And I know the pain it is sometimes to use only Linux since 1998. :) In Brazil, at least, in the government level, we are trying to [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/thackday/WCmyz2jltF8/sKDd0xCPQaQJ BURN ALL THE DOCS]! There are also [https://groups.google.com/group/thackday/browse_thread/thread/4f94fbf09e4b6f54 bills] under way. ;D P. S. I could not even imagine close softwares on the server side. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Ezalvarenga]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 12:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Responding to a couple of you here. No, AKlapper, AFAIK there is no formal documented requirement/process for evaluation of when the Wikimedia Foundation uses a proprietary tool instead of an open source one. To date we've been small enough, and had a sufficient proportion of the staff who're personally dedicated to open source values, such that evaluation has tended to happen informally on a case-by-case basis, and it's worked reasonably well. Like, we made an organizational commitment to use CiviCRM early and we've stuck with that, and similarly I know that Finance & Admin uses proprietary accounting tools because early on some research was done that determined there was no acceptable open-source tool. I think those were both reasonable outcomes. Over the years we've toyed with the idea of developing a formal evaluation policy, but we have not done it. If you're suggesting we should, I would generally agree, but I also wouldn't say it's the thing Office IT should prioritize as most important and most urgent.<br />
<br />
More generally, in response to Ezalvarenga and Ijon, yes, I'd agree that our actual practices are likely imperfect -- there are probably some people at the Wikimedia Foundation using proprietary tools for individual use that could be replaced by open source tools. For example, I know that Legal has at some times used Microsoft Word for documents shared with external firms, when they probably could've insisted on using OpenOffice or LibreOffice without too much of a productivity hit.<br />
<br />
Frankly, individuals using proprietary tools has been a pretty big pain point for the Wikimedia Foundation. It's understandable: individual staff have widely varying levels of personal commitment to FLOSS, people want to be effective at work and so they want to use the tools that support them best, and people's work, and their needs, vary. No-one wants to be told they have no choice but to use X, whether X is Ubuntu/Thunderbird/LibreOffice or IE/Outlook/Word. That's utterly reasonable. So it's complex, and we're not going to capture a lot of complexity in a short statement. <br />
<br />
StevenW had proposed we modify the language here to distinguish between site production tools and personal/individual tools. Can somebody propose language for that, and for anything else here that might need clarification or finetuning? Feel free to make a change and I'll revert it or finetune it if I feel I need to. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Quick suggestion... ==<br />
<br />
[https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASue_Gardner%2FWikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5332950&oldid=5331958 ], which I made before seeing the request to comment first. Anyway, "serving every human being" seems a bit disingenuous, since we really aim to serve every literate human being with access to data and a digital device. ;-) The goal of providing equal access to all seems fairer, and more in line the the section's comments about well, accessibility. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 00:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:"equal access to all" is, er, equally disingenuous, as, by your own phrase, we're providing equal access only to "every literate human being with access to data and a digital device".<br />
:Furthermore, I actually do think we ''strive'' to serve every human being. Remember the free knowledge the Wikimedia community creates and shares is consumed offline too, not to mention the huge value of secondary use -- the knowledge worked into presentations, newspapers, books, radio and TV programs -- all consumed by hundreds of millions ''more'' than the group consuming it directly from our Web sites. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 00:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Yeah, I agree with Ijon. The language is "aims to" and "endeavours to," so I think it's appropriately framed as aspirational. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Getting rich ==<br />
<br />
On «nobody is getting rich by working at the Wikimedia Foundation»: define "rich". For instance, I'm a student but I'm very rich compared to most world population and richer than millions of Italians (so, when serving in my university board I raised tuition fees for myself/my income range). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Yeah obviously "getting rich" is relative. It's only when you compare [[:wiktionary:apples and oranges|apples to apples]] and look at other tech and nonprofit compensation schemes that you see what is meant. In any case, it's pretty awesome that we want to put that among our guiding principles, right? <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Edit conflict with StevenW! And yeah, Steven, I agree. I think the key word here is "getting." Nemo is correct of course that by world population standards, everybody who works at the Wikimedia Foundation is rich. But we were born rich, we did not "get" rich through our work at the Wikimedia Foundation. The point here is that working at the Wikimedia Foundation is not a path to dramatically improving one's personal wealth. Thanks. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Reasonable travel costs==<br />
«We aim to incur only reasonable travel costs: the general policy is to travel economy class and stay in moderately-priced hotels»: were $225K for staff (and board) at Wikimania reasonable? [[Talk:Wikimedia budget#Wikimania travel question]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:How much is that per person sent to Wikimania that year? I think looking at the total for shock value is unfair. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Title or position==<br />
«People at the Wikimedia Foundation get the same benefits regardless of their title or position». <br />
*Who's "people"? Are you including all managers, trustees and employees?<br />
*What's "benefits" and how do you measure if "salaries" are "fair"? Are you considering only accessories or also the actual wage, before or after taxes, pension contributions etc.?<br />
*What are you including in "title or position" (or other comparison for "fair")? For instance, remote worker vs. office worker, full time vs. part time, staff vs. contractor.<br />
--[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:*Well, people does include at least all staff if you read further "regardless of their title or position". This should include everyone. As for Trustees, you've got a point, "people" is not clear and should probably be changed to "Staff" when it comes to benefits. I do not believe Trustees get benefits, even though they might benefit from insurance and related stuff when it comes to their work for the Foundation. It might make sense here to differentiate between staff/volunteers or something along those lines. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 14:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Accountable==<br />
«The Wikimedia Foundation wants to be accountable to [...]». Please clarify how the concept of accountability applies here: «responsible for your decisions or actions and expected to explain them when you are asked»[http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/accountable] (are there processes to be responsible of your actions in front of the readers, receive their questions and explain? etc.). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Shared power==<br />
This section seems entirely useless, in that it lists a lot of minor ephemeral details from the ''here and now'' and no actual "principles" that may "guide" any action. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==United States==<br />
On «support successful job candidates in attaining the legal right to work in the United States»: why only USA? What if they want to move elsewhere? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Maybe this should become "...to work from a WMF office in the United States", in case that's what's meant here. --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Or rather: Support succesful job candidates in attaining the legal right to work in the US should the need arise". Or something along those lines. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 14:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Serving every human being==<br />
This section looks weird being 7 sections away from «Freedom and open source» with «All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software» etc. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The emphasis on the development of new features is undue and likely to grate on both engineering staff and community, in my opinion. It is out of step with the custodian role which many individuals in both groups identify with. We should express a stronger commitment to high availability and site performance. --[[User:Ori.livneh|Ori.livneh]] ([[User talk:Ori.livneh|talk]]) 10:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Communication==<br />
Do you think https://xkcd.com/802/ [https://xkcd.com/802_large/] applies to the WMF? (In particular, the proportions in the two maps on the top <s>right</s> left being zoomed.) --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Nemo, could you clarify which proportions you refer to by naming them? Top right is "Unread Updates". --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Ouch. I meant left, of course. :) Thanks, [[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Right to fork==<br />
Again nothing. [[Talk:Terms of use/Archives/2011-12-06#Right to Fork]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
* Probably more of a Wikimedia principle than a Wikimedia Foundation principle. Perhaps we need a separate list? :-) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 09:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
*: I doubt it: «principles intended to guide the work of the Wikimedia Foundation». Who else do you suggest to task with ensuring the right to fork? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Internationalism ==<br />
<br />
«''When we consider the community'' as a whole, we aim to consider all its languages and geographies and to avoid global initiatives that favor communities speaking only our languages» (emphasis added).<br />
I note that you're only talking of how you consider the community; what about «initiatives that favor communities speaking only our languages» in general? For instance, roughly how much of the WMF spending goes on initiatives that favor only English-language people (projects, users etc., readers) or only the USA? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Right to influence ==<br />
<br />
«Their work has earned [...] financial support sustaining the Wikimedia Foundation [...] and the global community has therefore earned the right to influence the work of the organizations»: it ''seems'' that you're stating that the only reason why someone has the "right to influence" the work is that they bring in dollars. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)</div>Sue Gardnerhttps://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resolution_talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles/Archive_1&diff=328021Resolution talk:Wikimedia Foundation Guiding Principles/Archive 12013-03-20T18:37:29Z<p>Sue Gardner: /* Quick suggestion... */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Freedom and open source ==<br />
"As an organization, we strive to use open source tools over proprietary ones, although we use proprietary or closed tools (such as software, operating systems, etc.) where there is currently no open-source tool that will effectively meet our needs." - Is there a requirement and process in place which forces people to publish an evaluation which open-source tools were considered and tested for a task in order to identify which specific functionality was only provided by closed-source tools? --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 18:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:<br />
:Well, maybe that is my impression because I work remotely, but I've seen some proprietary files been shared and proprietary softwares being used when we could have free software. For instance, microsoft documents or apple softwares. And I've heard the wifi network in SF office works better with apple stuff, which is kind of weird - I've visited SF office only once and I checked that, but I've heard the same from other online meetings. For pragmatical reasons, sometimes I know using some closed softwares can deliver things faster tho. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Ezalvarenga]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 19:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:I agree we could use a little more discipline on this. e.g. I'm not ''convinced'' all Mac users in the office would truly be significantly less effective at their work on Ubuntu machines. I do acknowledge some may be. I think it warrants some nudging/pushing, though. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 20:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::I think there's a huge distinction between closed source tools for personal productivity, and closed source tools for supporting the projects. This should be clarified in the text of the principles, because the current state of affairs is that we require FOSS when it comes to what is actually necessary for the projects to run, and we obviously don't when it comes to the office IT. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 22:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Thanks. In my initial posting I had shared tools in production (servers, webservices, etc.) in mind, but did not mean to refer to personal computers of individuals - that would be under the "personal freedom" category, and a published evaluation feels like overkill for such private cases. --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::Hi, Aklapper, I don't have time today to make a longer comment, but for the personal freedom, if everybody begin to use closed formats, people who wants to use open formats will be forced to use also closed ones. If a person doesn't want to buy an apple computer, but the wifi network forces people to do so or make their lifes with other hardwares difficult, sorry, a serious policy about that should change. Yes, people can choose whatever they want on their personal computers, but if the majority is using what is fashion, a conscious minitority will not have freedom to choose what they want. As an example, I do use sometimes closed softwares, like skype, but only when really necessary, like a partner or co-worker that prefers to use it. And I know the pain it is sometimes to use only Linux since 1998. :) In Brazil, at least, in the government level, we are trying to [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/thackday/WCmyz2jltF8/sKDd0xCPQaQJ BURN ALL THE DOCS]! There are also [https://groups.google.com/group/thackday/browse_thread/thread/4f94fbf09e4b6f54 bills] under way. ;D P. S. I could not even imagine close softwares on the server side. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Ezalvarenga]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 12:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Responding to a couple of you here. No, AKlapper, AFAIK there is no formal documented requirement/process for evaluation of when the Wikimedia Foundation uses a proprietary tool instead of an open source one. To date we've been small enough, and had a sufficient proportion of the staff who're personally dedicated to open source values, such that evaluation has tended to happen informally on a case-by-case basis, and it's worked reasonably well. Like, we made an organizational commitment to use CiviCRM early and we've stuck with that, and similarly I know that Finance & Admin uses proprietary accounting tools because early on some research was done that determined there was no acceptable open-source tool. I think those were both reasonable outcomes. Over the years we've toyed with the idea of developing a formal evaluation policy, but we have not done it. If you're suggesting we should, I would generally agree, but I also wouldn't say it's the thing Office IT should prioritize as most important and most urgent.<br />
<br />
More generally, in response to Ezalvarenga and Ijon, yes, I'd agree that our actual practices are likely imperfect -- there are probably some people at the Wikimedia Foundation using proprietary tools for individual use that could be replaced by open source tools. For example, I know that Legal has at some times used Microsoft Word for documents shared with external firms, when they probably could've insisted on using OpenOffice or LibreOffice without too much of a productivity hit.<br />
<br />
Frankly, individuals using proprietary tools has been a pretty big pain point for the Wikimedia Foundation. It's understandable: individual staff have widely varying levels of personal commitment to FLOSS, people want to be effective at work and so they want to use the tools that support them best, and people's work, and their needs, vary. No-one wants to be told they have no choice but to use X, whether X is Ubuntu/Thunderbird/LibreOffice or IE/Outlook/Word. That's utterly reasonable. So it's complex, and we're not going to capture a lot of complexity in a short statement. <br />
<br />
StevenW had proposed we modify the language here to distinguish between site production tools and personal/individual tools. Can somebody propose language for that, and for anything else here that might need clarification or finetuning? Feel free to make a change and I'll revert it or finetune it if I feel I need to. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Quick suggestion... ==<br />
<br />
[https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASue_Gardner%2FWikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5332950&oldid=5331958 ], which I made before seeing the request to comment first. Anyway, "serving every human being" seems a bit disingenuous, since we really aim to serve every literate human being with access to data and a digital device. ;-) The goal of providing equal access to all seems fairer, and more in line the the section's comments about well, accessibility. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 00:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:"equal access to all" is, er, equally disingenuous, as, by your own phrase, we're providing equal access only to "every literate human being with access to data and a digital device".<br />
:Furthermore, I actually do think we ''strive'' to serve every human being. Remember the free knowledge the Wikimedia community creates and shares is consumed offline too, not to mention the huge value of secondary use -- the knowledge worked into presentations, newspapers, books, radio and TV programs -- all consumed by hundreds of millions ''more'' than the group consuming it directly from our Web sites. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 00:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Yeah, I agree with Ijon. The language is "aims to" and "endeavours to," so I think it's appropriately framed as aspirational. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Getting rich ==<br />
<br />
On «nobody is getting rich by working at the Wikimedia Foundation»: define "rich". For instance, I'm a student but I'm very rich compared to most world population and richer than millions of Italians (so, when serving in my university board I raised tuition fees for myself/my income range). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Reasonable travel costs==<br />
«We aim to incur only reasonable travel costs: the general policy is to travel economy class and stay in moderately-priced hotels»: were $225K for staff (and board) at Wikimania reasonable? [[Talk:Wikimedia budget#Wikimania travel question]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Title or position==<br />
«People at the Wikimedia Foundation get the same benefits regardless of their title or position». <br />
*Who's "people"? Are you including all managers, trustees and employees?<br />
*What's "benefits" and how do you measure if "salaries" are "fair"? Are you considering only accessories or also the actual wage, before or after taxes, pension contributions etc.?<br />
*What are you including in "title or position" (or other comparison for "fair")? For instance, remote worker vs. office worker, full time vs. part time, staff vs. contractor.<br />
--[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:*Well, people does include at least all staff if you read further "regardless of their title or position". This should include everyone. As for Trustees, you've got a point, "people" is not clear and should probably be changed to "Staff" when it comes to benefits. I do not believe Trustees get benefits, even though they might benefit from insurance and related stuff when it comes to their work for the Foundation. It might make sense here to differentiate between staff/volunteers or something along those lines. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 14:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Accountable==<br />
«The Wikimedia Foundation wants to be accountable to [...]». Please clarify how the concept of accountability applies here: «responsible for your decisions or actions and expected to explain them when you are asked»[http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/accountable] (are there processes to be responsible of your actions in front of the readers, receive their questions and explain? etc.). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Shared power==<br />
This section seems entirely useless, in that it lists a lot of minor ephemeral details from the ''here and now'' and no actual "principles" that may "guide" any action. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==United States==<br />
On «support successful job candidates in attaining the legal right to work in the United States»: why only USA? What if they want to move elsewhere? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Maybe this should become "...to work from a WMF office in the United States", in case that's what's meant here. --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Or rather: Support succesful job candidates in attaining the legal right to work in the US should the need arise". Or something along those lines. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 14:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Serving every human being==<br />
This section looks weird being 7 sections away from «Freedom and open source» with «All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software» etc. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The emphasis on the development of new features is undue and likely to grate on both engineering staff and community, in my opinion. It is out of step with the custodian role which many individuals in both groups identify with. We should express a stronger commitment to high availability and site performance. --[[User:Ori.livneh|Ori.livneh]] ([[User talk:Ori.livneh|talk]]) 10:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Communication==<br />
Do you think https://xkcd.com/802/ [https://xkcd.com/802_large/] applies to the WMF? (In particular, the proportions in the two maps on the top <s>right</s> left being zoomed.) --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Nemo, could you clarify which proportions you refer to by naming them? Top right is "Unread Updates". --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Ouch. I meant left, of course. :) Thanks, [[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Right to fork==<br />
Again nothing. [[Talk:Terms of use/Archives/2011-12-06#Right to Fork]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
* Probably more of a Wikimedia principle than a Wikimedia Foundation principle. Perhaps we need a separate list? :-) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 09:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
*: I doubt it: «principles intended to guide the work of the Wikimedia Foundation». Who else do you suggest to task with ensuring the right to fork? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Internationalism ==<br />
<br />
«''When we consider the community'' as a whole, we aim to consider all its languages and geographies and to avoid global initiatives that favor communities speaking only our languages» (emphasis added).<br />
I note that you're only talking of how you consider the community; what about «initiatives that favor communities speaking only our languages» in general? For instance, roughly how much of the WMF spending goes on initiatives that favor only English-language people (projects, users etc., readers) or only the USA? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Right to influence ==<br />
<br />
«Their work has earned [...] financial support sustaining the Wikimedia Foundation [...] and the global community has therefore earned the right to influence the work of the organizations»: it ''seems'' that you're stating that the only reason why someone has the "right to influence" the work is that they bring in dollars. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)</div>Sue Gardnerhttps://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resolution_talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles/Archive_1&diff=328020Resolution talk:Wikimedia Foundation Guiding Principles/Archive 12013-03-20T18:35:15Z<p>Sue Gardner: /* Freedom and open source */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Freedom and open source ==<br />
"As an organization, we strive to use open source tools over proprietary ones, although we use proprietary or closed tools (such as software, operating systems, etc.) where there is currently no open-source tool that will effectively meet our needs." - Is there a requirement and process in place which forces people to publish an evaluation which open-source tools were considered and tested for a task in order to identify which specific functionality was only provided by closed-source tools? --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 18:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:<br />
:Well, maybe that is my impression because I work remotely, but I've seen some proprietary files been shared and proprietary softwares being used when we could have free software. For instance, microsoft documents or apple softwares. And I've heard the wifi network in SF office works better with apple stuff, which is kind of weird - I've visited SF office only once and I checked that, but I've heard the same from other online meetings. For pragmatical reasons, sometimes I know using some closed softwares can deliver things faster tho. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Ezalvarenga]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 19:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:I agree we could use a little more discipline on this. e.g. I'm not ''convinced'' all Mac users in the office would truly be significantly less effective at their work on Ubuntu machines. I do acknowledge some may be. I think it warrants some nudging/pushing, though. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 20:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::I think there's a huge distinction between closed source tools for personal productivity, and closed source tools for supporting the projects. This should be clarified in the text of the principles, because the current state of affairs is that we require FOSS when it comes to what is actually necessary for the projects to run, and we obviously don't when it comes to the office IT. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 22:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Thanks. In my initial posting I had shared tools in production (servers, webservices, etc.) in mind, but did not mean to refer to personal computers of individuals - that would be under the "personal freedom" category, and a published evaluation feels like overkill for such private cases. --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::Hi, Aklapper, I don't have time today to make a longer comment, but for the personal freedom, if everybody begin to use closed formats, people who wants to use open formats will be forced to use also closed ones. If a person doesn't want to buy an apple computer, but the wifi network forces people to do so or make their lifes with other hardwares difficult, sorry, a serious policy about that should change. Yes, people can choose whatever they want on their personal computers, but if the majority is using what is fashion, a conscious minitority will not have freedom to choose what they want. As an example, I do use sometimes closed softwares, like skype, but only when really necessary, like a partner or co-worker that prefers to use it. And I know the pain it is sometimes to use only Linux since 1998. :) In Brazil, at least, in the government level, we are trying to [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/thackday/WCmyz2jltF8/sKDd0xCPQaQJ BURN ALL THE DOCS]! There are also [https://groups.google.com/group/thackday/browse_thread/thread/4f94fbf09e4b6f54 bills] under way. ;D P. S. I could not even imagine close softwares on the server side. --[[User:Ezalvarenga|Ezalvarenga]] ([[User talk:Ezalvarenga|talk]]) 12:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Responding to a couple of you here. No, AKlapper, AFAIK there is no formal documented requirement/process for evaluation of when the Wikimedia Foundation uses a proprietary tool instead of an open source one. To date we've been small enough, and had a sufficient proportion of the staff who're personally dedicated to open source values, such that evaluation has tended to happen informally on a case-by-case basis, and it's worked reasonably well. Like, we made an organizational commitment to use CiviCRM early and we've stuck with that, and similarly I know that Finance & Admin uses proprietary accounting tools because early on some research was done that determined there was no acceptable open-source tool. I think those were both reasonable outcomes. Over the years we've toyed with the idea of developing a formal evaluation policy, but we have not done it. If you're suggesting we should, I would generally agree, but I also wouldn't say it's the thing Office IT should prioritize as most important and most urgent.<br />
<br />
More generally, in response to Ezalvarenga and Ijon, yes, I'd agree that our actual practices are likely imperfect -- there are probably some people at the Wikimedia Foundation using proprietary tools for individual use that could be replaced by open source tools. For example, I know that Legal has at some times used Microsoft Word for documents shared with external firms, when they probably could've insisted on using OpenOffice or LibreOffice without too much of a productivity hit.<br />
<br />
Frankly, individuals using proprietary tools has been a pretty big pain point for the Wikimedia Foundation. It's understandable: individual staff have widely varying levels of personal commitment to FLOSS, people want to be effective at work and so they want to use the tools that support them best, and people's work, and their needs, vary. No-one wants to be told they have no choice but to use X, whether X is Ubuntu/Thunderbird/LibreOffice or IE/Outlook/Word. That's utterly reasonable. So it's complex, and we're not going to capture a lot of complexity in a short statement. <br />
<br />
StevenW had proposed we modify the language here to distinguish between site production tools and personal/individual tools. Can somebody propose language for that, and for anything else here that might need clarification or finetuning? Feel free to make a change and I'll revert it or finetune it if I feel I need to. Thanks [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] ([[User talk:Sue Gardner|talk]]) 18:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Quick suggestion... ==<br />
<br />
[https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASue_Gardner%2FWikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles&diff=5332950&oldid=5331958 ], which I made before seeing the request to comment first. Anyway, "serving every human being" seems a bit disingenuous, since we really aim to serve every literate human being with access to data and a digital device. ;-) The goal of providing equal access to all seems fairer, and more in line the the section's comments about well, accessibility. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 00:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:"equal access to all" is, er, equally disingenuous, as, by your own phrase, we're providing equal access only to "every literate human being with access to data and a digital device".<br />
:Furthermore, I actually do think we ''strive'' to serve every human being. Remember the free knowledge the Wikimedia community creates and shares is consumed offline too, not to mention the huge value of secondary use -- the knowledge worked into presentations, newspapers, books, radio and TV programs -- all consumed by hundreds of millions ''more'' than the group consuming it directly from our Web sites. [[User:Ijon|Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants)]] [[User_talk:Ijon|talk]] 00:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Getting rich ==<br />
<br />
On «nobody is getting rich by working at the Wikimedia Foundation»: define "rich". For instance, I'm a student but I'm very rich compared to most world population and richer than millions of Italians (so, when serving in my university board I raised tuition fees for myself/my income range). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Reasonable travel costs==<br />
«We aim to incur only reasonable travel costs: the general policy is to travel economy class and stay in moderately-priced hotels»: were $225K for staff (and board) at Wikimania reasonable? [[Talk:Wikimedia budget#Wikimania travel question]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Title or position==<br />
«People at the Wikimedia Foundation get the same benefits regardless of their title or position». <br />
*Who's "people"? Are you including all managers, trustees and employees?<br />
*What's "benefits" and how do you measure if "salaries" are "fair"? Are you considering only accessories or also the actual wage, before or after taxes, pension contributions etc.?<br />
*What are you including in "title or position" (or other comparison for "fair")? For instance, remote worker vs. office worker, full time vs. part time, staff vs. contractor.<br />
--[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:*Well, people does include at least all staff if you read further "regardless of their title or position". This should include everyone. As for Trustees, you've got a point, "people" is not clear and should probably be changed to "Staff" when it comes to benefits. I do not believe Trustees get benefits, even though they might benefit from insurance and related stuff when it comes to their work for the Foundation. It might make sense here to differentiate between staff/volunteers or something along those lines. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 14:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Accountable==<br />
«The Wikimedia Foundation wants to be accountable to [...]». Please clarify how the concept of accountability applies here: «responsible for your decisions or actions and expected to explain them when you are asked»[http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/accountable] (are there processes to be responsible of your actions in front of the readers, receive their questions and explain? etc.). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Shared power==<br />
This section seems entirely useless, in that it lists a lot of minor ephemeral details from the ''here and now'' and no actual "principles" that may "guide" any action. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==United States==<br />
On «support successful job candidates in attaining the legal right to work in the United States»: why only USA? What if they want to move elsewhere? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Maybe this should become "...to work from a WMF office in the United States", in case that's what's meant here. --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Or rather: Support succesful job candidates in attaining the legal right to work in the US should the need arise". Or something along those lines. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 14:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Serving every human being==<br />
This section looks weird being 7 sections away from «Freedom and open source» with «All material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software» etc. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The emphasis on the development of new features is undue and likely to grate on both engineering staff and community, in my opinion. It is out of step with the custodian role which many individuals in both groups identify with. We should express a stronger commitment to high availability and site performance. --[[User:Ori.livneh|Ori.livneh]] ([[User talk:Ori.livneh|talk]]) 10:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Communication==<br />
Do you think https://xkcd.com/802/ [https://xkcd.com/802_large/] applies to the WMF? (In particular, the proportions in the two maps on the top <s>right</s> left being zoomed.) --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Nemo, could you clarify which proportions you refer to by naming them? Top right is "Unread Updates". --[[User:AKlapper (WMF)|AKlapper (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKlapper (WMF)|talk]]) 09:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Ouch. I meant left, of course. :) Thanks, [[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Right to fork==<br />
Again nothing. [[Talk:Terms of use/Archives/2011-12-06#Right to Fork]]. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
* Probably more of a Wikimedia principle than a Wikimedia Foundation principle. Perhaps we need a separate list? :-) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 09:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
*: I doubt it: «principles intended to guide the work of the Wikimedia Foundation». Who else do you suggest to task with ensuring the right to fork? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Internationalism ==<br />
<br />
«''When we consider the community'' as a whole, we aim to consider all its languages and geographies and to avoid global initiatives that favor communities speaking only our languages» (emphasis added).<br />
I note that you're only talking of how you consider the community; what about «initiatives that favor communities speaking only our languages» in general? For instance, roughly how much of the WMF spending goes on initiatives that favor only English-language people (projects, users etc., readers) or only the USA? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Right to influence ==<br />
<br />
«Their work has earned [...] financial support sustaining the Wikimedia Foundation [...] and the global community has therefore earned the right to influence the work of the organizations»: it ''seems'' that you're stating that the only reason why someone has the "right to influence" the work is that they bring in dollars. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)</div>Sue Gardnerhttps://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Archive:2012-2013_Annual_Plan_Questions_and_Answers&diff=83052Archive:2012-2013 Annual Plan Questions and Answers2012-08-07T19:19:37Z<p>Sue Gardner: /* How is this plan different from previous year’s plans? */ clarifying that it's *financially* a movement plan, as per Nemo's comment -- hope this resolves the issue for you, Nemo</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Questions and Answers about the Wikimedia Foundation's [[:File:2012-13 Wikimedia Foundation Plan FINAL FOR WEBSITE.pdf|2012-2013 Annual Plan]]'''<br />
<br />
<div style="font-size:1.5em;float:right;padding-left:8px;"><br />
&nbsp;Documents:<br />
*[[:File:2012-13_Wikimedia_Foundation_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf|2012-13 Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan (PDF)]]<br />
*[[Financial reports|Other financials reports]] (current and past)<br />
</div><br />
[[File:2012-13_Wikimedia_Foundation_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf|thumb|400px|page=56 |Total Spending Allocations for the Wikimedia Movement, 2012-13]]<br />
<br />
<div style="font-size:90%;"><br />
__TOC__<br />
</div><br />
<br />
==Overview==<br />
<br />
===What is the current state of this plan?===<br />
<br />
The 2012-13 plan was approved by the Board of Trustees at its meeting in Washington, DC, at Wikimania. It has now been published to the staff of the Wikimedia Foundation, and to the community. The 2012-13 fiscal year began 1 July 2012 and ends 30 June 2013.<br />
<br />
===What's an annual plan? ===<br />
<br />
An annual plan is an organization's financial plan for the fiscal year. This year, as in the two preceding years, the annual plan is rooted in the [[Wikimedia Movement Strategic Plan Summary|five-year (2010-15) Wikimedia Foundation strategy]], which was developed collaboratively on the [[strategy:|Strategy Wiki]] in 2009-10. That work formed the basis of this plan, which was created by the Wikimedia Foundation's senior leadership based on guidance given to it by the Board of Trustees, with support from the [[Staff and contractors|staff of the Wikimedia Foundation]].<br />
<br />
In addition to reflecting only unrestricted spending, the operating budget is primarily a cash-basis budget, so it doesn't include in-kind revenue and expenses, nor non-cash expenses such as depreciation. This is fairly common for budgeting purposes. Of course, our annual audited financial statements do reflect restricted funding as well as non-cash revenue and expenses, in order to conform to generally accepted accounting principles.<br />
<br />
===How is this plan different from previous year’s plans?===<br />
<br />
This year for the first time the annual plan incorporates all revenue and spending for the Wikimedia movement (with the exception of “other chapter revenues”). In past years, not all revenues and spending were captured in the WMF plan. For example, payment processing chapters’ revenues from the annual fundraiser were not visible in the Wikimedia Foundation plan, except for the portion of those revenues that was afterwards transferred to the Wikimedia Foundation.<br />
<br />
In 2012, the WMF Board of Trustees approved and published a [[Resolution:Funds Dissemination Committee|resolution]] affirming that all funds given to the Wikimedia movement are given in support of our global projects, in response to the value created by the global Wikimedia movement, and that therefore funds raised via the Wikimedia project sites should be considered to be movement money, not the entitlement of a particular organization or stakeholder. It called for the Wikimedia Foundation to begin to create annual plans setting revenue targets for the entire movement (excepting “other chapter revenues”), and to create an annual plan distinguishing between funding for WMF core operations, funds for other movement spending (including non-core WMF spending) and funds for the operating reserves of the WMF. It also asked the Executive Director to establish a Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) with the purpose of making recommendations to the Wikimedia Foundation for funding activities and initiatives in support of the mission goals of the Wikimedia movement. All funds raised via the Wikimedia project sites would thereafter be distributed via the recommendations of the FDC, with the exception of Wikimedia Foundation core operating costs and the operating reserve as described above.<br />
<br />
To summarize: this year, in response to the Board’s request, the financial component of the plan covers the movement, not solely the Wikimedia Foundation. It accounts for all revenues and spending in the global movement, with the exception of revenue derived from “other chapter sources” and the spending funded by those revenues. The plan describes the planned activities of the Wikimedia Foundation, and captures the financial picture for the entire movement, with the exception of chapters’ “other revenue sources.”<br />
<br />
This is the first year in which the WMF annual plan covers all fundraising and related expenditure for the entire movement, which makes it difficult to compare previous years’ revenue and spending with 2012-13 revenue and spending in a user-friendly way. In future years, comparisons will be easier, because the assumptions will not have changed.<br />
<br />
===What are chapters’ “other revenue sources”? ===<br />
<br />
Chapters’ “other revenue sources” refers to any revenue received by a chapter that does not originate from donations collected from visitors to the Wikimedia projects (whether those visits take place during the annual fundraiser, or a non-fundraiser part of the year). Chapters’ “other revenue sources” includes for example membership dues, conference fees, restricted and unrestricted grants from governments or private foundations, earned income, major gifts, in-kind service revenue and net investment income.<br />
<br />
===What is the strategic context for this plan?===<br />
<br />
In general, the Wikimedia projects are doing very well. Readership continues to grow. The Wikimedia Foundation has successfully overhauled our mobile experience (increasing mobile page views to 2.08 billion in April 2012, up 187% from 726 million in March 2011) and has established the first "Wikipedia Zero" partnerships to enable mobile access without data charges for millions of people in the Global South. The number of Wikipedia articles also continues to grow: it reached 22.3 million in March 2012, up from 18.8 million articles in March 2011. And, the Wikimedia Foundation’s Global Education Program is now the largest-ever systematic effort in the Wikimedia movement to boost high quality content creation, with a projected addition of 19 million characters to Wikipedia through student assignments in 2011-12. The one area in which our projects are not flourishing is participation. Through 2011-12, the number of editors contributing text on a regular basis (>=5 edits/month) has continued to decline slightly, from 89K (all projects except Commons) in March 2011 to 85K in March 2012. And, we do not yet have any indicators that editor diversity has begun to improve: the proportion of editors who are female and/or from the Global South is flat. Number-of-editors and editor diversity is the movement’s single biggest challenge. The one ray of light at the moment is multimedia contributions. Usability improvements (the “upload wizard,” deployed in May 2011) helped achieve sustained participation growth (18.7K uploaders in April 2012, up 27% from 14.6K in April 2011), and the Wiki Loves Monuments project (not a WMF initiative) achieved very high multimedia participation in spike months (22K uploaders in September 2011, when WLM took place, returning to normal levels immediately afterwards). Overall, however, the number of people who regularly contribute text (>= 5 edits/month) continues to slowly decline by about 1.5% year-over-year. Wikimedia’s most important strategic challenge therefore remains to reverse this trend and to increase retention and engagement of new contributors.<br />
<br />
The Wikimedia Foundation’s 2012-13 planned activities can be divided into the following five areas, reflecting this overall strategic context:<br />
<br />
*'''User Experience''': The ''Visual Editor'' will become the new default editing environment for Wikimedia sites, making it unnecessary to learn wiki markup in order to make a contribution to Wikimedia sites. We will implement a ''notification and messaging'' system to enable an engaging, responsive site experience, and work on ''multimedia contribution and review'' to recognize rich media contributors as first class citizens. We will also make ''language selection and language features'' more intuitive to reduce barriers. Finally, we will make a larger investment in ''site performance'' to reduce slow load times.<br />
*'''Mobile''': In 2011-12 we modernized the mobile reader experience with a redesigned mobile site and mobile apps for Android and iOS. In 2012-13, we will continue that work, but shift our focus to ''mobile contributions''. Our goal is to cultivate ''mobile photo uploaders'' as the first group of mobile contributors, and to experiment with various ''micro-tasks'' (e.g. page patrolling, categorizing) and simple editing features on mobile devices. We will also expand the ''Wikipedia Zero'' pilots, offering millions of people in the Global South mobile access to Wikipedia without data charges.<br />
*'''Editor Engagement''': Providing an engaging experience goes beyond usability improvements and extends into the social experience and the fundamental workflows associated with contributing to Wikimedia projects. To this end, we will run ''experiments'' throughout the year, examining how small changes (e.g. suggesting topics to edit, thanking and recognizing good contributors) can make the editing experience more welcoming and inviting.<br />
*'''Global Education Program''': The Wikipedia Education Program represents the end of throwaway assignments and the beginning of real-world impact for students. In 2011-12, thousands of students in 79 classes contributed more than 19 million characters of text to Wikipedia through course assignments. In 2012-13, we will continue to expand the program, with a goal of ''150 classes'' and at least ''25 million characters'' of newly contributed content.<br />
*'''Building the global movement''': Wikimedia is an amazing global community, and our job is to support and catalyze bottom-up work by volunteers around the world to increase Wikimedia’s impact. We will continue our ''catalyst programs'' in India, Brazil and the Arabic language region, and our ''fellowships program'', which gives remarkable, passionate individuals opportunities to pursue ideas related to our mission. We will ''award grants'' and reimbursements both to individuals and organizations doing relevant work, and we’re establishing the ''Funds Dissemination Committee'' to support programmatic work through larger organizational efforts like the international network of Wikimedia chapter organizations.<br />
<br />
By doing this, the Wikimedia Foundation intends to stabilize the number of active editors overall while increasing contributor numbers in some key areas. We will also double mobile page views (after more than doubling them in 2011-12).<br />
<br />
To get this done, we plan to grow the staff by 46% from 119 to 174, and expenses will increase from $27.2 million to $42.1 million. (Please note the spending increase includes an allocation for the FDC of $11.2 million. In general, it is necessary to exercise significant caution in making comparisons between the 2011-12 and 2012-13 plans, because movement-wide fundraising and funds dissemination practices have significantly changed in 2012-13 compared with 2011-12.) We plan to increase revenues 32% to $46.1 million, thereby putting $4 million in cash into our operating reserves.<br />
<br />
===What are the 2012-13 plan targets?===<br />
<br />
1) Stabilize number of active editors (all projects except Commons) to 86,000 by July 1, 2013 from 85,000 in March 2012.<br />
<br />
2) Increase the number of contributors who make at least one upload to Wikimedia Commons from 18.6K in March 2012 to 25K in June 2013, including 1K mobile uploaders per month (from 0).<br />
<br />
3) Continue to expand participation in the Global Education Program from 79 to 150 classes with at least 50% female participation, leading to an increase in quality content added by students from 19M characters in 2011-12 to at least 25M characters in 2012-13.<br />
<br />
4) Increase active editors in priority geographies (India, Brazil and Arabic language region) by 800 active editors with focus on quality contributors that can help build small-to-medium sized projects and add diversity to larger projects rather than pure quantity.<br />
<br />
5) Reach 4 billion mobile page views per month by June 2013 with at least 15% from the Global South. Serve 200 million page views/month at no charge via Wikipedia Zero partners in the Global South.<br />
<br />
==Comparison with the previous year==<br />
<br />
===What did the Wikimedia Foundation accomplish in 2011-12?===<br />
<br />
A recap of activities and performance can be found in section 1 of the annual plan.<br />
<br />
===How did 2011-12 play out from a financial perspective?===<br />
<br />
From a financial perspective, 2011-12 was an excellent year for the Wikimedia Foundation. The 2011-12 plan called for us to increase revenue 24% from 2010-11, to $29.5 million, and to increase spending 53% from 2010-11, to $28.3 million. In fact, we significantly over-achieved from a revenue perspective, and we also slightly underspent, resulting in a larger reserve than planned. We're projecting today that 2011-12 revenue will have actually increased 47% from 2010-11 actuals, to $34.8 million. Spending is projected to have increased 36% from 2010-11 actuals, to $27.2 million. This means we added $9.9 million to the reserve, for a projected end-of-year total of $27.7 million which represents 12 months of reserves at the 2011-12 spending level.<br />
<br />
===How did 2011-12 play out from a revenue perspective?===<br />
<br />
The 2011 WMF fundraiser was our shortest and most successful to date, raising $20 million (up 25% from 2010's $15 million) in 46 days (8% fewer than 2010's 50 days). We achieved that revenue growth by doing significant A/B testing of messaging, as well as via a new relationship with Global Collect, which enabled us to offer 80+ new currencies, local bank transfer in 50+ new countries, an additional new credit card, six new online direct debit options, direct debit in 12 new countries, two new e-wallet products and two new cash products, compared with 2010.<br />
<br />
The WMF ran a shorter and less annoying fundraiser in 2011 compared with previous years — the fundraiser ran 46 days down from 50 in the previous year, and featured a wide array of messages featuring editors and staff from around the world, rather than relying as strongly on appeals from the founder as we have in the past. (Jimmy appeals ran for 12 days in 2011, down from 36 in 2010.) In 2010, the Wikimedia Foundation had observed the fundraiser being gently mocked by media and the general public: we believe we saw less of that in 2011. We believe the 2011 fundraiser struck a good balance: it raised sufficient funds to do our work, while minimizing annoyance for readers. <br />
<br />
===How much did the Wikimedia Foundation staff grow in 2011-12?===<br />
<br />
During 2011-12, the Wikimedia Foundation planned to hire 43 staff, an increase of 58% over 2010-11. Staff count as of June 2011 was 74. The planned total increase was to 117. The year-end projected staff headcount will be 119, which represents an increase over 2010-11 of 53%, and two positions more than originally anticipated. <br />
<br />
===How is the decision process for funds allocation within the Wikimedia movement going to change in 2012-13?===<br />
<br />
On March 30, 2012, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees resolved that the Wikimedia Foundation would create a Funds Dissemination Committee, whose sole purpose will be to make recommendations to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees for funding activities and initiatives in support of the mission goals of the Wikimedia movement. The purpose of this new process is to support a broader and more inclusive decision-making process for funds distribution, consistent with the Board’s guiding principles for funds distribution: to protect core operations, assess impact, promote transparency and stability, support decentralized programs, promote responsibility and accountability, and make decisions openly and collaboratively.<br />
<br />
All funds raised via the Wikimedia project sites will be distributed via the recommendations of the FDC, with the exception of Wikimedia Foundation core operating costs and the operating reserve.<br />
<br />
The purpose of the FDC process is to make allocations to FDC-eligible Wikimedia entities, based on an assessment of the extent to which requested funding will enable those entities to have an impact towards realizing the mission goals of the Wikimedia movement. This assessment will be a function of both how much impact their proposed activities are likely to have and how well the entities are situated to execute their plans responsibly and well.<br />
<br />
The hypothesis underpinning the FDC is that a global body of committed, experienced Wikimedians, supported by a well-designed process and dedicated staff, can make decisions about where the Wikimedia movement should spend its money that will i) create better alignment between the Wikimedia movement's strategy and its spending, resulting in ii) greater impact and greater progress towards achieving our shared goals than would otherwise be the case, and iii) enabling us to get smarter faster about how to achieve our shared goals than we otherwise might have. A secondary hypothesis is that the FDC process will be seen by the global Wikimedia community (including but not limited to fund-seeking entities) as more fair, transparent and accountable than the funds dissemination practices that predated it.<br />
<br />
===What's the total budget in this year's annual plan and how does it compare with previous years?===<br />
<br />
The total operating budget for the 2012-13 plan calls for $42.1 million in spending, including $11.5 million in spending allocated for the FDC. In comparison, 2011-12 projected spending is $31.6 million (including $4.4 million in chapter-retained funding from payment-processing). In general, the Wikimedia movement’s spending has increased every year, as the projects, the organizations supporting them, and readership, have grown.<br />
<br />
===What are the main increases in spending for 2012-13?===<br />
<br />
<br />
The total increase in spending in 2012-13 compared with 2011-12 (including the $4.4 million retained by chapters from payment-processing in the annual fundraiser) is $10.5 million, representing an increase of 33%.<br />
<br />
The single largest increase in spending is the establishment of the FDC with a budget of $11.5 million. Of that $11.5 million, $4.3 million is an increase compared with 2011-12, because in 2011-12 the payment-processing chapters retained $4.4 million of fundraiser revenues for their own spending, and the Wikimedia Foundation spent $2.8 million on what we are characterizing as “non-core” work.<br />
<br />
The second largest increase in spending in 2012-13 is increased funding for WMF engineering, which will increase by $5.7 million, from $11.9 million in 2011-12 projections, to $17.6 million in planned spending for 2012-13. This will fund an increased allocation for core site operations, mobile engineering, code review and tech community building, and the visual editor. For more detail please see [https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=File%3A2012-13_Wikimedia_Foundation_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf&page=58 slide 58].<br />
<br />
===The projected budget for the 2011-12 annual plan was $28.3 million: what were the actuals?===<br />
<br />
Fiscal year 2012-13 results won't be final until end of July 2012, but we are projecting to spend $27.2 million in the operating budget (this does not include things like depreciation). When the audited financial statements are available in fall of 2012, the total expenses reflected there will be higher because they will reflect items such as depreciation which we don't include in plan or projections.<br />
<br />
===Why is 2011-12's projected spending lower than plan?===<br />
<br />
Spending was somewhat lower than plan partly because of delays in hiring, and partly because some Global Development projects took longer to get underway than planned. For more detail see slides [https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=File%3A2012-13_Wikimedia_Foundation_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf&page=58 58]-[https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=File%3A2012-13_Wikimedia_Foundation_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf&page=60 60].<br />
<br />
==Future revenues==<br />
<br />
===What's the revenue target for 2012-13, and how does it compare to previous years?===<br />
<br />
The 2012-13 plan posits revenue of $46.1 million, a 32% increase over projected revenue of $34.8 million for 2011-12. These are our highest-ever revenue targets, but represent only a $7.2 million increase in revenue, which is conservative compared with the $8.1 million increase we achieved last year. <br />
<br />
===Is that target realistic?===<br />
Yes, we think so. It proposes to achieve a smaller increase than was achieved in 2011-12.<br />
<br />
However, it is worth noting that in 2012-13 for the first time all chapter spending will be visible to readers and donors, rather than just Wikimedia Foundation spending. This could increase the risk that we are being perceived as less “shoestring” than we have been in the past, which could hurt people’s willingness to give. <br />
<br />
===What is the strategy for achieving the revenue increase?===<br />
<br />
We plan to continue to focus our efforts on community giving. We like this model because it has proven to be very effective, and because it correctly aligns fundraising activities with our mission goals. It is global and empowers ordinary people, it ensures we stay focused on our mission and our strategy, it keeps us accountable and responsive to readers and editors, and it is stable, scalable, and efficient. In addition to seeking increased support from community donations, we will also continue to raise funds from foundations and major donors.<br />
<br />
In order to achieve the revenue increase, and to avoid over-exposure of our founder Jimmy Wales, we intend to continue our path of creating and testing a variety of appeals featuring a wide range of Wikimedians, with the goal of optimizing appeals to increase donations. We will also continue to localize the donor experience, to make it possible for people to give in ways that suit them and are easy for them (e.g., additional payment methods).<br />
<br />
===Which movement groups will participate in the 2012 annual fundraiser, and what will happen to the money they raise?===<br />
At this point, it looks like Wikimedia France, Germany, Switzerland, and UK will act as payment processors during the 2012 campaign. As per the Board’s resolution, all funds raised via the Wikimedia project sites would thereafter be distributed via the recommendations of the FDC, with the exception of Wikimedia Foundation core operating costs and the WMF operating reserve.<br />
<br />
===What will you do if there is a revenue shortfall?===<br />
<br />
We believe a revenue shortfall is unlikely. A small revenue shortfall wouldn't cause problems, because the revenue target for 2012-13 exceeds the amount we plan to spend. We think a large revenue shortfall is unlikely, but if it happens, we have a number of ways to ensure stability. At the beginning of the fundraiser (which is the point in the year during which our cash reserves are lowest) we will have six months of total movement spending in the bank. If there is a serious revenue shortfall, the Board of Trustees will immediately be notified, and the Wikimedia Foundation will handle it via a combination of deferring future planned spending, implementing cuts to current spending, and funding the shortfall by utilizing our cash reserves.<br />
<br />
===What is proposed to happen to the Wikimedia Foundation reserve in 2012-13?===<br />
<br />
In 2012-13, the WMF reserve is planned to grow $4.0 million from $27.7 million to $31.7 million. This is an increase of 14% as measured in dollars, but a decrease as measured by months-of-spending. At the end of 2012-13, the reserve is planned to represent nine months of spending, whereas at the end of 2011-12, the reserve is projected to represent 12 months of spending.<br />
<br />
It is worth noting here that the WMF has consistently over-achieved its revenue targets, and has underspent, every year since it began developing annual plans. That means that every year, the WMF has ended the year making a larger contribution to the reserve than was planned for. For example, in 2011-12, the plan called for the Wikimedia Foundation to make a contribution to the reserve of $1.2 million, and in fact will end the year contributing $9.9 million. It is fairly likely we will exceed our planned contribution to the reserve in 2012-13, as well. <br />
<br />
===What is the thinking behind adding $4.0 million to the reserve? Isn’t it too much / too little?===<br />
<br />
It is normal for organizations to plan to have reserve or contingency funds. Reserve funds are critical for an organization in the event of unplanned expenses, emergencies and/or revenue shortfalls. There is a wide range of opinions about what size of reserve fund a healthy non-profit needs, but a best practice is typically believed to be somewhere between three and twelve months of average monthly spending. The Wikimedia Foundation’s reserve is largest after the online fundraising campaign. It gradually diminishes in the months following the campaign, and starts to rise again when the next annual campaign begins.<br />
<br />
The Board of Trustees has established a rule of thumb that it would like the WMF reserve to never drop below six months of total spending. The 2012-13 plan therefore calls for the reserve to stay at a minimum of six months of total spending at the low point of the year.<br />
<br />
==Staffing==<br />
<br />
===How many people are you planning to hire and when?===<br />
<br />
We plan to grow from 119 to 174, an increase of 46% over the prior fiscal year. This is the last year of this strategic planning cycle that we plan to staff up to capacity to execute the strategic plan, so we anticipate a significant flattening next year. We anticipate two hiring spikes, one in July when we hire people who are in our existing hiring pipeline, and then again in late fall/early winter based on summer/early fall recruiting.<br />
<br />
===What are the positions you will be hiring for, and what is the general thinking behind it?===<br />
<br />
The biggest increase in staffing is technology staff, which will grow from 64 to 94 people according to plan. Those new hires will support our key activities: feature development including features focused on editor retention, mobile, the Visual Editor, internationalization, the Wikimedia Labs. This will indeed continue to be a stretch for 2012-13, because there is currently a major shortage of technical talent in the San Francisco Bay Area. Even so, we feel like we're in a pretty good position to hire technology staff right now. In 2012-13, we will be dedicating more resources towards technical recruitment than in past years, and we are very clear about our value proposition: The Wikimedia Foundation is not about monetizing eyeballs, our direction isn't set by VCs, and we're financially stable. We offer a fair, friendly, fun environment for talented engineers who want their individual contribution to result in making the world a better place for hundreds of millions of people. We also hire globally, not just people who are currently located in the Bay Area, or willing to move there. At the end of 2012-13, if we hire according to plan, technology department staff will make up 54% of total staff.<br />
<br />
The second-largest increase in staffing is in the “other program” areas (Legal and Community Advocacy, Fundraising, and Global Development departments), which is planned to grow by 16 people to a total of 58; at the end of 2012-13, Other Program staff will make up 33% of total staff if we hire according to plan. These hirings will support our strategic objectives of increasing new editor retention particularly in the Global South, expansion in mobile partnerships, and increased partnerships with educational institutions worldwide.<br />
<br />
===Will all the jobs be advertised publicly?===<br />
<br />
Yes. Our general practice, with rare exceptions, is to advertise all jobs on the Wikimedia Foundation website, as well as on relevant job sites. In some cases, we may decide not to post individual positions, but rather to announce general availability of vacancies in a certain area.<br />
<br />
===When do you expect to stop growing? In other words, how big do you plan to get, in terms of staff headcount?===<br />
[[File:2012-13_Wikimedia_Foundation_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf|page=62|thumb|p. 62]]<br />
This is a good question. We think it’s likely that Wikimedia Foundation staffing growth will level off beginning next year. (See [https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=File%3A2012-13_Wikimedia_Foundation_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf&page=62 slide 62] in the plan.) We also think it’s possible that we may decide to course-correct over the course of 2012-13, and choose to hire fewer people than are called for in the plan.<br />
<br />
It’s a balancing act. We want the organization to have sufficient resources to get its work done, and we have lots of important work to do. And over the past several years we’ve developed the internal capacity to hire well, and reasonably quickly. But, each new staff person also requires significant effort from HR and from that person’s manager and colleagues, to recruit and onboard and acclimate -- effort that detracts from other work. And, the Wikimedia Foundation is an organization that’s learning quickly, and however talented and smart they are, new people have some degree of inherent “resetting” effect on the organization overall. We are beginning to feel the need to rebalance our efforts away from “fast growth” and towards a focus on consolidation and execution.<br />
<br />
==Rate of growth ==<br />
<br />
===How fast is this growth? Do other organizations generally grow this quickly?===<br />
<br />
Relative to older, more established organizations, our growth is fast. Relative to successful young tech organizations, our growth is slow. Some comparatives, for what they are worth: Groupon has grown to 10,000 employees from 1,500 a couple of years ago. Over the past couple of years, Twitter has grown to 800 from about 45. LinkedIn increased staff to 2,447 from 600 during 2011. Facebook currently has approximately 3200 employees, up from 1,000 two years ago. Google has approximately 33,000 employees in 2012, up from 10,674 at the end of 2006. So by Silicon Valley standards, our growth is conservative. Outside Silicon Valley and the rest of the tech sector, our growth would probably be considered pretty fast.<br />
<br />
===What are the risks of fast growth, and how will we mitigate against them?===<br />
<br />
There are several risks, including hiring poorly, fragmentation without internal integration and building a cohesive, aligned culture, a risk that the Foundation may develop an internal culture (or sub-cultures) that doesn’t fit the culture of the movement, a disjointed experience for job candidates who apply to for jobs, etc. <br />
<br />
We are getting better at hiring quickly and well, and we will continue to manage other risks by course-correcting/slowing down as necessary.<br />
<br />
==Impact==<br />
<br />
===As a reader of the Wikimedia projects, how will my experience change as a result of this plan?===<br />
<br />
In 2012-13 we're investing in site performance and responsiveness so that the reader experience improves: pages will load faster, the projects will be easier to navigate and search, and multimedia display will be enhanced. We're continuing improvements to our mobile site, and we're partnering with more mobile providers in the Global South to enable access to Wikipedia without data charges. This means that millions of people will be able to access Wikipedia for free in the Global South, from their cellphones. We are also continuing to engage more readers to be an active part of the Wikimedia community, via the further development of feedback and rating mechanisms. For readers in Asia and West Coast US, we will reduce response times by 70ms.<br />
<br />
===As a volunteer contributing to Wikimedia projects, how will my experience change as a result of this plan?===<br />
<br />
Editors will notice the same changes as readers. Additionally though, they will benefit from the rollout of the Visual Editor’s more intuitive interface, faster saving of edits (with rendering times for typical featured articles reduced by 75%), new ways to contribute when using mobile devices, and improved multimedia uploading and curating tools. New features (including a new messaging and notifications system) will provide a more responsive and engaging editor experience. Ongoing internationalization efforts are directed at enabling participation in languages which are currently poorly technically supported. Knowledge gained from small editor engagement research projects will inform work to make life easier for inexperienced editors, while the Wikimedia Labs will enable new kinds of community tools from or for “power users”. In 2013, the Foundation will begin operating Wikidata, an entirely new Wikimedia project currently being developed by Wikimedia Germany.<br />
<br />
===If I am involved with a Wikimedia chapter or other entity contributing to the Wikimedia movement, how will my experience change as a result of this plan?===<br />
<br />
Eligible chapters as well as some other kinds of groups newly recognized by the Board’s “[[Resolution:Recognizing Models of Affiliations|Recognizing Models of Affiliation]]” resolution will be able to request funds via the new Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC). But the existing grants program for chapters remains in place. The FDC process and the grants process will have more money in 2012-13 than in previous years to disseminate to movement entities doing programmatic work. <br />
<br />
==[https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=File%3A2012-13_Wikimedia_Foundation_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf&page=56 Breakdown by function] ==<br />
<br />
===What is included in the “Management and Governance” spending in the Annual Plan? ===<br />
<br />
In 2011-12, spending for Management and Governance spending is projected to have been $1,036K; in 2012-13, it is planned to be $902K. Management and Governance includes costs for the Board and the Advisory Board; including the costs of face-to-face Board meetings, other travel costs (e.g., attendance at Wikimedia conferences and other events), an allocation for board development, as well as salaries for the office of the Executive Director and expenses for consultants and contractors supporting the Board.<br />
<br />
===What is included in the “Engineering” spending in the Annual Plan? ===<br />
<br />
In 2011-12, Engineering spending is projected to have been $11.9 million; in 2012-13, it is planned to be $17.6 million, $1.2 million of which will be submitted as a funding request to the FDC. It includes bandwidth and hardware costs, salaries for the Engineering and Product Development department staff, costs for technical contractors and consultants, as well as other miscellaneous costs. Please refer to [https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=File:2012-13_Wikimedia_Foundation_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf&page=58 slide 58] of the Plan for more detail.<br />
<br />
===What is included in the “Other Programs” spending in the Annual Plan? ===<br />
<br />
”Other Programs” reflects the combined expenses of the Community Advocacy team and the Global Development department, plus the expenses for Grants and Fellowships. In 2012-13, Other Programs is projected to have been $5.9 million; in 2012-13, it is planned to be $6.1 million, $3.2 million of which will be submitted as a funding request via the FDC process. It includes the Community Advocacy staff in the Legal and Community Advocacy department, and the Global Development department including communications staff, Global Education Program staff, staff responsible for mobile partnerships development, research and the Catalyst Projects in the Global South. It also includes funding for community outreach and volunteer convenings, grants to chapters and individuals, as well as other miscellaneous costs. For the timespan until the establishment of the Legal and Community Advocacy department in early 2012, it also includes the expenses of the former Community department minus all fundraising costs.<br />
<br />
===What is included in the “Fundraising” spending in the Annual Plan?===<br />
<br />
In 2011-12, Fundraising spending is projected to have been $2.6 million; in 2012-13, it is planned to be $3.0 million. This includes payment processing fees, salaries for fundraising staff, consultant and contractor costs, and other miscellaneous fundraising expenses.<br />
<br />
===What is included in the “Legal, Human Resources, Finance and Administration” spending in the Annual Plan?===<br />
<br />
In 2011-12, Legal, Human Resources, Finance and Administration spending is projected to be $5.8 million; in 2012-13, it is planned to be $7.1 million. This includes the staff for legal, HR, finance and accounting, office administration, office IT support, legal fees, and expenses for consultants and contractors. It also includes general operating expenses such as rent and other facilities costs, some staff development and staff meeting expenses, recruiting expenses, fees for the annual audit, and other miscellaneous costs.<br />
<br />
==What is the impact of the FDC on this plan?==<br />
<br />
The establishment of the FDC increases the scope of the budget that the plan encompasses, and also requires increasing the amount allocated to the reserve (six months of funding at the low point, which is October, the month before the start of the annual fundraiser). Also, it means that some parts of the WMF budget, i.e. those designated as non-core, will need to be submitted as funding requests via the FDC process.<br />
<br />
===How are core and non-core defined?===<br />
<br />
In 2012-13, the WMF will for the first time divide its spending into "core" and "non-core." The purpose of this is to designate some component of the WMF's spending to be allocated by the FDC. This has two purposes: it acknowledges that some WMF spending is highly experimental and would benefit from community review, and it also will help the WMF experience the FDC process from the perspective of a fund-seeker, which will help ensure the process is responsive to fund-seeker needs.<br />
<br />
Many discussions have been held about how to define “core” versus “non-core,” and it’s not possible to develop a definition that is satisfying and easy to understand for everyone. That’s okay. The intent is to expose some amount of Wikimedia Foundation spending to community review, and the exact nature of which expenses are exposed is not itself critical. Having said that: in general, "core" is permanent spending required to maintain the sites and organizational infrastructure for as long as the projects are operating. It includes (but is not limited to) servers and bandwidth costs, legal, accounting, HR, management and governance spending, software improvements, fundraising or equivalent revenue management, communications, activities required to ensure our continued operation as a non-profit, and so forth. Core spending does not mean the rock-bottom costs of operating the sites if we were having financial difficulties: it means the normal costs of operating big sites well. Non-core will tend to include initiatives that are time-based, experimental in nature, and intended to extend our ability to better serve the mission. For 2012-13, non-core will include the editor engagement experimentations, the Global Education program, the catalyst projects (editor recruitment activities in India, Brazil, and MENA), as well as the WMF fellowships and grantmaking program. Those activities are shaded green on slides [https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=File:2012-13_Wikimedia_Foundation_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf&page=58 58] and [https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=File:2012-13_Wikimedia_Foundation_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf&page=59 59], and funding for them will be requested via the FDC process.<br />
<br />
===Why is non-core defined the way it is? Doesn’t it make more sense to define core as the rock-bottom costs of operating the projects (e.g., bandwidth and servers), and define everything else as non-core?===<br />
<br />
Our top priority is to fulfill our commitment to keeping the Wikimedia projects available free of charge for people around the world, in perpetuity. This does not mean just servers and bandwidth. In order to fulfil our commitment, we need to be responsible and competent site owners. A strong and stable Wikimedia Foundation is essential to safeguard the future of the projects: running a tiny shoestring operation would not be a service to the people who depend on us.<br />
<br />
===The Wikimedia Foundation has designated $4.5 million of the 2012-13 spending as non-core, and is making a request to the FDC to provide funding of that amount. What will happen if the FDC declines to fund non-core spending, or funds it at a lower level that was requested?===<br />
<br />
We are confident, given the funding guidelines, that the FDC will provide the funding we’re asking for. But in the event that the FDC declines to fund us at the amount requested, we would handle that the same way we handle any revenue shortfall. We would seek other funding sources, reallocate funds from other planned activities, or scale back expenses to fit the money we have available.<br />
<br />
===What are the implications of the new FDC process for the Wikimedia Grants Program and the Grants Advisory Committee?===<br />
<br />
Grants to provide financial support to movement groups and individuals for projects, events and travel that advances the movement’s mission and strategy are designated as one of the key activities in the 2012-13. Both the Wikimedia Grants Program and the Grants Advisory Committee (GAC) will remain in place.<br />
<br />
==Assessment of strategic priorities==<br />
<br />
===In its resolution, the Board requested the ED to carry out an assessment of the Foundation’s programs and strategic priorities. Why did the Board ask for that?===<br />
<br />
We start developing the annual plan in January, and it isn’t finalized for a full six months afterwards. During the six months in which we developed this plan, the Wikimedia Foundation Board, ED and senior staff began to reflect seriously on where we’re at as an organization.<br />
<br />
In general, we believe the organization is doing well. We are in excellent financial shape, we have the support of important funders and partners, and we’re making good progress towards our ambitious programmatic goals. The one significant area in which we’re not making progress is editor retention, which has proved to be more challenging than we had expected or hoped. We have a number of activities underway designed to address editor retention, and to achieve other key priorities. They are all important and necessary, but we are stretched pretty thin trying to accomplish them all. We believe therefore that we need to narrow our focus — increasing resources where that will help, but also halting some activities, in order to concentrate our resources on the highest-priority work. The ED and the Board have been discussing this for several months, during which the ED proposed the idea of a mid-year assessment to the Board, which the Board then accepted and approved. <br />
<br />
===What will the assessment look like? How will it be conducted?===<br />
<br />
It won’t be a public process on a wiki: it’ll be an internal Wikimedia Foundation process. Likely, the ED will work with the C-level team and their direct reports, to develop a couple of scenarios. The scenarios will be presented to the Board at its October meeting.<br />
<br />
There is no predetermined outcome. (In other words, there is no set dollar amount or staffing number we are trying to hit.) The purpose of the assessment is to thoughtfully review the activities of the Wikimedia Foundation, with the goal of scaling back or shutting down some activities, in order to enable us to narrow our focus and concentrate our resources. This may involve revisiting the 2012-13 and 2015 targets or other commitments. Some changes that result out of the review will likely take place immediately, where that makes sense, but if changes need to happen slowly over time, that’ll be okay too.<br />
<br />
We think carrying out a review like this is logical and responsible. The Wikimedia Foundation has been growing quickly, doing lots of experimentation, and learning a lot. We’re now at the mid-year point of the five-year strategic plan. Given that, we think it makes sense for us to build in a period of organizational reflection — to pause and think about where we’re at, and then iterate our plans based on everything we have been learning and experiencing in the past several years.<br />
<br />
==Risk assessment==<br />
<br />
===What are the biggest risks of this plan, and how will you mitigate against them? ===<br />
<br />
A detailed risk assessment can be found in [https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=File%3A2012-13_Wikimedia_Foundation_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf&page=23 section two] of the Annual Plan.<br />
<br />
==Glossary of Terms==<br />
<br />
;Annual Fundraiser: <br />
:The donation drive, customarily at the end of the year, soliciting donations through WMF project sites<br />
;Core/non-core: <br />
:See [[#How_are_core_and_non-core_defined.3F|above]]<br />
;FDC: <br />
:The new community-led [[m:Funds Dissemination Committee|Funds Dissemination Committee]], which will help make movement-wide decisions about how to allocate funds to programs and other projects<br />
;GAC: <br />
:The existing [[m:Grant Advisory Committee|Grant Advisory Committee]], a group made up of volunteers from the Wikimedia community, whose role is to advise chapters, groups, and the Foundation on improving grants and the grants process<br />
;Jimmy Days ([https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=File:2012-13_Wikimedia_Foundation_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf&page=21 slide 21]): <br />
:Days during the annual fundraiser where the donation banners include personal appeals by Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales. While these have proven to be among the most effective, the WMF fundraising team has been working to reduce reliance on them, e.g. by personal appeals from other community members.<br />
;Other Chapter Revenues: <br />
:Income not gained from donations via WMF project sites, such as grants to chapters or government funding<br />
;Reserve: <br />
:Cash not needed for operating expenses</div>Sue Gardnerhttps://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=SOPA/Blackoutpage&diff=78274SOPA/Blackoutpage2012-01-19T05:55:48Z<p>Sue Gardner: </p>
<hr />
<div><html><br />
<head><br />
<meta property="og:title" content="Take Action: Wikipedia Blackout" /><br />
<meta property="og:description" content="Support free knowledge and oppose SOPA and PIPA." /><br />
</head><br />
<style><br />
#mw-sopaOverlay {<br />
position: fixed;<br />
top: 0;<br />
left: 0;<br />
width: 100%;<br />
height: 1000px;<br />
z-index: 500;<br />
background: white url(//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/POSTSOPA_Landing_W-2.jpg) no-repeat 0 0;<br />
overflow: auto;<br />
font-family:Times New Roman;<br />
font-size: 1.2em;<br />
}<br />
#mw-sopaColumn {<br />
color: #;<br />
font-family:Times New Roman;<br />
font-size: 1.2em;<br />
position: absolute;<br />
top: -150px;<br />
left: 300px;<br />
width: 490px;<br />
color: #333;<br />
padding: 20px;<br />
background-color: #ffffff;<br />
filter:alpha(opacity=90);<br />
-moz-opacity:0.90;<br />
-khtml-opacity: 0.90;<br />
opacity: 0.90;<br />
z-index: 600;<br />
}<br />
#mw-sopaHeadline {<br />
font-size: 2.3em;<br />
margin-bottom: 0.5em;<br />
color: #fff;<br />
font-weight: normal;<br />
line-height:1.2em;<br />
}<br />
#mw-sopaText { <br />
margin-bottom: 1.5em;<br />
}<br />
#mw-sopaColumn a {<br />
color: #000000;<br />
text-decoration: underline;<br />
}<br />
#mw-sopaColumn a:hover {<br />
color: #343434;<br />
cursor: pointer;<br />
text-decoration: underline;<br />
}<br />
#mw-sopaColumn a.action {<br />
margin-top: 2px;<br />
}<br />
.mw-sopaActionDiv {<br />
margin-left: 1em;<br />
margin-bottom: 1em;<br />
}<br />
<br />
.mw-sopaActionHead {<br />
font-weight: bold;<br />
}<br />
.mw-sopaSocial {<br />
float: left;<br />
text-align: center;<br />
margin-right: 12px;<br />
margin-bottom: 3px;<br />
font-size: small;<br />
}<br />
.mw-sopaSocial a {<br />
text-decoration: none;<br />
}<br />
<br />
#mw-social-marks {<br />
padding-top: 10px;<br />
}<br />
</style><br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="mw-sopaOverlay"><br />
&#160;<br />
</div><br />
<div id="mw-sopaColumn"><br />
<br />
<div id="mw-sopaHeadline">Imagine a World<br>Without Free Knowledge</div><br />
<br />
<div id="mw-sopaText"><br />
<div style="font-size: 3.5em;margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Thank you.</div><br />
<br />
<p>The Wikipedia blackout is over — and you have spoken.</p><br />
<br />
<p>More than 162 million people saw our message asking if you could imagine a world without free knowledge. You said no. You shut down Congress’s switchboards. You melted their servers. From all around the world your messages dominated social media and the news. Millions of people have spoken in defense of a free and open Internet.</p><br />
<br />
<p>For us, this is not about money. It’s about knowledge. As a community of authors, editors, photographers, and programmers, we invite everyone to share and build upon our work.</p><br />
<br />
<p>Our mission is to empower and engage people to document the sum of all human knowledge, and to make it available to all humanity, in perpetuity. We care passionately about the rights of authors, because we <i>are</i> authors.</p><br />
<br />
<p>SOPA and PIPA are not dead: they are waiting in the shadows. What’s happened in the last 24 hours, though, is extraordinary. The internet has enabled creativity, knowledge, and innovation to shine, and as Wikipedia went dark, you've directed your energy to protecting it. </p><br />
<br />
<p>We’re turning the lights back on. Help us keep them shining brightly.</p><br />
<br />
<p><a target="_blank" href="//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Learn_more">Read more</a></p><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<div id="mw-sopaAction"><br />
<p class="mw-sopaActionHead">If you live in the U.S., contact your representatives.</p><br />
<div class="mw-sopaActionDiv"><form action="//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CongressLookup"><label for="zip">Your ZIP code:</label> <input type="text" size="5" name="zip"> <input type="submit" value="Look up" name="submit"></form> <br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="mw-sopaAction"><br />
<p style="padding-top: 20px;" class="mw-sopaActionHead">Make your voice heard!</p><br />
<div id="mw-social-marks"><br />
<div><br />
<div class="mw-sopaSocial"><a target="wpblackout_Facebook_share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Ftinyurl.com%2F7vq4o8g" style="text-decoration: none;"><img src="//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/WP_SOPA_sm_icon_fb_333333.png" height="33" width="33"></a><br><a target="wpblackout_Facebook_share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Ftinyurl.com%2F7vq4o8g" style="text-decoration: none;">Facebook</a><br />
</div><br />
<div class="mw-sopaSocial"><a href="https://plus.google.com/share?url=https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/SOPA/Blackoutpage" style="text-decoration: none;"><img src="//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/WP_SOPA_sm_icon_gplus_333333.png" height="33" width="33"></a><br><a href="https://m.google.com/app/plus/x/?v=compose&amp;content=I%20support%20the%20January%2018th%20Wikipedia%20blackout%20to%20protest%20SOPA%20and%20PIPA.%20Show%20your%20support%20here%20%20http%3A%2F%2Ftinyurl.com%2F7vq4o8g" style="text-decoration: none;">Google+</a><br />
</div><br />
<div class="mw-sopaSocial"><a target="wpblackout_Twitter_share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?original_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FMain_Page%3Fcountry%3DAU&amp;text=I%20support%20%23wikipediablackout%21%20Show%20your%20support%20here%20http%3A%2F%2Ftinyurl.com%2F7vq4o8g" style="text-decoration: none;"><img src="//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/WP_SOPA_sm_icon_twitter_333333.png" height="33" width="33"></a><br><a target="wpblackout_Twitter_share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?original_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FMain_Page%3Fcountry%3DAU&amp;text=I%20support%20%23wikipediablackout%21%20Show%20your%20support%20here%20http%3A%2F%2Ftinyurl.com%2F7vq4o8g" style="text-decoration: none;">Twitter</a><br />
</div><br />
</div><br />
<div style="clear: both;"></div><br />
</div> <br />
</div><br />
</div><br />
</div><br />
</html></div>Sue Gardnerhttps://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=SOPA/Blackoutpage&diff=78273SOPA/Blackoutpage2012-01-19T05:54:49Z<p>Sue Gardner: as per gmaxwell :-)</p>
<hr />
<div><html><br />
<head><br />
<meta property="og:title" content="Take Action: Wikipedia Blackout" /><br />
<meta property="og:description" content="Support free knowledge and oppose SOPA and PIPA." /><br />
</head><br />
<style><br />
#mw-sopaOverlay {<br />
position: fixed;<br />
top: 0;<br />
left: 0;<br />
width: 100%;<br />
height: 1000px;<br />
z-index: 500;<br />
background: white url(//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/POSTSOPA_Landing_W-2.jpg) no-repeat 0 0;<br />
overflow: auto;<br />
font-family:Times New Roman;<br />
font-size: 1.2em;<br />
}<br />
#mw-sopaColumn {<br />
color: #;<br />
font-family:Times New Roman;<br />
font-size: 1.2em;<br />
position: absolute;<br />
top: -150px;<br />
left: 300px;<br />
width: 490px;<br />
color: #333;<br />
padding: 20px;<br />
background-color: #ffffff;<br />
filter:alpha(opacity=90);<br />
-moz-opacity:0.90;<br />
-khtml-opacity: 0.90;<br />
opacity: 0.90;<br />
z-index: 600;<br />
}<br />
#mw-sopaHeadline {<br />
font-size: 2.3em;<br />
margin-bottom: 0.5em;<br />
color: #fff;<br />
font-weight: normal;<br />
line-height:1.2em;<br />
}<br />
#mw-sopaText { <br />
margin-bottom: 1.5em;<br />
}<br />
#mw-sopaColumn a {<br />
color: #000000;<br />
text-decoration: underline;<br />
}<br />
#mw-sopaColumn a:hover {<br />
color: #343434;<br />
cursor: pointer;<br />
text-decoration: underline;<br />
}<br />
#mw-sopaColumn a.action {<br />
margin-top: 2px;<br />
}<br />
.mw-sopaActionDiv {<br />
margin-left: 1em;<br />
margin-bottom: 1em;<br />
}<br />
<br />
.mw-sopaActionHead {<br />
font-weight: bold;<br />
}<br />
.mw-sopaSocial {<br />
float: left;<br />
text-align: center;<br />
margin-right: 12px;<br />
margin-bottom: 3px;<br />
font-size: small;<br />
}<br />
.mw-sopaSocial a {<br />
text-decoration: none;<br />
}<br />
<br />
#mw-social-marks {<br />
padding-top: 10px;<br />
}<br />
</style><br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="mw-sopaOverlay"><br />
&#160;<br />
</div><br />
<div id="mw-sopaColumn"><br />
<br />
<div id="mw-sopaHeadline">Imagine a World<br>Without Free Knowledge</div><br />
<br />
<div id="mw-sopaText"><br />
<div style="font-size: 3.5em;margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Thank you.</div><br />
<br />
<p>The Wikipedia blackout is over — and you have spoken.</p><br />
<br />
<p>More than 162 million people saw our message asking if you could imagine a world without free knowledge. You said no. You shut down Congress’s switchboards. You melted their servers. From all around the world your messages dominated social media and the news. Your voice was loud and strong. Millions of people have spoken in defense of a free and open Internet.</p><br />
<br />
<p>For us, this is not about money. It’s about knowledge. As a community of authors, editors, photographers, and programmers, we invite everyone to share and build upon our work.</p><br />
<br />
<p>Our mission is to empower and engage people to document the sum of all human knowledge, and to make it available to all humanity, in perpetuity. We care passionately about the rights of authors, because we <i>are</i> authors.</p><br />
<br />
<p>SOPA and PIPA are not dead: they are waiting in the shadows. What’s happened in the last 24 hours, though, is extraordinary. The internet has enabled creativity, knowledge, and innovation to shine, and as Wikipedia went dark, you've directed your energy to protecting it. </p><br />
<br />
<p>We’re turning the lights back on. Help us keep them shining brightly.</p><br />
<br />
<p><a target="_blank" href="//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Learn_more">Read more</a></p><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<div id="mw-sopaAction"><br />
<p class="mw-sopaActionHead">If you live in the U.S., contact your representatives.</p><br />
<div class="mw-sopaActionDiv"><form action="//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CongressLookup"><label for="zip">Your ZIP code:</label> <input type="text" size="5" name="zip"> <input type="submit" value="Look up" name="submit"></form> <br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="mw-sopaAction"><br />
<p style="padding-top: 20px;" class="mw-sopaActionHead">Make your voice heard!</p><br />
<div id="mw-social-marks"><br />
<div><br />
<div class="mw-sopaSocial"><a target="wpblackout_Facebook_share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Ftinyurl.com%2F7vq4o8g" style="text-decoration: none;"><img src="//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/WP_SOPA_sm_icon_fb_333333.png" height="33" width="33"></a><br><a target="wpblackout_Facebook_share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Ftinyurl.com%2F7vq4o8g" style="text-decoration: none;">Facebook</a><br />
</div><br />
<div class="mw-sopaSocial"><a href="https://plus.google.com/share?url=https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/SOPA/Blackoutpage" style="text-decoration: none;"><img src="//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/WP_SOPA_sm_icon_gplus_333333.png" height="33" width="33"></a><br><a href="https://m.google.com/app/plus/x/?v=compose&amp;content=I%20support%20the%20January%2018th%20Wikipedia%20blackout%20to%20protest%20SOPA%20and%20PIPA.%20Show%20your%20support%20here%20%20http%3A%2F%2Ftinyurl.com%2F7vq4o8g" style="text-decoration: none;">Google+</a><br />
</div><br />
<div class="mw-sopaSocial"><a target="wpblackout_Twitter_share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?original_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FMain_Page%3Fcountry%3DAU&amp;text=I%20support%20%23wikipediablackout%21%20Show%20your%20support%20here%20http%3A%2F%2Ftinyurl.com%2F7vq4o8g" style="text-decoration: none;"><img src="//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/WP_SOPA_sm_icon_twitter_333333.png" height="33" width="33"></a><br><a target="wpblackout_Twitter_share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?original_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FMain_Page%3Fcountry%3DAU&amp;text=I%20support%20%23wikipediablackout%21%20Show%20your%20support%20here%20http%3A%2F%2Ftinyurl.com%2F7vq4o8g" style="text-decoration: none;">Twitter</a><br />
</div><br />
</div><br />
<div style="clear: both;"></div><br />
</div> <br />
</div><br />
</div><br />
</div><br />
</html></div>Sue Gardnerhttps://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Archive:SOPA/Learn_more&diff=78029Archive:SOPA/Learn more2012-01-18T03:55:02Z<p>Sue Gardner: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
__NOTOC__<br />
<br />
''This is the text we're currently working on....''<br />
<br />
Call your elected officials. <br />
<br />
Tell them you are their constituent, and you oppose SOPA and PIPA.<br />
<br />
Why?<br />
<br />
SOPA and PIPA put the burden on website owners to police user-contributed material, and call for the unnecessary blocking of entire sites. Small sites won't have sufficient resources to mount a legal challenge. Without opposition, big media companies may seek to cut off funding sources for small competing foreign sites, even if big media are wrong in saying they infringe. Foreign sites will be blacklisted, which means they won't show up in major search engines. And, SOPA/PIPA builds a framework for future restrictions and suppression. <br />
<br />
In a world in which politicians regulate the internet based on the influence of big money, Wikipedia --and many other useful informational sites-- cannot survive.<br />
<br />
Congress says it's trying to protect the rights of copyright owners, but the "cure" that SOPA and PIPA represent is much more destructive than the disease they are trying to fix. SOPA and PIPA are not the answer: they will fatally damage the free and open internet.<br />
<br />
'''Blackout Page Text'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
'''IMAGINE A WORLD WITHOUT FREE KNOWLEDGE''' <br />
<br />
For over a decade, we have spent millions of hours building the largest encyclopedia in human history. Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could fatally damage this site and your ability to access information online. For 24 hours, to raise awareness, we are blacking out Wikipedia. Learn more.<br />
<br />
Contact your representatives.<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
'''Landing Page for U.S. Readers / Congress look-up page'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
For maximum impact, please consider calling your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators. Explain that you are a constituent and that you oppose these bills and similar future legislation. If you'd like to get more informed on SOPA/PIPA, please click here.<br />
<br />
'''Things you may want to say to your Senator or Representative'''<br />
<br />
"As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose SOPA and PIPA, and any future bill that would censor free speech and damage the security of the Internet."<br />
<br />
'''Regarding censorship'''<br />
<br />
“The Internet has become an important communications tool allowing the free flow of ideas. As introduced in the House and the Senate, SOPA and PIPA would give the Justice Department and courts tremendous power to shut down entire sites. Unfortunately, these bills ignore the principles of the First Amendment that require tailored solutions in lieu of across-the-board censorship. They represent terrible precedents for the United States and for the world.”<br />
<br />
<br />
==Social media text==<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Social media tweets/info<br />
|-<br />
| X || All ||<br />
|-<br />
| Google+ || I support the January 18th Wikipedia blackout to protest SOPA and PIPA. Show your support here <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/SOPA/Blackoutpage> ||<br />
|-<br />
| Facebook || <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/SOPA/Blackoutpage> ||<br />
|-<br />
| Twitter || I support #wikipediablackout! Show your support here <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/SOPA/Blackoutpage> ||<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Learn more about SOPA/PIPA below==<br />
<br />
The Wikipedia community has decided to blackout the English version of Wikipedia for 24 hours on January 18th in protest of proposed legislation — the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives, and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate. This legistlation, if passed, will harm the free and open Internet. These bills endanger free speech both in the United States and abroad, potentially setting a frightening precedent of Internet censorship for the world. If you are in the U.S., you can click visit Wikipedia and enter your zipcode to take action.<br />
<br />
==Share your view and tell the world==<br />
<br />
{{SOPABlogShare|wrapper css=text-align:center;}}<br />
<br />
==More information==<br />
<br />
Blog post from Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director, Sue Gardner:<br />
<br />
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/01/16/wikipedias-community-calls-for-anti-sopa-blackout-january-18/<br />
<br />
Official Wikimedia Foundation press release:<br />
<br />
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/English_Wikipedia_to_go_dark<br />
<br />
Statement from the community affirming blackout:<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Action<br />
<br />
Electronic Frontier Foundation blog post on the lingering faults in SOPA/PIPA:<br />
<br />
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/how-pipa-and-sopa-violate-white-house-principles-supporting-free-speech<br />
<br />
Wikipedia's articles on SOPA and PIPA:<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_IP_Act<br />
<br />
==Questions and Answers==<br />
<br />
Talking points<br />
<br />
* This Wednesday, January 18, 2012, the English Wikipedia will be protesting SOPA/PIPA with a global Wikipedia blackout. Readers who come to Wikipedia will see a message from Wikipedia about SOPA/PIPA and urging them to contact their Representatives or Senators to act. This protest will last 24 hours - from midnight to midnight EST (05:00 UTC Wed to 05:00 UTC Thu).<br />
<br />
* This decision was made by Wikipedia’s global community. Although the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that operates Wikipedia, opposes SOPA and PIPA, the decision was made by the community and that decision is now being implemented.<br />
<br />
* SOPA/PIPA are still real threats to the free, open, and secure web. Although recent media reports have suggested that the bills are losing support, they are not dead. On January 17th, SOPA's sponsor said the bill will be discussed and pushed forward in early February. PIPA could be debated in the U.S. Senate as soon as next week. There is a need to send a strong message that bills like SOPA and PIPA should not be allowed. Legislatures must understand that they must involve the internet industry in the law-making process to ensure innovation and protection of free expression.<br />
<br />
* Although the bills have changed, they are still a real threat to the free, open, and secure web. Among other serious problems in the current draft of the bills, the requirement exists for US-based sites to actively police links to purported infringing sites. These kinds of self-policing activities are non-sustainable for large, global projects - including possibly projects like Wikipedia. The legislative language is ambiguous and overly broad, even though it touches on protected speech. Our community is incredibly vigilant and proactive in keeping Wikipedia free of links or content that may infringe copyright.<br />
<br />
====What exactly is Wikipedia doing?====<br />
<br />
On January 18, 2012, the English Wikipedia community will be protesting SOPA/PIPA with a global English Wikipedia blackout. U.S. readers who come to English Wikipedia will see a message from Wikipedia about SOPA/PIPA that tells them to contact their Representatives or Senators to act. This protest will last 24 hours - from midnight to midnight EST.<br />
<br />
====Why is this happening?====<br />
<br />
The English Wikipedia community is opposed to SOPA/PIPA. In an unprecedented decision, the Wikipedia community has chosen to blackout the English version of Wikipedia for 24 hours, in protest against proposed legislation in the United States — the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives and PROTECTIP Act (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate. If passed, this legislation will harm the free and open Internet and bring about new tools for censorship of international websites inside the United States.<br />
<br />
Wikipedia can only exist in an open and uncensored Internet. SOPA, PIPA, or any future legislation that censors free speech, damages Internet security, or inhibits innovation will hurt and undermine the Internet and the work of our community.<br />
<br />
====Isn't SOPA dead? Wasn't the bill shelved and didn't the White House declare that it won't sign anything that resembles the current bill?====<br />
<br />
No, SOPA/PIPA are not dead. On January 17th, SOPA's sponsor said the bill will be discussed in early February. There are signs PIPA may be debated on the Senate floor next week. The threat of SOPA/PIPA remains and the English Wikipedia community wants to send a strong message that such attacks on the free and open web are not welcome.<br />
<br />
====Aren’t SOPA/PIPA as they stand not even really a threat to Wikipedia? Won't the DNS provisions be removed?====<br />
<br />
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has a great post about this here. SOPA/PIPA are still alive, and they’re still a threat to the free and open web, which means they are a threat to Wikipedia. SOPA/PIPA are still alive, and they’re still a threat to the free and open web, which means they are a threat to Wikipedia. For example, in its current form, SOPA would require U.S. websites to take on the heavy burden of actively policing third-party links for infringing content. And even with the DNS provisions removed, the bill would give the U.S. government extraordinary and loosely-defined powers to take control over content and information on the free web. In its current form the bill would also require U.S. websites to take on the duty of actively policing links for infringing content. Taking one bad provision out doesn't make the bills okay – these bills are still an attack on the free and open web.<br />
<br />
====What about OPEN?====<br />
<br />
The [[:w:en:Online_Protection_and_Enforcement_of_Digital_Trade_Act |OPEN Act]] is different piece of legislation from SOPA/PIPA, which we're monitoring, but SOPA/PIPA are the focus of this protest.<br />
<br />
====Why is the Wikipedia mobile site still available?====<br />
<br />
In its blackout decision, the community has asked us to preserve emergency access options to Wikipedia. We've preserved access via the mobile site, and via a small number of backdoors to the main site.<br />
<br />
====Did the Italian Wikipedia’s protest action last year achieve its goal of stopping the Italian law in question?====<br />
<br />
It seems likely that the efforts of the Italian Wikipedia community around a similar Internet censorship bill compelled the Italian Parliament to announce that it would modify the proposed law to include only large online news sites -- meaning that any information outlets that don't fall into that category, Wikipedia among them, would be excluded from the law's reach. <br />
<br />
====Do you think U.S. users will respond to this action?====<br />
<br />
The English Wikipedia blackout is a call for action. We encourage U.S. citizens to get in touch with their Congressional representatives and voice their opposition to SOPA/PIPA. This extraordinary collaborative effort will hopefully reach a wider public audience and help bring attention and spark discussion amongst those who are familiar with the issue and those who have not heard much about it as well.<br />
<br />
====What is the significance of acting in concert with other major sites? Will this really produce a politically effective message beyond acting in isolation?====<br />
<br />
The Wikipedia community has selected January 18th because that was the date the U.S. House of Representatives had contemplated hearings and other actions around SOPA. Although those hearings are not occurring today as planned, they will likely be rescheduled to a later date to avoid the increased public opposition to the legislation that we see today. Further, it appears PIPA is moving forward in the U.S. Senate. The community feels this is the right time to act.<br />
<br />
When many organizations and projects align and protest like this, there’s clearly a big net effect. There’s no question this makes the story bigger than if one site, say Wikipedia, protested alone.<br />
<br />
====Is it still possible to access Wikipedia in any way?====<br />
The Wikipedia community, as part of their request to the Wikimedia Foundation to carry out this protest, asked us to ensure that we make English Wikipedia accessible in some way during an emergency. The English Wikipedia will be accessible on mobile devices and smart phones. Because the protest message is powered by JavaScript, it's also possible to view Wikipedia by completely disabling JavaScript in your browser.<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
====Alternates====<br />
'''JD Forrester Version'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left:5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
For over a decade, global volunteers have compiled billions of facts and contributed millions of hours to build Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
We have done this because we love to share knowledge with everyone. We have only been able to do this because the Internet is free and open.<br />
<br />
But right now, Congress is considering two bills that would hand repressive censorship tools to large commercial lobbyists.<br />
<br />
If [http://link SOPA] or [http://link the PROTECTIP Act] pass, they would destroy the freedom and openness that has made Wikipedia what it is. We have blacked-out access to Wikipedia for today to show what might happen.<br />
<br />
Please, consider whether a free and open Internet that includes Wikipedia is something you, too, care about. Use the tool below to contact your local representative or senator. Tell them that you oppose these acts. Tell them to protect the Internet.<br />
</div><br />
<br />
'''JD Forrester Version 2'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left:5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
For over a decade, global volunteers have compiled billions of facts and contributed millions of hours to build Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
We have only been able to do this because the Internet is free and open.<br />
<br />
But right now, the United States Congress is currently considering legislation that would hand repressive censorship tools to large commercial lobbyists, which could destroy the freedom and openness that has made Wikipedia what it is today.<br />
<br />
Please, consider whether a free and open Internet that includes Wikipedia is something that you, too, care about. Use the tool below to take action. Help protect the Internet.<br />
</div><br />
<br />
'''FT2 Version'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left:5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
'''The Internet needs you to protect free speech'''<br />
<br />
For over a decade, global volunteers have compiled billions of facts and contributed millions of hours to build Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
We have only been able to do this because the Internet is free and open.<br />
<br />
Free speech is in peril like never before. The United States Congress is currently considering striking out rights of free speech and other laws which made Wikipedia possible, forcing us to censor our editor discussions and the information we show you. <br />
<br />
If passed, it would destroy the freedom of Americans to write without censorship, on every website we have, in any language, everywhere.<br />
<br />
Please, consider whether a free and open Internet that includes Wikipedia is something that you, too, care about. Use the tool below to take action. Help protect the Internet.</div><br />
<br />
== Draft Things to say to elected Representatives ==<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
'''Cybersecurity'''<br />
<br />
As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose a bill that would damage the security of the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act; in the Senate, the PROTECT IP Act).&nbsp; A safe and secure Web is vital to our privacy and to commerce.&nbsp; Over a hundred established authorities on the Internet believe that the required blocking of Internet sites is badly thought out and threatens Internet security.&nbsp; I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.<br />
<br />
'''Censorship'''<br />
<br />
As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose a bill that would censor the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act; in the Senate, the PROTECT IP Act).&nbsp; The Internet has become the most important communications tool for the free flow of ideas.&nbsp; This bill would give the Justice Department power to shut down entire websites — even if the website or its information is not the subject of a complaint.&nbsp; It could provide a model for repressive regimes (who could promote it as the ‘American’ model).&nbsp; I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.<br />
<br />
'''Innovation'''<br />
<br />
As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose a bill that would chill innovation on the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act; in the Senate, the PROTECT IP Act).&nbsp; The Internet has created successful multi-billion-dollar businesses — and it has benefited thousands of small businesses by providing them a previously unreachable worldwide market.&nbsp; This bill would put unreasonable burdens on Internet Service Providers and search engines and would threaten to suffocate our Internet economy.&nbsp; I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.</div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Mobile Learn More Page'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
==Mobile page and message==<br />
<br />
'''Banner message'''<br />
<br />
'''IMAGINE A WORLD WITHOUT FREE KNOWLEDGE '''<br><br />
'''Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could cripple this site and your ability to access information online. Learn more.'''<br />
<br />
(link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Mobile_Learn_more)<br />
<br />
</div></div>Sue Gardnerhttps://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Archive:SOPA/Learn_more&diff=78027Archive:SOPA/Learn more2012-01-18T03:53:56Z<p>Sue Gardner: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
__NOTOC__<br />
<br />
''This is the text we're currently working on....''<br />
<br />
Call your elected officials. <br />
<br />
Tell them you are their constituent, and you oppose SOPA and PIPA.<br />
<br />
Why?<br />
<br />
SOPA and PIPA put the burden on website owners to police user-contributed material, and call for the blocking of entire sites, even if the site's links aren't to infringing material. Small sites won't have sufficient resources to mount a legal challenge. Without opposition, big media companies may seek to cut off funding sources for small competing foreign sites, even if big media are wrong in saying they infringe. Foreign sites will be blacklisted, which means they won't show up in major search engines. And, SOPA/PIPA builds a framework for future restrictions and suppression. <br />
<br />
In a world in which politicians regulate the internet based on the influence of big money, Wikipedia --and many other useful informational sites-- cannot survive.<br />
<br />
Congress says it's trying to protect the rights of copyright owners, but the "cure" that SOPA and PIPA represent is much more destructive than the disease they are trying to fix. SOPA and PIPA are not the answer: they will fatally damage the free and open internet.<br />
<br />
'''Blackout Page Text'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
'''IMAGINE A WORLD WITHOUT FREE KNOWLEDGE''' <br />
<br />
For over a decade, we have spent millions of hours building the largest encyclopedia in human history. Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could fatally damage this site and your ability to access information online. For 24 hours, to raise awareness, we are blacking out Wikipedia. Learn more.<br />
<br />
Contact your representatives.<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
'''Landing Page for U.S. Readers / Congress look-up page'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
For maximum impact, please consider calling your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators. Explain that you are a constituent and that you oppose these bills and similar future legislation. If you'd like to get more informed on SOPA/PIPA, please click here.<br />
<br />
'''Things you may want to say to your Senator or Representative'''<br />
<br />
"As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose SOPA and PIPA, and any future bill that would censor free speech and damage the security of the Internet."<br />
<br />
'''Regarding censorship'''<br />
<br />
“The Internet has become an important communications tool allowing the free flow of ideas. As introduced in the House and the Senate, SOPA and PIPA would give the Justice Department and courts tremendous power to shut down entire sites. Unfortunately, these bills ignore the principles of the First Amendment that require tailored solutions in lieu of across-the-board censorship. They represent terrible precedents for the United States and for the world.”<br />
<br />
<br />
==Social media text==<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Social media tweets/info<br />
|-<br />
| X || All ||<br />
|-<br />
| Google+ || I support the January 18th Wikipedia blackout to protest SOPA and PIPA. Show your support here <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/SOPA/Blackoutpage> ||<br />
|-<br />
| Facebook || <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/SOPA/Blackoutpage> ||<br />
|-<br />
| Twitter || I support #wikipediablackout! Show your support here <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/SOPA/Blackoutpage> ||<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Learn more about SOPA/PIPA below==<br />
<br />
The Wikipedia community has decided to blackout the English version of Wikipedia for 24 hours on January 18th in protest of proposed legislation — the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives, and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate. This legistlation, if passed, will harm the free and open Internet. These bills endanger free speech both in the United States and abroad, potentially setting a frightening precedent of Internet censorship for the world. If you are in the U.S., you can click visit Wikipedia and enter your zipcode to take action.<br />
<br />
==Share your view and tell the world==<br />
<br />
{{SOPABlogShare|wrapper css=text-align:center;}}<br />
<br />
==More information==<br />
<br />
Blog post from Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director, Sue Gardner:<br />
<br />
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/01/16/wikipedias-community-calls-for-anti-sopa-blackout-january-18/<br />
<br />
Official Wikimedia Foundation press release:<br />
<br />
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/English_Wikipedia_to_go_dark<br />
<br />
Statement from the community affirming blackout:<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Action<br />
<br />
Electronic Frontier Foundation blog post on the lingering faults in SOPA/PIPA:<br />
<br />
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/how-pipa-and-sopa-violate-white-house-principles-supporting-free-speech<br />
<br />
Wikipedia's articles on SOPA and PIPA:<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_IP_Act<br />
<br />
==Questions and Answers==<br />
<br />
Talking points<br />
<br />
* This Wednesday, January 18, 2012, the English Wikipedia will be protesting SOPA/PIPA with a global Wikipedia blackout. Readers who come to Wikipedia will see a message from Wikipedia about SOPA/PIPA and urging them to contact their Representatives or Senators to act. This protest will last 24 hours - from midnight to midnight EST (05:00 UTC Wed to 05:00 UTC Thu).<br />
<br />
* This decision was made by Wikipedia’s global community. Although the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that operates Wikipedia, opposes SOPA and PIPA, the decision was made by the community and that decision is now being implemented.<br />
<br />
* SOPA/PIPA are still real threats to the free, open, and secure web. Although recent media reports have suggested that the bills are losing support, they are not dead. On January 17th, SOPA's sponsor said the bill will be discussed and pushed forward in early February. PIPA could be debated in the U.S. Senate as soon as next week. There is a need to send a strong message that bills like SOPA and PIPA should not be allowed. Legislatures must understand that they must involve the internet industry in the law-making process to ensure innovation and protection of free expression.<br />
<br />
* Although the bills have changed, they are still a real threat to the free, open, and secure web. Among other serious problems in the current draft of the bills, the requirement exists for US-based sites to actively police links to purported infringing sites. These kinds of self-policing activities are non-sustainable for large, global projects - including possibly projects like Wikipedia. The legislative language is ambiguous and overly broad, even though it touches on protected speech. Our community is incredibly vigilant and proactive in keeping Wikipedia free of links or content that may infringe copyright.<br />
<br />
====What exactly is Wikipedia doing?====<br />
<br />
On January 18, 2012, the English Wikipedia community will be protesting SOPA/PIPA with a global English Wikipedia blackout. U.S. readers who come to English Wikipedia will see a message from Wikipedia about SOPA/PIPA that tells them to contact their Representatives or Senators to act. This protest will last 24 hours - from midnight to midnight EST.<br />
<br />
====Why is this happening?====<br />
<br />
The English Wikipedia community is opposed to SOPA/PIPA. In an unprecedented decision, the Wikipedia community has chosen to blackout the English version of Wikipedia for 24 hours, in protest against proposed legislation in the United States — the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives and PROTECTIP Act (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate. If passed, this legislation will harm the free and open Internet and bring about new tools for censorship of international websites inside the United States.<br />
<br />
Wikipedia can only exist in an open and uncensored Internet. SOPA, PIPA, or any future legislation that censors free speech, damages Internet security, or inhibits innovation will hurt and undermine the Internet and the work of our community.<br />
<br />
====Isn't SOPA dead? Wasn't the bill shelved and didn't the White House declare that it won't sign anything that resembles the current bill?====<br />
<br />
No, SOPA/PIPA are not dead. On January 17th, SOPA's sponsor said the bill will be discussed in early February. There are signs PIPA may be debated on the Senate floor next week. The threat of SOPA/PIPA remains and the English Wikipedia community wants to send a strong message that such attacks on the free and open web are not welcome.<br />
<br />
====Aren’t SOPA/PIPA as they stand not even really a threat to Wikipedia? Won't the DNS provisions be removed?====<br />
<br />
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has a great post about this here. SOPA/PIPA are still alive, and they’re still a threat to the free and open web, which means they are a threat to Wikipedia. SOPA/PIPA are still alive, and they’re still a threat to the free and open web, which means they are a threat to Wikipedia. For example, in its current form, SOPA would require U.S. websites to take on the heavy burden of actively policing third-party links for infringing content. And even with the DNS provisions removed, the bill would give the U.S. government extraordinary and loosely-defined powers to take control over content and information on the free web. In its current form the bill would also require U.S. websites to take on the duty of actively policing links for infringing content. Taking one bad provision out doesn't make the bills okay – these bills are still an attack on the free and open web.<br />
<br />
====What about OPEN?====<br />
<br />
The [[:w:en:Online_Protection_and_Enforcement_of_Digital_Trade_Act |OPEN Act]] is different piece of legislation from SOPA/PIPA, which we're monitoring, but SOPA/PIPA are the focus of this protest.<br />
<br />
====Why is the Wikipedia mobile site still available?====<br />
<br />
In its blackout decision, the community has asked us to preserve emergency access options to Wikipedia. We've preserved access via the mobile site, and via a small number of backdoors to the main site.<br />
<br />
====Did the Italian Wikipedia’s protest action last year achieve its goal of stopping the Italian law in question?====<br />
<br />
It seems likely that the efforts of the Italian Wikipedia community around a similar Internet censorship bill compelled the Italian Parliament to announce that it would modify the proposed law to include only large online news sites -- meaning that any information outlets that don't fall into that category, Wikipedia among them, would be excluded from the law's reach. <br />
<br />
====Do you think U.S. users will respond to this action?====<br />
<br />
The English Wikipedia blackout is a call for action. We encourage U.S. citizens to get in touch with their Congressional representatives and voice their opposition to SOPA/PIPA. This extraordinary collaborative effort will hopefully reach a wider public audience and help bring attention and spark discussion amongst those who are familiar with the issue and those who have not heard much about it as well.<br />
<br />
====What is the significance of acting in concert with other major sites? Will this really produce a politically effective message beyond acting in isolation?====<br />
<br />
The Wikipedia community has selected January 18th because that was the date the U.S. House of Representatives had contemplated hearings and other actions around SOPA. Although those hearings are not occurring today as planned, they will likely be rescheduled to a later date to avoid the increased public opposition to the legislation that we see today. Further, it appears PIPA is moving forward in the U.S. Senate. The community feels this is the right time to act.<br />
<br />
When many organizations and projects align and protest like this, there’s clearly a big net effect. There’s no question this makes the story bigger than if one site, say Wikipedia, protested alone. Ultimately though it doesn’t look like we’re just following in the steps of others. Our community has strong views about this - and has from the beginning. It doesn’t simply look like they’re viewing activism in terms of how other sites are responding. Conversely, a lot of those other sites are very much looking to Wikipedia to see how our community is responding.<br />
<br />
====Is it still possible to access Wikipedia in any way?====<br />
The Wikipedia community, as part of their request to the Wikimedia Foundation to carry out this protest, asked us to ensure that we make English Wikipedia accessible in some way during an emergency. The English Wikipedia will be accessible on mobile devices and smart phones. Because the protest message is powered by JavaScript, it's also possible to view Wikipedia by completely disabling JavaScript in your browser.<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
====Alternates====<br />
'''JD Forrester Version'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left:5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
For over a decade, global volunteers have compiled billions of facts and contributed millions of hours to build Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
We have done this because we love to share knowledge with everyone. We have only been able to do this because the Internet is free and open.<br />
<br />
But right now, Congress is considering two bills that would hand repressive censorship tools to large commercial lobbyists.<br />
<br />
If [http://link SOPA] or [http://link the PROTECTIP Act] pass, they would destroy the freedom and openness that has made Wikipedia what it is. We have blacked-out access to Wikipedia for today to show what might happen.<br />
<br />
Please, consider whether a free and open Internet that includes Wikipedia is something you, too, care about. Use the tool below to contact your local representative or senator. Tell them that you oppose these acts. Tell them to protect the Internet.<br />
</div><br />
<br />
'''JD Forrester Version 2'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left:5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
For over a decade, global volunteers have compiled billions of facts and contributed millions of hours to build Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
We have only been able to do this because the Internet is free and open.<br />
<br />
But right now, the United States Congress is currently considering legislation that would hand repressive censorship tools to large commercial lobbyists, which could destroy the freedom and openness that has made Wikipedia what it is today.<br />
<br />
Please, consider whether a free and open Internet that includes Wikipedia is something that you, too, care about. Use the tool below to take action. Help protect the Internet.<br />
</div><br />
<br />
'''FT2 Version'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left:5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
'''The Internet needs you to protect free speech'''<br />
<br />
For over a decade, global volunteers have compiled billions of facts and contributed millions of hours to build Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
We have only been able to do this because the Internet is free and open.<br />
<br />
Free speech is in peril like never before. The United States Congress is currently considering striking out rights of free speech and other laws which made Wikipedia possible, forcing us to censor our editor discussions and the information we show you. <br />
<br />
If passed, it would destroy the freedom of Americans to write without censorship, on every website we have, in any language, everywhere.<br />
<br />
Please, consider whether a free and open Internet that includes Wikipedia is something that you, too, care about. Use the tool below to take action. Help protect the Internet.</div><br />
<br />
== Draft Things to say to elected Representatives ==<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
'''Cybersecurity'''<br />
<br />
As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose a bill that would damage the security of the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act; in the Senate, the PROTECT IP Act).&nbsp; A safe and secure Web is vital to our privacy and to commerce.&nbsp; Over a hundred established authorities on the Internet believe that the required blocking of Internet sites is badly thought out and threatens Internet security.&nbsp; I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.<br />
<br />
'''Censorship'''<br />
<br />
As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose a bill that would censor the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act; in the Senate, the PROTECT IP Act).&nbsp; The Internet has become the most important communications tool for the free flow of ideas.&nbsp; This bill would give the Justice Department power to shut down entire websites — even if the website or its information is not the subject of a complaint.&nbsp; It could provide a model for repressive regimes (who could promote it as the ‘American’ model).&nbsp; I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.<br />
<br />
'''Innovation'''<br />
<br />
As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose a bill that would chill innovation on the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act; in the Senate, the PROTECT IP Act).&nbsp; The Internet has created successful multi-billion-dollar businesses — and it has benefited thousands of small businesses by providing them a previously unreachable worldwide market.&nbsp; This bill would put unreasonable burdens on Internet Service Providers and search engines and would threaten to suffocate our Internet economy.&nbsp; I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.</div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Mobile Learn More Page'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
==Mobile page and message==<br />
<br />
'''Banner message'''<br />
<br />
'''IMAGINE A WORLD WITHOUT FREE KNOWLEDGE '''<br><br />
'''Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could cripple this site and your ability to access information online. Learn more.'''<br />
<br />
(link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Mobile_Learn_more)<br />
<br />
</div></div>Sue Gardnerhttps://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Archive:SOPA/Learn_more&diff=78026Archive:SOPA/Learn more2012-01-18T03:53:04Z<p>Sue Gardner: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
__NOTOC__<br />
<br />
''This is the text we're currently working on....''<br />
<br />
Call your elected officials. <br />
<br />
Tell them you are their constituent, and you oppose SOPA and PIPA.<br />
<br />
Why?<br />
<br />
SOPA and PIPA put the burden on website owners to police user-contributed material, and call for the blocking of entire sites, even if the site's links aren't to infringing material. Small sites won't have sufficient resources to mount a legal challenge. Without opposition, big media companies may seek to cut off funding sources for small competing foreign sites, even if big media are wrong in saying they infringe. Foreign sites will be blacklisted, which means they won't show up in major search engines. <br />
<br />
In a world in which politicians regulate the internet based on the influence of big money, Wikipedia --and many other useful informational sites-- cannot survive. SOPA/PIPA builds a framework for future restrictions and suppression. <br />
<br />
Congress says it's trying to protect the rights of copyright owners, but the "cure" that SOPA and PIPA represent is much more destructive than the disease they are trying to fix. SOPA and PIPA are not the answer: they will fatally damage the free and open internet.<br />
<br />
'''Blackout Page Text'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
'''IMAGINE A WORLD WITHOUT FREE KNOWLEDGE''' <br />
<br />
For over a decade, we have spent millions of hours building the largest encyclopedia in human history. Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could fatally damage this site and your ability to access information online. For 24 hours, to raise awareness, we are blacking out Wikipedia. Learn more.<br />
<br />
Contact your representatives.<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
'''Landing Page for U.S. Readers / Congress look-up page'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
For maximum impact, please consider calling your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators. Explain that you are a constituent and that you oppose these bills and similar future legislation. If you'd like to get more informed on SOPA/PIPA, please click here.<br />
<br />
'''Things you may want to say to your Senator or Representative'''<br />
<br />
"As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose SOPA and PIPA, and any future bill that would censor free speech and damage the security of the Internet."<br />
<br />
'''Regarding censorship'''<br />
<br />
“The Internet has become an important communications tool allowing the free flow of ideas. As introduced in the House and the Senate, SOPA and PIPA would give the Justice Department and courts tremendous power to shut down entire sites. Unfortunately, these bills ignore the principles of the First Amendment that require tailored solutions in lieu of across-the-board censorship. They represent terrible precedents for the United States and for the world.”<br />
<br />
<br />
==Social media text==<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Social media tweets/info<br />
|-<br />
| X || All ||<br />
|-<br />
| Google+ || I support the January 18th Wikipedia blackout to protest SOPA and PIPA. Show your support here <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/SOPA/Blackoutpage> ||<br />
|-<br />
| Facebook || <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/SOPA/Blackoutpage> ||<br />
|-<br />
| Twitter || I support #wikipediablackout! Show your support here <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/SOPA/Blackoutpage> ||<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Learn more about SOPA/PIPA below==<br />
<br />
The Wikipedia community has decided to blackout the English version of Wikipedia for 24 hours on January 18th in protest of proposed legislation — the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives, and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate. This legistlation, if passed, will harm the free and open Internet. These bills endanger free speech both in the United States and abroad, potentially setting a frightening precedent of Internet censorship for the world. If you are in the U.S., you can click visit Wikipedia and enter your zipcode to take action.<br />
<br />
==Share your view and tell the world==<br />
<br />
{{SOPABlogShare|wrapper css=text-align:center;}}<br />
<br />
==More information==<br />
<br />
Blog post from Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director, Sue Gardner:<br />
<br />
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/01/16/wikipedias-community-calls-for-anti-sopa-blackout-january-18/<br />
<br />
Official Wikimedia Foundation press release:<br />
<br />
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/English_Wikipedia_to_go_dark<br />
<br />
Statement from the community affirming blackout:<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Action<br />
<br />
Electronic Frontier Foundation blog post on the lingering faults in SOPA/PIPA:<br />
<br />
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/how-pipa-and-sopa-violate-white-house-principles-supporting-free-speech<br />
<br />
Wikipedia's articles on SOPA and PIPA:<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_IP_Act<br />
<br />
==Questions and Answers==<br />
<br />
Talking points<br />
<br />
* This Wednesday, January 18, 2012, the English Wikipedia will be protesting SOPA/PIPA with a global Wikipedia blackout. Readers who come to Wikipedia will see a message from Wikipedia about SOPA/PIPA and urging them to contact their Representatives or Senators to act. This protest will last 24 hours - from midnight to midnight EST (05:00 UTC Wed to 05:00 UTC Thu).<br />
<br />
* This decision was made by Wikipedia’s global community. Although the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that operates Wikipedia, opposes SOPA and PIPA, the decision was made by the community and that decision is now being implemented.<br />
<br />
* SOPA/PIPA are still real threats to the free, open, and secure web. Although recent media reports have suggested that the bills are losing support, they are not dead. On January 17th, SOPA's sponsor said the bill will be discussed and pushed forward in early February. PIPA could be debated in the U.S. Senate as soon as next week. There is a need to send a strong message that bills like SOPA and PIPA should not be allowed. Legislatures must understand that they must involve the internet industry in the law-making process to ensure innovation and protection of free expression.<br />
<br />
* Although the bills have changed, they are still a real threat to the free, open, and secure web. Among other serious problems in the current draft of the bills, the requirement exists for US-based sites to actively police links to purported infringing sites. These kinds of self-policing activities are non-sustainable for large, global projects - including possibly projects like Wikipedia. The legislative language is ambiguous and overly broad, even though it touches on protected speech. Our community is incredibly vigilant and proactive in keeping Wikipedia free of links or content that may infringe copyright.<br />
<br />
====What exactly is Wikipedia doing?====<br />
<br />
On January 18, 2012, the English Wikipedia community will be protesting SOPA/PIPA with a global English Wikipedia blackout. U.S. readers who come to English Wikipedia will see a message from Wikipedia about SOPA/PIPA that tells them to contact their Representatives or Senators to act. This protest will last 24 hours - from midnight to midnight EST.<br />
<br />
====Why is this happening?====<br />
<br />
The English Wikipedia community is opposed to SOPA/PIPA. In an unprecedented decision, the Wikipedia community has chosen to blackout the English version of Wikipedia for 24 hours, in protest against proposed legislation in the United States — the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives and PROTECTIP Act (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate. If passed, this legislation will harm the free and open Internet and bring about new tools for censorship of international websites inside the United States.<br />
<br />
Wikipedia can only exist in an open and uncensored Internet. SOPA, PIPA, or any future legislation that censors free speech, damages Internet security, or inhibits innovation will hurt and undermine the Internet and the work of our community.<br />
<br />
====Isn't SOPA dead? Wasn't the bill shelved and didn't the White House declare that it won't sign anything that resembles the current bill?====<br />
<br />
No, SOPA/PIPA are not dead. On January 17th, SOPA's sponsor said the bill will be discussed in early February. There are signs PIPA may be debated on the Senate floor next week. The threat of SOPA/PIPA remains and the English Wikipedia community wants to send a strong message that such attacks on the free and open web are not welcome.<br />
<br />
====Aren’t SOPA/PIPA as they stand not even really a threat to Wikipedia? Won't the DNS provisions be removed?====<br />
<br />
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has a great post about this here. SOPA/PIPA are still alive, and they’re still a threat to the free and open web, which means they are a threat to Wikipedia. SOPA/PIPA are still alive, and they’re still a threat to the free and open web, which means they are a threat to Wikipedia. For example, in its current form, SOPA would require U.S. websites to take on the heavy burden of actively policing third-party links for infringing content. And even with the DNS provisions removed, the bill would give the U.S. government extraordinary and loosely-defined powers to take control over content and information on the free web. In its current form the bill would also require U.S. websites to take on the duty of actively policing links for infringing content. Taking one bad provision out doesn't make the bills okay – these bills are still an attack on the free and open web.<br />
<br />
====What about OPEN?====<br />
<br />
The [[:w:en:Online_Protection_and_Enforcement_of_Digital_Trade_Act |OPEN Act]] is different piece of legislation from SOPA/PIPA, which we're monitoring, but SOPA/PIPA are the focus of this protest.<br />
<br />
====Why is the Wikipedia mobile site still available?====<br />
<br />
In its blackout decision, the community has asked us to preserve emergency access options to Wikipedia. We've preserved access via the mobile site, and via a small number of backdoors to the main site.<br />
<br />
====Did the Italian Wikipedia’s protest action last year achieve its goal of stopping the Italian law in question?====<br />
<br />
It seems likely that the efforts of the Italian Wikipedia community around a similar Internet censorship bill compelled the Italian Parliament to announce that it would modify the proposed law to include only large online news sites -- meaning that any information outlets that don't fall into that category, Wikipedia among them, would be excluded from the law's reach. <br />
<br />
====Do you think U.S. users will respond to this action?====<br />
<br />
The English Wikipedia blackout is a call for action. We encourage U.S. citizens to get in touch with their Congressional representatives and voice their opposition to SOPA/PIPA. This extraordinary collaborative effort will hopefully reach a wider public audience and help bring attention and spark discussion amongst those who are familiar with the issue and those who have not heard much about it as well.<br />
<br />
====What is the significance of acting in concert with other major sites? Will this really produce a politically effective message beyond acting in isolation?====<br />
<br />
The Wikipedia community has selected January 18th because that was the date the U.S. House of Representatives had contemplated hearings and other actions around SOPA. Although those hearings are not occurring today as planned, they will likely be rescheduled to a later date to avoid the increased public opposition to the legislation that we see today. Further, it appears PIPA is moving forward in the U.S. Senate. The community feels this is the right time to act.<br />
<br />
When many organizations and projects align and protest like this, there’s clearly a big net effect. There’s no question this makes the story bigger than if one site, say Wikipedia, protested alone. Ultimately though it doesn’t look like we’re just following in the steps of others. Our community has strong views about this - and has from the beginning. It doesn’t simply look like they’re viewing activism in terms of how other sites are responding. Conversely, a lot of those other sites are very much looking to Wikipedia to see how our community is responding.<br />
<br />
====Is it still possible to access Wikipedia in any way?====<br />
The Wikipedia community, as part of their request to the Wikimedia Foundation to carry out this protest, asked us to ensure that we make English Wikipedia accessible in some way during an emergency. The English Wikipedia will be accessible on mobile devices and smart phones. Because the protest message is powered by JavaScript, it's also possible to view Wikipedia by completely disabling JavaScript in your browser.<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
====Alternates====<br />
'''JD Forrester Version'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left:5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
For over a decade, global volunteers have compiled billions of facts and contributed millions of hours to build Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
We have done this because we love to share knowledge with everyone. We have only been able to do this because the Internet is free and open.<br />
<br />
But right now, Congress is considering two bills that would hand repressive censorship tools to large commercial lobbyists.<br />
<br />
If [http://link SOPA] or [http://link the PROTECTIP Act] pass, they would destroy the freedom and openness that has made Wikipedia what it is. We have blacked-out access to Wikipedia for today to show what might happen.<br />
<br />
Please, consider whether a free and open Internet that includes Wikipedia is something you, too, care about. Use the tool below to contact your local representative or senator. Tell them that you oppose these acts. Tell them to protect the Internet.<br />
</div><br />
<br />
'''JD Forrester Version 2'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left:5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
For over a decade, global volunteers have compiled billions of facts and contributed millions of hours to build Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
We have only been able to do this because the Internet is free and open.<br />
<br />
But right now, the United States Congress is currently considering legislation that would hand repressive censorship tools to large commercial lobbyists, which could destroy the freedom and openness that has made Wikipedia what it is today.<br />
<br />
Please, consider whether a free and open Internet that includes Wikipedia is something that you, too, care about. Use the tool below to take action. Help protect the Internet.<br />
</div><br />
<br />
'''FT2 Version'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left:5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
'''The Internet needs you to protect free speech'''<br />
<br />
For over a decade, global volunteers have compiled billions of facts and contributed millions of hours to build Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
We have only been able to do this because the Internet is free and open.<br />
<br />
Free speech is in peril like never before. The United States Congress is currently considering striking out rights of free speech and other laws which made Wikipedia possible, forcing us to censor our editor discussions and the information we show you. <br />
<br />
If passed, it would destroy the freedom of Americans to write without censorship, on every website we have, in any language, everywhere.<br />
<br />
Please, consider whether a free and open Internet that includes Wikipedia is something that you, too, care about. Use the tool below to take action. Help protect the Internet.</div><br />
<br />
== Draft Things to say to elected Representatives ==<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
'''Cybersecurity'''<br />
<br />
As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose a bill that would damage the security of the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act; in the Senate, the PROTECT IP Act).&nbsp; A safe and secure Web is vital to our privacy and to commerce.&nbsp; Over a hundred established authorities on the Internet believe that the required blocking of Internet sites is badly thought out and threatens Internet security.&nbsp; I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.<br />
<br />
'''Censorship'''<br />
<br />
As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose a bill that would censor the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act; in the Senate, the PROTECT IP Act).&nbsp; The Internet has become the most important communications tool for the free flow of ideas.&nbsp; This bill would give the Justice Department power to shut down entire websites — even if the website or its information is not the subject of a complaint.&nbsp; It could provide a model for repressive regimes (who could promote it as the ‘American’ model).&nbsp; I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.<br />
<br />
'''Innovation'''<br />
<br />
As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose a bill that would chill innovation on the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act; in the Senate, the PROTECT IP Act).&nbsp; The Internet has created successful multi-billion-dollar businesses — and it has benefited thousands of small businesses by providing them a previously unreachable worldwide market.&nbsp; This bill would put unreasonable burdens on Internet Service Providers and search engines and would threaten to suffocate our Internet economy.&nbsp; I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.</div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Mobile Learn More Page'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
==Mobile page and message==<br />
<br />
'''Banner message'''<br />
<br />
'''IMAGINE A WORLD WITHOUT FREE KNOWLEDGE '''<br><br />
'''Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could cripple this site and your ability to access information online. Learn more.'''<br />
<br />
(link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Mobile_Learn_more)<br />
<br />
</div></div>Sue Gardnerhttps://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Archive:SOPA/Learn_more&diff=78019Archive:SOPA/Learn more2012-01-18T03:42:20Z<p>Sue Gardner: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
__NOTOC__<br />
<br />
''This is the text we're currently working on....''<br />
<br />
Call your elected officials. <br />
<br />
Tell them you are their constituent, and you oppose SOPA and PIPA.<br />
<br />
Why?<br />
<br />
SOPA and PIPA would cripple the free and open internet. They put the burden on website owners to police user-contributed material, and call for the blocking of entire sites, even if the site's links aren't to infringing material. Small sites won't have sufficient resources to mount a legal challenge. Without opposition, big media companies may seek to cut off funding sources for small competing foreign sites, even if big media are wrong in saying they infringe. Foreign sites will be blacklisted, which means they won't show up in major search engines. <br />
<br />
In a world in which politicians regulate the internet based on the influence of big money, Wikipedia --and many other useful informational sites-- cannot survive. SOPA/PIPA builds a framework for future restrictions and suppression. <br />
<br />
Congress says it's trying to protect the rights of copyright owners, but the "cure" that SOPA and PIPA represent is much more destructive than the disease they are trying to fix. SOPA and PIPA are not the answer: they will cripple the free and open internet.<br />
<br />
'''Blackout Page Text'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
'''IMAGINE A WORLD WITHOUT FREE KNOWLEDGE''' <br />
<br />
For over a decade, we have spent millions of hours building the largest encyclopedia in human history. Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could fatally damage this site and your ability to access information online. For 24 hours, to raise awareness, we are blacking out Wikipedia. Learn more.<br />
<br />
Contact your representatives.<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
'''Landing Page for U.S. Readers / Congress look-up page'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
For maximum impact, please consider calling your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators. Explain that you are a constituent and that you oppose these bills and similar future legislation. If you'd like to get more informed on SOPA/PIPA, please click here.<br />
<br />
'''Things you may want to say to your Senator or Representative'''<br />
<br />
"As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose SOPA and PIPA, and any future bill that would censor free speech and damage the security of the Internet."<br />
<br />
'''Regarding censorship'''<br />
<br />
“The Internet has become an important communications tool allowing the free flow of ideas. As introduced in the House and the Senate, SOPA and PIPA would give the Justice Department and courts tremendous power to shut down entire sites. Unfortunately, these bills ignore the principles of the First Amendment that require tailored solutions in lieu of across-the-board censorship. They represent terrible precedents for the United States and for the world.”<br />
<br />
<br />
==Social media text==<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Social media tweets/info<br />
|-<br />
| X || All ||<br />
|-<br />
| Google+ || I support the January 18th Wikipedia blackout to protest SOPA and PIPA. Show your support here <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/SOPA/Blackoutpage> ||<br />
|-<br />
| Facebook || <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/SOPA/Blackoutpage> ||<br />
|-<br />
| Twitter || I support #wikipediablackout! Show your support here <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/SOPA/Blackoutpage> ||<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Learn more about SOPA/PIPA below==<br />
<br />
The Wikipedia community has decided to blackout the English version of Wikipedia for 24 hours on January 18th in protest of proposed legislation — the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives, and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate. This legistlation, if passed, will harm the free and open Internet. These bills endanger free speech both in the United States and abroad, potentially setting a frightening precedent of Internet censorship for the world. If you are in the U.S., you can click visit Wikipedia and enter your zipcode to take action.<br />
<br />
==Share your view and tell the world==<br />
<br />
{{SOPABlogShare|wrapper css=text-align:center;}}<br />
<br />
==More information==<br />
<br />
Blog post from Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director, Sue Gardner:<br />
<br />
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/01/16/wikipedias-community-calls-for-anti-sopa-blackout-january-18/<br />
<br />
Official Wikimedia Foundation press release:<br />
<br />
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/English_Wikipedia_to_go_dark<br />
<br />
Statement from the community affirming blackout:<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Action<br />
<br />
Electronic Frontier Foundation blog post on the lingering faults in SOPA/PIPA:<br />
<br />
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/how-pipa-and-sopa-violate-white-house-principles-supporting-free-speech<br />
<br />
Wikipedia's articles on SOPA and PIPA:<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_IP_Act<br />
<br />
==Questions and Answers==<br />
<br />
Talking points<br />
<br />
* This Wednesday, January 18, 2012, the English Wikipedia will be protesting SOPA/PIPA with a global Wikipedia blackout. Readers who come to Wikipedia will see a message from Wikipedia about SOPA/PIPA and urging them to contact their Representatives or Senators to act. This protest will last 24 hours - from midnight to midnight EST (05:00 UTC Wed to 05:00 UTC Thu).<br />
<br />
* This decision was made by Wikipedia’s global community. Although the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that operates Wikipedia, opposes SOPA and PIPA, the decision was made by the community and that decision is now being implemented.<br />
<br />
* SOPA/PIPA are still real threats to the free, open, and secure web. Although recent media reports have suggested that the bills are losing support, they are not dead. On January 17th, SOPA's sponsor said the bill will be discussed and pushed forward in early February. PIPA could be debated in the U.S. Senate as soon as next week. There is a need to send a strong message that bills like SOPA and PIPA should not be allowed. Legislatures must understand that they must involve the internet industry in the law-making process to ensure innovation and protection of free expression.<br />
<br />
* Although the bills have changed, they are still a real threat to the free, open, and secure web. Among other serious problems in the current draft of the bills, the requirement exists for US-based sites to actively police links to purported infringing sites. These kinds of self-policing activities are non-sustainable for large, global projects - including possibly projects like Wikipedia. The legislative language is ambiguous and overly broad, even though it touches on protected speech. Our community is incredibly vigilant and proactive in keeping Wikipedia free of links or content that may infringe copyright.<br />
<br />
====What exactly is Wikipedia doing?====<br />
<br />
On January 18, 2012, the English Wikipedia community will be protesting SOPA/PIPA with a global English Wikipedia blackout. U.S. readers who come to English Wikipedia will see a message from Wikipedia about SOPA/PIPA that tells them to contact their Representatives or Senators to act. This protest will last 24 hours - from midnight to midnight EST.<br />
<br />
====Why is this happening?====<br />
<br />
The English Wikipedia community is opposed to SOPA/PIPA. In an unprecedented decision, the Wikipedia community has chosen to blackout the English version of Wikipedia for 24 hours, in protest against proposed legislation in the United States — the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives and PROTECTIP Act (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate. If passed, this legislation will harm the free and open Internet and bring about new tools for censorship of international websites inside the United States.<br />
<br />
Wikipedia can only exist in an open and uncensored Internet. SOPA, PIPA, or any future legislation that censors free speech, damages Internet security, or inhibits innovation will hurt and undermine the Internet and the work of our community.<br />
<br />
====Isn't SOPA dead? Wasn't the bill shelved and didn't the White House declare that it won't sign anything that resembles the current bill?====<br />
<br />
No, both SOPA/PIPA are very much alive. On January 17th, SOPA's sponsor said the bill will be discussed and pushed forward in early February. As long as we see the threat of SOPA/PIPA on the horizon, we're going to carry out this protest and send a message that any proposed legislation of this kind that attacks the free and open web isn't welcome.<br />
<br />
====Aren’t SOPA/PIPA as they stand not even really a threat to Wikipedia? Won't the DNS provisions be removed?====<br />
<br />
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has a great post about this [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/how-pipa-and-sopa-violate-white-house-principles-supporting-free-speech here.]<br />
SOPA/PIPA are still alive, and they’re still a threat to the free and open web. Even with the DNS provisions removed, the bill would give the U.S. government extraordinary and loosely-defined powers to take control over content and information on the free web. In its current form the bill would also require U.S. websites to take on the duty of actively policing links for infringing content. There's more to it than that - taking one provision out doesn't make the bill okay - it's still terrible for the free and open web.<br />
<br />
====What about OPEN?====<br />
<br />
The [[:w:en:Online_Protection_and_Enforcement_of_Digital_Trade_Act |OPEN Act]] is another piece of legislation that is different from SOPA, and we're monitoring it, but SOPA/PIPA are the current focus. <br />
<br />
====Why is the Wikipedia mobile site still available?====<br />
<br />
In its blackout decision, the community has asked us to preserve emergency access options to Wikipedia. We've preserved access via the mobile site, and via a small number of backdoors to the main site.<br />
<br />
====Did the Italian Wikipedia’s protest action last year achieve its goal of stopping the Italian law in question?====<br />
<br />
It seems likely that the efforts of the Italian Wikipedia community around a similar Internet censorship bill compelled the Italian Parliament to announce that it would modify the proposed law to include only large online news sites -- meaning that any information outlets that don't fall into that category, Wikipedia among them, would be excluded from the law's reach. <br />
<br />
====Do you think U.S. users will respond to this action?====<br />
<br />
The focus of the message on the Wikipedia blackout page is likely to be action-oriented, with strong encouragement that U.S. users reading the message get in touch with their representatives and voice their displeasure over SOPA and PIPA. This effort is newsworthy to the U.S. and global press, and it’s very significant because it will expand the story beyond tech and media insiders to a wider public audience. Many up to this point have not heard much about the issue.<br />
<br />
====What is the significance of acting in concert with other major sites? Will this really produce a politically effective message beyond acting in isolation?====<br />
<br />
The Wikipedia community has selected January 18th because that was the date the U.S. House of Representatives had contemplated hearings and other actions around SOPA. Although those hearings are not occurring today as planned, they will likely be rescheduled to a later date to avoid the increased public opposition to the legislation that we see today. Further, it appears PIPA is moving forward in the U.S. Senate. The community feels this is the right time to act.<br />
<br />
When many organizations and projects align and protest like this, there’s clearly a big net effect. There’s no question this makes the story bigger than if one site, say Wikipedia, protested alone. Ultimately though it doesn’t look like we’re just following in the steps of others. Our community has strong views about this - and has from the beginning. It doesn’t simply look like they’re viewing activism in terms of how other sites are responding. Conversely, a lot of those other sites are very much looking to Wikipedia to see how our community is responding.<br />
<br />
====Is it still possible to access Wikipedia in any way?====<br />
The Wikipedia community, as part of their request to the Wikimedia Foundation to carry out this protest, asked us to ensure that we make English Wikipedia accessible in some way during an emergency. The English Wikipedia will be accessible on mobile devices and smart phones. Because the protest message is powered by JavaScript, it's also possible to view Wikipedia by completely disabling JavaScript in your browser.<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
====Alternates====<br />
'''JD Forrester Version'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left:5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
For over a decade, global volunteers have compiled billions of facts and contributed millions of hours to build Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
We have done this because we love to share knowledge with everyone. We have only been able to do this because the Internet is free and open.<br />
<br />
But right now, Congress is considering two bills that would hand repressive censorship tools to large commercial lobbyists.<br />
<br />
If [http://link SOPA] or [http://link the PROTECTIP Act] pass, they would destroy the freedom and openness that has made Wikipedia what it is. We have blacked-out access to Wikipedia for today to show what might happen.<br />
<br />
Please, consider whether a free and open Internet that includes Wikipedia is something you, too, care about. Use the tool below to contact your local representative or senator. Tell them that you oppose these acts. Tell them to protect the Internet.<br />
</div><br />
<br />
'''JD Forrester Version 2'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left:5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
For over a decade, global volunteers have compiled billions of facts and contributed millions of hours to build Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
We have only been able to do this because the Internet is free and open.<br />
<br />
But right now, the United States Congress is currently considering legislation that would hand repressive censorship tools to large commercial lobbyists, which could destroy the freedom and openness that has made Wikipedia what it is today.<br />
<br />
Please, consider whether a free and open Internet that includes Wikipedia is something that you, too, care about. Use the tool below to take action. Help protect the Internet.<br />
</div><br />
<br />
'''FT2 Version'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left:5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
'''The Internet needs you to protect free speech'''<br />
<br />
For over a decade, global volunteers have compiled billions of facts and contributed millions of hours to build Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
We have only been able to do this because the Internet is free and open.<br />
<br />
Free speech is in peril like never before. The United States Congress is currently considering striking out rights of free speech and other laws which made Wikipedia possible, forcing us to censor our editor discussions and the information we show you. <br />
<br />
If passed, it would destroy the freedom of Americans to write without censorship, on every website we have, in any language, everywhere.<br />
<br />
Please, consider whether a free and open Internet that includes Wikipedia is something that you, too, care about. Use the tool below to take action. Help protect the Internet.</div><br />
<br />
== Draft Things to say to elected Representatives ==<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
'''Cybersecurity'''<br />
<br />
As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose a bill that would damage the security of the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act; in the Senate, the PROTECT IP Act).&nbsp; A safe and secure Web is vital to our privacy and to commerce.&nbsp; Over a hundred established authorities on the Internet believe that the required blocking of Internet sites is badly thought out and threatens Internet security.&nbsp; I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.<br />
<br />
'''Censorship'''<br />
<br />
As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose a bill that would censor the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act; in the Senate, the PROTECT IP Act).&nbsp; The Internet has become the most important communications tool for the free flow of ideas.&nbsp; This bill would give the Justice Department power to shut down entire websites — even if the website or its information is not the subject of a complaint.&nbsp; It could provide a model for repressive regimes (who could promote it as the ‘American’ model).&nbsp; I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.<br />
<br />
'''Innovation'''<br />
<br />
As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose a bill that would chill innovation on the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act; in the Senate, the PROTECT IP Act).&nbsp; The Internet has created successful multi-billion-dollar businesses — and it has benefited thousands of small businesses by providing them a previously unreachable worldwide market.&nbsp; This bill would put unreasonable burdens on Internet Service Providers and search engines and would threaten to suffocate our Internet economy.&nbsp; I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.</div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Mobile Learn More Page'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
==Mobile page and message==<br />
<br />
'''Banner message'''<br />
<br />
'''IMAGINE A WORLD WITHOUT FREE KNOWLEDGE '''<br><br />
'''Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could cripple this site and your ability to access information online. Learn more.'''<br />
<br />
(link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Mobile_Learn_more)<br />
<br />
</div></div>Sue Gardnerhttps://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Archive:SOPA/Learn_more&diff=78018Archive:SOPA/Learn more2012-01-18T03:41:37Z<p>Sue Gardner: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
__NOTOC__<br />
<br />
''This is the text we're currently working on....''<br />
<br />
Call your elected officials. <br />
<br />
Tell them you are their constituent, and you oppose SOPA and PIPA.<br />
<br />
Why?<br />
<br />
SOPA and PIPA would cripple the free and open internet. They put the burden on website owners to police user-contributed material, and call for the blocking of entire sites, even if the site's links aren't to infringing material. Small sites won't have sufficient resources to mount a legal challenge. Without opposition, big media companies may seek to cut off funding sources for small competing foreign sites, even if big media are wrong in saying they infringe. Foreign sites will be blacklisted, which means they won't show up in major search engines. <br />
<br />
In a world in which politicians regulate the internet based on the influence of big money, Wikipedia --and many other useful informational sites-- cannot survive. SOPA/PIPA builds a framework for future restrictions and suppression. <br />
<br />
Congress says it's trying to protect the rights of copyright owners, but the "cure" that SOPA and PIPA represent is much more destructive than the disease they are trying to fix. SOPA and PIPA are not the answer: they will cripple the free and open internet.<br />
<br />
'''Blackout Page Text'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
'''IMAGINE A WORLD WITHOUT FREE KNOWLEDGE''' <br />
<br />
For over a decade, we have spent millions of hours building the largest encyclopedia in human history. Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could fatally damage this site and your ability to access information online. Today, for 24 hours, to raise awareness, we black out Wikipedia. Learn more.<br />
<br />
Contact your representatives.<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
'''Landing Page for U.S. Readers / Congress look-up page'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
For maximum impact, please consider calling your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators. Explain that you are a constituent and that you oppose these bills and similar future legislation. If you'd like to get more informed on SOPA/PIPA, please click here.<br />
<br />
'''Things you may want to say to your Senator or Representative'''<br />
<br />
"As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose SOPA and PIPA, and any future bill that would censor free speech and damage the security of the Internet."<br />
<br />
'''Regarding censorship'''<br />
<br />
“The Internet has become an important communications tool allowing the free flow of ideas. As introduced in the House and the Senate, SOPA and PIPA would give the Justice Department and courts tremendous power to shut down entire sites. Unfortunately, these bills ignore the principles of the First Amendment that require tailored solutions in lieu of across-the-board censorship. They represent terrible precedents for the United States and for the world.”<br />
<br />
<br />
==Social media text==<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Social media tweets/info<br />
|-<br />
| X || All ||<br />
|-<br />
| Google+ || I support the January 18th Wikipedia blackout to protest SOPA and PIPA. Show your support here <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/SOPA/Blackoutpage> ||<br />
|-<br />
| Facebook || <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/SOPA/Blackoutpage> ||<br />
|-<br />
| Twitter || I support #wikipediablackout! Show your support here <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/SOPA/Blackoutpage> ||<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Learn more about SOPA/PIPA below==<br />
<br />
The Wikipedia community has decided to blackout the English version of Wikipedia for 24 hours on January 18th in protest of proposed legislation — the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives, and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate. This legistlation, if passed, will harm the free and open Internet. These bills endanger free speech both in the United States and abroad, potentially setting a frightening precedent of Internet censorship for the world. If you are in the U.S., you can click visit Wikipedia and enter your zipcode to take action.<br />
<br />
==Share your view and tell the world==<br />
<br />
{{SOPABlogShare|wrapper css=text-align:center;}}<br />
<br />
==More information==<br />
<br />
Blog post from Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director, Sue Gardner:<br />
<br />
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/01/16/wikipedias-community-calls-for-anti-sopa-blackout-january-18/<br />
<br />
Official Wikimedia Foundation press release:<br />
<br />
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/English_Wikipedia_to_go_dark<br />
<br />
Statement from the community affirming blackout:<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Action<br />
<br />
Electronic Frontier Foundation blog post on the lingering faults in SOPA/PIPA:<br />
<br />
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/how-pipa-and-sopa-violate-white-house-principles-supporting-free-speech<br />
<br />
Wikipedia's articles on SOPA and PIPA:<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_IP_Act<br />
<br />
==Questions and Answers==<br />
<br />
Talking points<br />
<br />
* This Wednesday, January 18, 2012, the English Wikipedia will be protesting SOPA/PIPA with a global Wikipedia blackout. Readers who come to Wikipedia will see a message from Wikipedia about SOPA/PIPA and urging them to contact their Representatives or Senators to act. This protest will last 24 hours - from midnight to midnight EST (05:00 UTC Wed to 05:00 UTC Thu).<br />
<br />
* This decision was made by Wikipedia’s global community. Although the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that operates Wikipedia, opposes SOPA and PIPA, the decision was made by the community and that decision is now being implemented.<br />
<br />
* SOPA/PIPA are still real threats to the free, open, and secure web. Although recent media reports have suggested that the bills are losing support, they are not dead. On January 17th, SOPA's sponsor said the bill will be discussed and pushed forward in early February. PIPA could be debated in the U.S. Senate as soon as next week. There is a need to send a strong message that bills like SOPA and PIPA should not be allowed. Legislatures must understand that they must involve the internet industry in the law-making process to ensure innovation and protection of free expression.<br />
<br />
* Although the bills have changed, they are still a real threat to the free, open, and secure web. Among other serious problems in the current draft of the bills, the requirement exists for US-based sites to actively police links to purported infringing sites. These kinds of self-policing activities are non-sustainable for large, global projects - including possibly projects like Wikipedia. The legislative language is ambiguous and overly broad, even though it touches on protected speech. Our community is incredibly vigilant and proactive in keeping Wikipedia free of links or content that may infringe copyright.<br />
<br />
====What exactly is Wikipedia doing?====<br />
<br />
On January 18, 2012, the English Wikipedia community will be protesting SOPA/PIPA with a global English Wikipedia blackout. U.S. readers who come to English Wikipedia will see a message from Wikipedia about SOPA/PIPA that tells them to contact their Representatives or Senators to act. This protest will last 24 hours - from midnight to midnight EST.<br />
<br />
====Why is this happening?====<br />
<br />
The English Wikipedia community is opposed to SOPA/PIPA. In an unprecedented decision, the Wikipedia community has chosen to blackout the English version of Wikipedia for 24 hours, in protest against proposed legislation in the United States — the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives and PROTECTIP Act (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate. If passed, this legislation will harm the free and open Internet and bring about new tools for censorship of international websites inside the United States.<br />
<br />
Wikipedia can only exist in an open and uncensored Internet. SOPA, PIPA, or any future legislation that censors free speech, damages Internet security, or inhibits innovation will hurt and undermine the Internet and the work of our community.<br />
<br />
====Isn't SOPA dead? Wasn't the bill shelved and didn't the White House declare that it won't sign anything that resembles the current bill?====<br />
<br />
No, both SOPA/PIPA are very much alive. On January 17th, SOPA's sponsor said the bill will be discussed and pushed forward in early February. As long as we see the threat of SOPA/PIPA on the horizon, we're going to carry out this protest and send a message that any proposed legislation of this kind that attacks the free and open web isn't welcome.<br />
<br />
====Aren’t SOPA/PIPA as they stand not even really a threat to Wikipedia? Won't the DNS provisions be removed?====<br />
<br />
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has a great post about this [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/how-pipa-and-sopa-violate-white-house-principles-supporting-free-speech here.]<br />
SOPA/PIPA are still alive, and they’re still a threat to the free and open web. Even with the DNS provisions removed, the bill would give the U.S. government extraordinary and loosely-defined powers to take control over content and information on the free web. In its current form the bill would also require U.S. websites to take on the duty of actively policing links for infringing content. There's more to it than that - taking one provision out doesn't make the bill okay - it's still terrible for the free and open web.<br />
<br />
====What about OPEN?====<br />
<br />
The [[:w:en:Online_Protection_and_Enforcement_of_Digital_Trade_Act |OPEN Act]] is another piece of legislation that is different from SOPA, and we're monitoring it, but SOPA/PIPA are the current focus. <br />
<br />
====Why is the Wikipedia mobile site still available?====<br />
<br />
In its blackout decision, the community has asked us to preserve emergency access options to Wikipedia. We've preserved access via the mobile site, and via a small number of backdoors to the main site.<br />
<br />
====Did the Italian Wikipedia’s protest action last year achieve its goal of stopping the Italian law in question?====<br />
<br />
It seems likely that the efforts of the Italian Wikipedia community around a similar Internet censorship bill compelled the Italian Parliament to announce that it would modify the proposed law to include only large online news sites -- meaning that any information outlets that don't fall into that category, Wikipedia among them, would be excluded from the law's reach. <br />
<br />
====Do you think U.S. users will respond to this action?====<br />
<br />
The focus of the message on the Wikipedia blackout page is likely to be action-oriented, with strong encouragement that U.S. users reading the message get in touch with their representatives and voice their displeasure over SOPA and PIPA. This effort is newsworthy to the U.S. and global press, and it’s very significant because it will expand the story beyond tech and media insiders to a wider public audience. Many up to this point have not heard much about the issue.<br />
<br />
====What is the significance of acting in concert with other major sites? Will this really produce a politically effective message beyond acting in isolation?====<br />
<br />
The Wikipedia community has selected January 18th because that was the date the U.S. House of Representatives had contemplated hearings and other actions around SOPA. Although those hearings are not occurring today as planned, they will likely be rescheduled to a later date to avoid the increased public opposition to the legislation that we see today. Further, it appears PIPA is moving forward in the U.S. Senate. The community feels this is the right time to act.<br />
<br />
When many organizations and projects align and protest like this, there’s clearly a big net effect. There’s no question this makes the story bigger than if one site, say Wikipedia, protested alone. Ultimately though it doesn’t look like we’re just following in the steps of others. Our community has strong views about this - and has from the beginning. It doesn’t simply look like they’re viewing activism in terms of how other sites are responding. Conversely, a lot of those other sites are very much looking to Wikipedia to see how our community is responding.<br />
<br />
====Is it still possible to access Wikipedia in any way?====<br />
The Wikipedia community, as part of their request to the Wikimedia Foundation to carry out this protest, asked us to ensure that we make English Wikipedia accessible in some way during an emergency. The English Wikipedia will be accessible on mobile devices and smart phones. Because the protest message is powered by JavaScript, it's also possible to view Wikipedia by completely disabling JavaScript in your browser.<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
====Alternates====<br />
'''JD Forrester Version'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left:5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
For over a decade, global volunteers have compiled billions of facts and contributed millions of hours to build Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
We have done this because we love to share knowledge with everyone. We have only been able to do this because the Internet is free and open.<br />
<br />
But right now, Congress is considering two bills that would hand repressive censorship tools to large commercial lobbyists.<br />
<br />
If [http://link SOPA] or [http://link the PROTECTIP Act] pass, they would destroy the freedom and openness that has made Wikipedia what it is. We have blacked-out access to Wikipedia for today to show what might happen.<br />
<br />
Please, consider whether a free and open Internet that includes Wikipedia is something you, too, care about. Use the tool below to contact your local representative or senator. Tell them that you oppose these acts. Tell them to protect the Internet.<br />
</div><br />
<br />
'''JD Forrester Version 2'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left:5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
For over a decade, global volunteers have compiled billions of facts and contributed millions of hours to build Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
We have only been able to do this because the Internet is free and open.<br />
<br />
But right now, the United States Congress is currently considering legislation that would hand repressive censorship tools to large commercial lobbyists, which could destroy the freedom and openness that has made Wikipedia what it is today.<br />
<br />
Please, consider whether a free and open Internet that includes Wikipedia is something that you, too, care about. Use the tool below to take action. Help protect the Internet.<br />
</div><br />
<br />
'''FT2 Version'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left:5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
'''The Internet needs you to protect free speech'''<br />
<br />
For over a decade, global volunteers have compiled billions of facts and contributed millions of hours to build Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
We have only been able to do this because the Internet is free and open.<br />
<br />
Free speech is in peril like never before. The United States Congress is currently considering striking out rights of free speech and other laws which made Wikipedia possible, forcing us to censor our editor discussions and the information we show you. <br />
<br />
If passed, it would destroy the freedom of Americans to write without censorship, on every website we have, in any language, everywhere.<br />
<br />
Please, consider whether a free and open Internet that includes Wikipedia is something that you, too, care about. Use the tool below to take action. Help protect the Internet.</div><br />
<br />
== Draft Things to say to elected Representatives ==<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
'''Cybersecurity'''<br />
<br />
As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose a bill that would damage the security of the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act; in the Senate, the PROTECT IP Act).&nbsp; A safe and secure Web is vital to our privacy and to commerce.&nbsp; Over a hundred established authorities on the Internet believe that the required blocking of Internet sites is badly thought out and threatens Internet security.&nbsp; I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.<br />
<br />
'''Censorship'''<br />
<br />
As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose a bill that would censor the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act; in the Senate, the PROTECT IP Act).&nbsp; The Internet has become the most important communications tool for the free flow of ideas.&nbsp; This bill would give the Justice Department power to shut down entire websites — even if the website or its information is not the subject of a complaint.&nbsp; It could provide a model for repressive regimes (who could promote it as the ‘American’ model).&nbsp; I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.<br />
<br />
'''Innovation'''<br />
<br />
As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose a bill that would chill innovation on the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act; in the Senate, the PROTECT IP Act).&nbsp; The Internet has created successful multi-billion-dollar businesses — and it has benefited thousands of small businesses by providing them a previously unreachable worldwide market.&nbsp; This bill would put unreasonable burdens on Internet Service Providers and search engines and would threaten to suffocate our Internet economy.&nbsp; I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.</div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Mobile Learn More Page'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
==Mobile page and message==<br />
<br />
'''Banner message'''<br />
<br />
'''IMAGINE A WORLD WITHOUT FREE KNOWLEDGE '''<br><br />
'''Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could cripple this site and your ability to access information online. Learn more.'''<br />
<br />
(link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Mobile_Learn_more)<br />
<br />
</div></div>Sue Gardnerhttps://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Archive:SOPA/Learn_more&diff=78017Archive:SOPA/Learn more2012-01-18T03:39:42Z<p>Sue Gardner: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
__NOTOC__<br />
<br />
''This is the text we're currently working on....''<br />
<br />
Call your elected officials. <br />
<br />
Tell them you are their constituent, and you oppose SOPA and PIPA.<br />
<br />
Why?<br />
<br />
SOPA and PIPA would cripple the free and open internet. They put the burden on website owners to police user-contributed material, and call for the blocking of entire sites, even if the site's links aren't to infringing material. Small sites won't have sufficient resources to mount a legal challenge. Without opposition, big media companies may seek to cut off funding sources for small competing foreign sites, even if big media are wrong in saying they infringe. Foreign sites will be blacklisted, which means they won't show up in major search engines. <br />
<br />
In a world in which politicians regulate the internet based on the influence of big money, Wikipedia --and many other useful informational sites-- cannot survive. SOPA/PIPA builds a framework for future restrictions and suppression. <br />
<br />
Congress says it's trying to protect the rights of copyright owners, but the "cure" that SOPA and PIPA represent is much more destructive than the disease they are trying to fix. SOPA and PIPA are not the answer: they will cripple the free and open internet.<br />
<br />
'''Blackout Page Text'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
'''IMAGINE A WORLD WITHOUT FREE KNOWLEDGE''' <br />
<br />
For over a decade, we have spent millions of hours building the largest encyclopedia in human history. Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could fatally damage this site and your ability to access information online. Today, for 24 hours, we black out Wikipedia. To raise awareness, and ask you to join our protest. Learn more.<br />
<br />
Contact your representatives.<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
'''Landing Page for U.S. Readers / Congress look-up page'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
For maximum impact, please consider calling your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators. Explain that you are a constituent and that you oppose these bills and similar future legislation. If you'd like to get more informed on SOPA/PIPA, please click here.<br />
<br />
'''Things you may want to say to your Senator or Representative'''<br />
<br />
"As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose SOPA and PIPA, and any future bill that would censor free speech and damage the security of the Internet."<br />
<br />
'''Regarding censorship'''<br />
<br />
“The Internet has become an important communications tool allowing the free flow of ideas. As introduced in the House and the Senate, SOPA and PIPA would give the Justice Department and courts tremendous power to shut down entire sites. Unfortunately, these bills ignore the principles of the First Amendment that require tailored solutions in lieu of across-the-board censorship. They represent terrible precedents for the United States and for the world.”<br />
<br />
<br />
==Social media text==<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Social media tweets/info<br />
|-<br />
| X || All ||<br />
|-<br />
| Google+ || I support the January 18th Wikipedia blackout to protest SOPA and PIPA. Show your support here <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/SOPA/Blackoutpage> ||<br />
|-<br />
| Facebook || <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/SOPA/Blackoutpage> ||<br />
|-<br />
| Twitter || I support #wikipediablackout! Show your support here <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/SOPA/Blackoutpage> ||<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Learn more about SOPA/PIPA below==<br />
<br />
The Wikipedia community has decided to blackout the English version of Wikipedia for 24 hours on January 18th in protest of proposed legislation — the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives, and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate. This legistlation, if passed, will harm the free and open Internet. These bills endanger free speech both in the United States and abroad, potentially setting a frightening precedent of Internet censorship for the world. If you are in the U.S., you can click visit Wikipedia and enter your zipcode to take action.<br />
<br />
==Share your view and tell the world==<br />
<br />
{{SOPABlogShare|wrapper css=text-align:center;}}<br />
<br />
==More information==<br />
<br />
Blog post from Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director, Sue Gardner:<br />
<br />
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/01/16/wikipedias-community-calls-for-anti-sopa-blackout-january-18/<br />
<br />
Official Wikimedia Foundation press release:<br />
<br />
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/English_Wikipedia_to_go_dark<br />
<br />
Statement from the community affirming blackout:<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Action<br />
<br />
Electronic Frontier Foundation blog post on the lingering faults in SOPA/PIPA:<br />
<br />
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/how-pipa-and-sopa-violate-white-house-principles-supporting-free-speech<br />
<br />
Wikipedia's articles on SOPA and PIPA:<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_IP_Act<br />
<br />
==Questions and Answers==<br />
<br />
Talking points<br />
<br />
* This Wednesday, January 18, 2012, the English Wikipedia will be protesting SOPA/PIPA with a global Wikipedia blackout. Readers who come to Wikipedia will see a message from Wikipedia about SOPA/PIPA and urging them to contact their Representatives or Senators to act. This protest will last 24 hours - from midnight to midnight EST (05:00 UTC Wed to 05:00 UTC Thu).<br />
<br />
* This decision was made by Wikipedia’s global community. Although the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that operates Wikipedia, opposes SOPA and PIPA, the decision was made by the community and that decision is now being implemented.<br />
<br />
* SOPA/PIPA are still real threats to the free, open, and secure web. Although recent media reports have suggested that the bills are losing support, they are not dead. On January 17th, SOPA's sponsor said the bill will be discussed and pushed forward in early February. PIPA could be debated in the U.S. Senate as soon as next week. There is a need to send a strong message that bills like SOPA and PIPA should not be allowed. Legislatures must understand that they must involve the internet industry in the law-making process to ensure innovation and protection of free expression.<br />
<br />
* Although the bills have changed, they are still a real threat to the free, open, and secure web. Among other serious problems in the current draft of the bills, the requirement exists for US-based sites to actively police links to purported infringing sites. These kinds of self-policing activities are non-sustainable for large, global projects - including possibly projects like Wikipedia. The legislative language is ambiguous and overly broad, even though it touches on protected speech. Our community is incredibly vigilant and proactive in keeping Wikipedia free of links or content that may infringe copyright.<br />
<br />
====What exactly is Wikipedia doing?====<br />
<br />
On January 18, 2012, the English Wikipedia community will be protesting SOPA/PIPA with a global English Wikipedia blackout. U.S. readers who come to English Wikipedia will see a message from Wikipedia about SOPA/PIPA that tells them to contact their Representatives or Senators to act. This protest will last 24 hours - from midnight to midnight EST.<br />
<br />
====Why is this happening?====<br />
<br />
The English Wikipedia community is opposed to SOPA/PIPA. In an unprecedented decision, the Wikipedia community has chosen to blackout the English version of Wikipedia for 24 hours, in protest against proposed legislation in the United States — the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives and PROTECTIP Act (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate. If passed, this legislation will harm the free and open Internet and bring about new tools for censorship of international websites inside the United States.<br />
<br />
Wikipedia can only exist in an open and uncensored Internet. SOPA, PIPA, or any future legislation that censors free speech, damages Internet security, or inhibits innovation will hurt and undermine the Internet and the work of our community.<br />
<br />
====Isn't SOPA dead? Wasn't the bill shelved and didn't the White House declare that it won't sign anything that resembles the current bill?====<br />
<br />
No, both SOPA/PIPA are very much alive. On January 17th, SOPA's sponsor said the bill will be discussed and pushed forward in early February. As long as we see the threat of SOPA/PIPA on the horizon, we're going to carry out this protest and send a message that any proposed legislation of this kind that attacks the free and open web isn't welcome.<br />
<br />
====Aren’t SOPA/PIPA as they stand not even really a threat to Wikipedia? Won't the DNS provisions be removed?====<br />
<br />
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has a great post about this [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/how-pipa-and-sopa-violate-white-house-principles-supporting-free-speech here.]<br />
SOPA/PIPA are still alive, and they’re still a threat to the free and open web. Even with the DNS provisions removed, the bill would give the U.S. government extraordinary and loosely-defined powers to take control over content and information on the free web. In its current form the bill would also require U.S. websites to take on the duty of actively policing links for infringing content. There's more to it than that - taking one provision out doesn't make the bill okay - it's still terrible for the free and open web.<br />
<br />
====What about OPEN?====<br />
<br />
The [[:w:en:Online_Protection_and_Enforcement_of_Digital_Trade_Act |OPEN Act]] is another piece of legislation that is different from SOPA, and we're monitoring it, but SOPA/PIPA are the current focus. <br />
<br />
====Why is the Wikipedia mobile site still available?====<br />
<br />
In its blackout decision, the community has asked us to preserve emergency access options to Wikipedia. We've preserved access via the mobile site, and via a small number of backdoors to the main site.<br />
<br />
====Did the Italian Wikipedia’s protest action last year achieve its goal of stopping the Italian law in question?====<br />
<br />
It seems likely that the efforts of the Italian Wikipedia community around a similar Internet censorship bill compelled the Italian Parliament to announce that it would modify the proposed law to include only large online news sites -- meaning that any information outlets that don't fall into that category, Wikipedia among them, would be excluded from the law's reach. <br />
<br />
====Do you think U.S. users will respond to this action?====<br />
<br />
The focus of the message on the Wikipedia blackout page is likely to be action-oriented, with strong encouragement that U.S. users reading the message get in touch with their representatives and voice their displeasure over SOPA and PIPA. This effort is newsworthy to the U.S. and global press, and it’s very significant because it will expand the story beyond tech and media insiders to a wider public audience. Many up to this point have not heard much about the issue.<br />
<br />
====What is the significance of acting in concert with other major sites? Will this really produce a politically effective message beyond acting in isolation?====<br />
<br />
The Wikipedia community has selected January 18th because that was the date the U.S. House of Representatives had contemplated hearings and other actions around SOPA. Although those hearings are not occurring today as planned, they will likely be rescheduled to a later date to avoid the increased public opposition to the legislation that we see today. Further, it appears PIPA is moving forward in the U.S. Senate. The community feels this is the right time to act.<br />
<br />
When many organizations and projects align and protest like this, there’s clearly a big net effect. There’s no question this makes the story bigger than if one site, say Wikipedia, protested alone. Ultimately though it doesn’t look like we’re just following in the steps of others. Our community has strong views about this - and has from the beginning. It doesn’t simply look like they’re viewing activism in terms of how other sites are responding. Conversely, a lot of those other sites are very much looking to Wikipedia to see how our community is responding.<br />
<br />
====Is it still possible to access Wikipedia in any way?====<br />
The Wikipedia community, as part of their request to the Wikimedia Foundation to carry out this protest, asked us to ensure that we make English Wikipedia accessible in some way during an emergency. The English Wikipedia will be accessible on mobile devices and smart phones. Because the protest message is powered by JavaScript, it's also possible to view Wikipedia by completely disabling JavaScript in your browser.<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
====Alternates====<br />
'''JD Forrester Version'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left:5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
For over a decade, global volunteers have compiled billions of facts and contributed millions of hours to build Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
We have done this because we love to share knowledge with everyone. We have only been able to do this because the Internet is free and open.<br />
<br />
But right now, Congress is considering two bills that would hand repressive censorship tools to large commercial lobbyists.<br />
<br />
If [http://link SOPA] or [http://link the PROTECTIP Act] pass, they would destroy the freedom and openness that has made Wikipedia what it is. We have blacked-out access to Wikipedia for today to show what might happen.<br />
<br />
Please, consider whether a free and open Internet that includes Wikipedia is something you, too, care about. Use the tool below to contact your local representative or senator. Tell them that you oppose these acts. Tell them to protect the Internet.<br />
</div><br />
<br />
'''JD Forrester Version 2'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left:5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
For over a decade, global volunteers have compiled billions of facts and contributed millions of hours to build Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
We have only been able to do this because the Internet is free and open.<br />
<br />
But right now, the United States Congress is currently considering legislation that would hand repressive censorship tools to large commercial lobbyists, which could destroy the freedom and openness that has made Wikipedia what it is today.<br />
<br />
Please, consider whether a free and open Internet that includes Wikipedia is something that you, too, care about. Use the tool below to take action. Help protect the Internet.<br />
</div><br />
<br />
'''FT2 Version'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left:5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
'''The Internet needs you to protect free speech'''<br />
<br />
For over a decade, global volunteers have compiled billions of facts and contributed millions of hours to build Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
We have only been able to do this because the Internet is free and open.<br />
<br />
Free speech is in peril like never before. The United States Congress is currently considering striking out rights of free speech and other laws which made Wikipedia possible, forcing us to censor our editor discussions and the information we show you. <br />
<br />
If passed, it would destroy the freedom of Americans to write without censorship, on every website we have, in any language, everywhere.<br />
<br />
Please, consider whether a free and open Internet that includes Wikipedia is something that you, too, care about. Use the tool below to take action. Help protect the Internet.</div><br />
<br />
== Draft Things to say to elected Representatives ==<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
'''Cybersecurity'''<br />
<br />
As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose a bill that would damage the security of the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act; in the Senate, the PROTECT IP Act).&nbsp; A safe and secure Web is vital to our privacy and to commerce.&nbsp; Over a hundred established authorities on the Internet believe that the required blocking of Internet sites is badly thought out and threatens Internet security.&nbsp; I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.<br />
<br />
'''Censorship'''<br />
<br />
As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose a bill that would censor the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act; in the Senate, the PROTECT IP Act).&nbsp; The Internet has become the most important communications tool for the free flow of ideas.&nbsp; This bill would give the Justice Department power to shut down entire websites — even if the website or its information is not the subject of a complaint.&nbsp; It could provide a model for repressive regimes (who could promote it as the ‘American’ model).&nbsp; I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.<br />
<br />
'''Innovation'''<br />
<br />
As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose a bill that would chill innovation on the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act; in the Senate, the PROTECT IP Act).&nbsp; The Internet has created successful multi-billion-dollar businesses — and it has benefited thousands of small businesses by providing them a previously unreachable worldwide market.&nbsp; This bill would put unreasonable burdens on Internet Service Providers and search engines and would threaten to suffocate our Internet economy.&nbsp; I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.</div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Mobile Learn More Page'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
==Mobile page and message==<br />
<br />
'''Banner message'''<br />
<br />
'''IMAGINE A WORLD WITHOUT FREE KNOWLEDGE '''<br><br />
'''Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could cripple this site and your ability to access information online. Learn more.'''<br />
<br />
(link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Mobile_Learn_more)<br />
<br />
</div></div>Sue Gardnerhttps://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Archive:SOPA/Learn_more&diff=78014Archive:SOPA/Learn more2012-01-18T03:34:56Z<p>Sue Gardner: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
__NOTOC__<br />
<br />
''This is the text we're currently working on....''<br />
<br />
Call your elected officials. <br />
<br />
Tell them you are their constituent, and you oppose SOPA and PIPA.<br />
<br />
Why?<br />
<br />
SOPA and PIPA would cripple the free and open internet. They put the burden on website owners to police user-contributed material, and call for the blocking of entire sites, even if the site's links aren't to infringing material. Small sites won't have sufficient resources to mount a legal challenge. Without opposition, big media companies may seek to cut off funding sources for small competing foreign sites, even if big media are wrong in saying they infringe. Foreign sites will be blacklisted, which means they won't show up in major search engines. <br />
<br />
In a world in which politicians regulate the internet based on the influence of big money, Wikipedia --and many other useful informational sites-- cannot survive. SOPA/PIPA builds a framework for future restrictions and suppression. <br />
<br />
Congress says it's trying to protect the rights of copyright owners, but the "cure" that SOPA and PIPA represent is much more destructive than the disease they are trying to fix. SOPA and PIPA are not the answer: they will cripple the free and open internet.<br />
<br />
'''Blackout Page Text'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
'''IMAGINE A WORLD WITHOUT FREE KNOWLEDGE''' <br />
<br />
For over a decade, we have spent millions of hours building the largest encyclopedia in human history. Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could fatally damage this site and your ability to access information online. Today, for 24 hours, we black out Wikipedia, and ask you to join our protest. Learn more.<br />
<br />
Contact your representatives.<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
'''Landing Page for U.S. Readers / Congress look-up page'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
For maximum impact, please consider calling your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators. Explain that you are a constituent and that you oppose these bills and similar future legislation. If you'd like to get more informed on SOPA/PIPA, please click here.<br />
<br />
'''Things you may want to say to your Senator or Representative'''<br />
<br />
"As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose SOPA and PIPA, and any future bill that would censor free speech and damage the security of the Internet."<br />
<br />
'''Regarding censorship'''<br />
<br />
“The Internet has become an important communications tool allowing the free flow of ideas. As introduced in the House and the Senate, SOPA and PIPA would give the Justice Department and courts tremendous power to shut down entire sites. Unfortunately, these bills ignore the principles of the First Amendment that require tailored solutions in lieu of across-the-board censorship. They represent terrible precedents for the United States and for the world.”<br />
<br />
<br />
==Social media text==<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Social media tweets/info<br />
|-<br />
| X || All ||<br />
|-<br />
| Google+ || I support the January 18th Wikipedia blackout to protest SOPA and PIPA. Show your support here <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/SOPA/Blackoutpage> ||<br />
|-<br />
| Facebook || <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/SOPA/Blackoutpage> ||<br />
|-<br />
| Twitter || I support #wikipediablackout! Show your support here <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/SOPA/Blackoutpage> ||<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Learn more about SOPA/PIPA below==<br />
<br />
The Wikipedia community has decided to blackout the English version of Wikipedia for 24 hours on January 18th in protest of proposed legislation — the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives, and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate. This legistlation, if passed, will harm the free and open Internet. These bills endanger free speech both in the United States and abroad, potentially setting a frightening precedent of Internet censorship for the world. If you are in the U.S., you can click visit Wikipedia and enter your zipcode to take action.<br />
<br />
==Share your view and tell the world==<br />
<br />
{{SOPABlogShare|wrapper css=text-align:center;}}<br />
<br />
==More information==<br />
<br />
Blog post from Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director, Sue Gardner:<br />
<br />
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/01/16/wikipedias-community-calls-for-anti-sopa-blackout-january-18/<br />
<br />
Official Wikimedia Foundation press release:<br />
<br />
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/English_Wikipedia_to_go_dark<br />
<br />
Statement from the community affirming blackout:<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Action<br />
<br />
Electronic Frontier Foundation blog post on the lingering faults in SOPA/PIPA:<br />
<br />
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/how-pipa-and-sopa-violate-white-house-principles-supporting-free-speech<br />
<br />
Wikipedia's articles on SOPA and PIPA:<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_IP_Act<br />
<br />
==Questions and Answers==<br />
<br />
Talking points<br />
<br />
* On January 18, 2012 (this Wednesday) the English Wikipedia will be protesting SOPA/PIPA with a global Wikipedia blackout. Readers who come to Wikipedia will see a message from Wikipedia about SOPA/PIPA and urging them to contact their Representatives or Senators to act. This protest will last 24hrs - from midnight to midnight EST (05:00 UTC Wed to 05:00 UTC Thu).<br />
<br />
* This decision was made by Wikipedia’s global community. Although the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that operates Wikipedia, opposes SOPA and PIPA, the decision was made by the community and that decision is now being implemented.<br />
<br />
* SOPA/PIPA are still real threats to the free, open, and secure web. Although recent media reports have suggested that the bills are losing support, they are not dead. On January 17th, SOPA's sponsor said the bill will be discussed and pushed forward in early February. PIPA could be debated in the U.S. Senate as soon as next week. There is a need to send a strong message that bills like SOPA and PIPA should not be allowed. Legislatures must understand that they must involve the internet industry in the law-making process to ensure innovation and protection of free expression.<br />
<br />
* Although the bills have changed, they are still a real threat to the free, open, and secure web. Among other serious problems in the current draft of the bills, the requirement exists for US-based sites to actively police links to purported infringing sites. These kinds of self-policing activities are non-sustainable for large, global projects - including possibly projects like Wikipedia. The legislative language is ambiguous and overly broad, even though it touches on protected speech. Our community is incredibly vigilant and proactive in keeping Wikipedia free of links or content that may infringe copyright.<br />
<br />
====What exactly is Wikipedia doing?====<br />
<br />
On January 18, 2012, the English Wikipedia community will be protesting SOPA/PIPA with a global English Wikipedia blackout. U.S. readers who come to English Wikipedia will see a message from Wikipedia about SOPA/PIPA that tells them to contact their Representatives or Senators to act. This protest will last 24 hours - from midnight to midnight EST.<br />
<br />
====Why is this happening?====<br />
<br />
The English Wikipedia community is opposed to SOPA/PIPA. In an unprecedented decision, the Wikipedia community has chosen to blackout the English version of Wikipedia for 24 hours, in protest against proposed legislation in the United States — the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives, and PROTECTIP Act (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate. If passed, this legislation will harm the free and open Internet and bring about new tools for censorship of international websites inside the United States.<br />
<br />
Wikipedia can only exist in an open and uncensored Internet. SOPA, PIPA, or any future legislation that censors free speech, damages Internet security, or inhibits innovation will hurt and undermine the Internet and the work of our community.<br />
<br />
====Isn't SOPA dead? Wasn't the bill shelved and didn't the White House declare that it won't sign anything that resembles the current bill?====<br />
<br />
No, both SOPA/PIPA are very much alive. On January 17th, SOPA's sponsor said the bill will be discussed and pushed forward in early February. As long as we see the threat of SOPA/PIPA on the horizon, we're going to carry out this protest and send a message that any proposed legislation of this kind that attacks the free and open web isn't welcome.<br />
<br />
====Aren’t SOPA/PIPA as they stand not even really a threat to Wikipedia? Won't the DNS provisions be removed?====<br />
<br />
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has a great post about this [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/how-pipa-and-sopa-violate-white-house-principles-supporting-free-speech here.]<br />
SOPA/PIPA are still alive, and they’re still a threat to the free and open web. Even with the DNS provisions removed, the bill would give the U.S. government extraordinary and loosely-defined powers to take control over content and information on the free web. In its current form the bill would also require U.S. websites to take on the duty of actively policing links for infringing content. There's more to it than that - taking one provision out doesn't make the bill okay - it's still terrible for the free and open web.<br />
<br />
====What about OPEN?====<br />
<br />
The [[:w:en:Online_Protection_and_Enforcement_of_Digital_Trade_Act |OPEN Act]] is another piece of legislation that is different from SOPA, and we're monitoring it, but SOPA/PIPA are the current focus. <br />
<br />
====Why is the Wikipedia mobile site still available?====<br />
<br />
In its blackout decision, the community has asked us to preserve emergency access options to Wikipedia. We've preserved access via the mobile site, and via a small number of backdoors to the main site.<br />
<br />
====Did the Italian Wikipedia’s protest action last year achieve its goal of stopping the Italian law in question?====<br />
<br />
It seems likely that the efforts of the Italian Wikipedia community around a similar Internet censorship bill compelled the Italian Parliament to announce that it would modify the proposed law to include only large online news sites -- meaning that any information outlets that don't fall into that category, Wikipedia among them, would be excluded from the law's reach. <br />
<br />
====Do you think U.S. users will respond to this action?====<br />
<br />
The focus of the message on the Wikipedia blackout page is likely to be action-oriented, with strong encouragement that U.S. users reading the message get in touch with their representatives and voice their displeasure over SOPA and PIPA. This effort is newsworthy to the U.S. and global press, and it’s very significant because it will expand the story beyond tech and media insiders to a wider public audience. Many up to this point have not heard much about the issue.<br />
<br />
====What is the significance of acting in concert with other major sites? Will this really produce a politically effective message beyond acting in isolation?====<br />
<br />
The Wikipedia community has selected January 18th because that was the date the U.S. House of Representatives had contemplated hearings and other actions around SOPA. Although those hearings are not occurring today as planned, they will likely be rescheduled to a later date to avoid the increased public opposition to the legislation that we see today. Further, it appears PIPA is moving forward in the U.S. Senate. The community feels this is the right time to act.<br />
<br />
When many organizations and projects align and protest like this, there’s clearly a big net effect. There’s no question this makes the story bigger than if one site, say Wikipedia, protested alone. Ultimately though it doesn’t look like we’re just following in the steps of others. Our community has strong views about this - and has from the beginning. It doesn’t simply look like they’re viewing activism in terms of how other sites are responding. Conversely, a lot of those other sites are very much looking to Wikipedia to see how our community is responding.<br />
<br />
====Is it still possible to access Wikipedia in any way?====<br />
The Wikipedia community, as part of their request to the Wikimedia Foundation to carry out this protest, asked us to ensure that we make English Wikipedia accessible in some way during an emergency. The English Wikipedia will be accessible on mobile devices and smart phones. Because the protest message is powered by JavaScript, it's also possible to view Wikipedia by completely disabling JavaScript in your browser.<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
====Alternates====<br />
'''JD Forrester Version'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left:5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
For over a decade, global volunteers have compiled billions of facts and contributed millions of hours to build Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
We have done this because we love to share knowledge with everyone. We have only been able to do this because the Internet is free and open.<br />
<br />
But right now, Congress is considering two bills that would hand repressive censorship tools to large commercial lobbyists.<br />
<br />
If [http://link SOPA] or [http://link the PROTECTIP Act] pass, they would destroy the freedom and openness that has made Wikipedia what it is. We have blacked-out access to Wikipedia for today to show what might happen.<br />
<br />
Please, consider whether a free and open Internet that includes Wikipedia is something you, too, care about. Use the tool below to contact your local representative or senator. Tell them that you oppose these acts. Tell them to protect the Internet.<br />
</div><br />
<br />
'''JD Forrester Version 2'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left:5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
For over a decade, global volunteers have compiled billions of facts and contributed millions of hours to build Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
We have only been able to do this because the Internet is free and open.<br />
<br />
But right now, the United States Congress is currently considering legislation that would hand repressive censorship tools to large commercial lobbyists, which could destroy the freedom and openness that has made Wikipedia what it is today.<br />
<br />
Please, consider whether a free and open Internet that includes Wikipedia is something that you, too, care about. Use the tool below to take action. Help protect the Internet.<br />
</div><br />
<br />
'''FT2 Version'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left:5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
'''The Internet needs you to protect free speech'''<br />
<br />
For over a decade, global volunteers have compiled billions of facts and contributed millions of hours to build Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
We have only been able to do this because the Internet is free and open.<br />
<br />
Free speech is in peril like never before. The United States Congress is currently considering striking out rights of free speech and other laws which made Wikipedia possible, forcing us to censor our editor discussions and the information we show you. <br />
<br />
If passed, it would destroy the freedom of Americans to write without censorship, on every website we have, in any language, everywhere.<br />
<br />
Please, consider whether a free and open Internet that includes Wikipedia is something that you, too, care about. Use the tool below to take action. Help protect the Internet.</div><br />
<br />
<br />
== Draft Things to say to elected Representatives ==<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
'''Cybersecurity'''<br />
<br />
As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose a bill that would damage the security of the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act; in the Senate, the PROTECT IP Act).&nbsp; A safe and secure Web is vital to our privacy and to commerce.&nbsp; Over a hundred established authorities on the Internet believe that the required blocking of Internet sites is badly thought out and threatens Internet security.&nbsp; I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.<br />
<br />
'''Censorship'''<br />
<br />
As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose a bill that would censor the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act; in the Senate, the PROTECT IP Act).&nbsp; The Internet has become the most important communications tool for the free flow of ideas.&nbsp; This bill would give the Justice Department power to shut down entire websites — even if the website or its information is not the subject of a complaint.&nbsp; It could provide a model for repressive regimes (who could promote it as the ‘American’ model).&nbsp; I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.<br />
<br />
'''Innovation'''<br />
<br />
As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose a bill that would chill innovation on the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act; in the Senate, the PROTECT IP Act).&nbsp; The Internet has created successful multi-billion-dollar businesses — and it has benefited thousands of small businesses by providing them a previously unreachable worldwide market.&nbsp; This bill would put unreasonable burdens on Internet Service Providers and search engines and would threaten to suffocate our Internet economy.&nbsp; I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.</div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Mobile Learn More Page'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
==Mobile page and message==<br />
<br />
'''Banner message'''<br />
<br />
'''IMAGINE A WORLD WITHOUT FREE KNOWLEDGE '''<br><br />
'''Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could cripple this site and your ability to access information online. Learn more.'''<br />
<br />
(link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Mobile_Learn_more)<br />
<br />
</div></div>Sue Gardnerhttps://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Archive:SOPA/Learn_more&diff=78010Archive:SOPA/Learn more2012-01-18T03:30:20Z<p>Sue Gardner: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
__NOTOC__<br />
<br />
''This is the text we're currently working on....''<br />
<br />
Call your elected officials. <br />
<br />
Tell them you are their constituent, and you oppose SOPA and PIPA.<br />
<br />
Why?<br />
<br />
SOPA and PIPA would cripple the free and open internet. They put the burden on website owners to police user-contributed material, and call for the blocking of entire sites, even if the site's links aren't to infringing material. Small sites won't have sufficient resources to mount a legal challenge. Without opposition, big media companies may seek to cut off funding sources for small competing foreign sites, even if big media are wrong in saying they infringe. Foreign sites will be blacklisted, which means they won't show up in major search engines. <br />
<br />
In a world in which politicians regulate the internet based on the influence of big money, Wikipedia --and many other useful informational sites-- cannot survive. SOPA/PIPA builds a framework for future restrictions and suppression. <br />
<br />
Congress says it's trying to protect the rights of copyright owners, but the "cure" that SOPA and PIPA represent is much more destructive than the disease they are trying to fix. SOPA and PIPA are not the answer: they will cripple the free and open internet.<br />
<br />
'''Blackout Page Text'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
'''IMAGINE A WORLD WITHOUT FREE KNOWLEDGE''' <br />
<br />
For over a decade, we have spent millions of hours building the largest encyclopedia in human history. Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could severely impact this site and your ability to access information online. Today, the Wikipedia community is blacking out English Wikipedia for 24 hours, to raise awareness. We ask you to join us in our protest.<br />
<br />
Contact your representatives.<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
'''Landing Page for U.S. Readers / Congress look-up page'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
For maximum impact, please consider calling your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators. Explain that you are a constituent and that you oppose these bills and similar future legislation. If you'd like to get more informed on SOPA/PIPA, please click here.<br />
<br />
'''Things you may want to say to your Senator or Representative'''<br />
<br />
"As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose SOPA and PIPA, and any future bill that would censor free speech and damage the security of the Internet."<br />
<br />
'''Regarding censorship'''<br />
<br />
“The Internet has become an important communications tool allowing the free flow of ideas. As introduced in the House and the Senate, SOPA and PIPA would give the Justice Department and courts tremendous power to shut down entire sites. Unfortunately, these bills ignore the principles of the First Amendment that require tailored solutions in lieu of across-the-board censorship. They represent terrible precedents for the United States and for the world.”<br />
<br />
<br />
==Social media text==<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Social media tweets/info<br />
|-<br />
| X || All ||<br />
|-<br />
| Google+ || I support the January 18th Wikipedia blackout to protest SOPA and PIPA. Show your support here <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/SOPA/Blackoutpage> ||<br />
|-<br />
| Facebook || <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/SOPA/Blackoutpage> ||<br />
|-<br />
| Twitter || I support #wikipediablackout! Show your support here <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/SOPA/Blackoutpage> ||<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Learn more about SOPA/PIPA below==<br />
<br />
The Wikipedia community has decided to blackout the English version of Wikipedia for 24 hours on January 18th in protest of proposed legislation — the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives, and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate. This legistlation, if passed, will harm the free and open Internet. These bills endanger free speech both in the United States and abroad, potentially setting a frightening precedent of Internet censorship for the world. If you are in the U.S., you can click visit Wikipedia and enter your zipcode to take action.<br />
<br />
==Share your view and tell the world==<br />
<br />
{{SOPABlogShare|wrapper css=text-align:center;}}<br />
<br />
==More information==<br />
<br />
Blog post from Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director, Sue Gardner:<br />
<br />
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/01/16/wikipedias-community-calls-for-anti-sopa-blackout-january-18/<br />
<br />
Official Wikimedia Foundation press release:<br />
<br />
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/English_Wikipedia_to_go_dark<br />
<br />
Statement from the community affirming blackout:<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Action<br />
<br />
Electronic Frontier Foundation blog post on the lingering faults in SOPA/PIPA:<br />
<br />
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/how-pipa-and-sopa-violate-white-house-principles-supporting-free-speech<br />
<br />
Wikipedia's articles on SOPA and PIPA:<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_IP_Act<br />
<br />
==Questions and Answers==<br />
<br />
Talking points<br />
<br />
* On January 18, 2012 (this Wednesday) the English Wikipedia will be protesting SOPA/PIPA with a global Wikipedia blackout. Readers who come to Wikipedia will see a message from Wikipedia about SOPA/PIPA and urging them to contact their Representatives or Senators to act. This protest will last 24hrs - from midnight to midnight EST (05:00 UTC Wed to 05:00 UTC Thu).<br />
<br />
* This decision was made by Wikipedia’s global community. Although the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that operates Wikipedia, opposes SOPA and PIPA, the decision was made by the community and that decision is now being implemented.<br />
<br />
* SOPA/PIPA are still real threats to the free, open, and secure web. Although recent media reports have suggested that the bills are losing support, they are not dead. On January 17th, SOPA's sponsor said the bill will be discussed and pushed forward in early February. PIPA could be debated in the U.S. Senate as soon as next week. There is a need to send a strong message that bills like SOPA and PIPA should not be allowed. Legislatures must understand that they must involve the internet industry in the law-making process to ensure innovation and protection of free expression.<br />
<br />
* Although the bills have changed, they are still a real threat to the free, open, and secure web. Among other serious problems in the current draft of the bills, the requirement exists for US-based sites to actively police links to purported infringing sites. These kinds of self-policing activities are non-sustainable for large, global projects - including possibly projects like Wikipedia. The legislative language is ambiguous and overly broad, even though it touches on protected speech. Our community is incredibly vigilant and proactive in keeping Wikipedia free of links or content that may infringe copyright.<br />
<br />
====What exactly is Wikipedia doing?====<br />
<br />
On January 18, 2012 the English Wikipedia community will be protesting SOPA/PIPA with a global English Wikipedia blackout. U.S. readers who come to English Wikipedia will see a message from Wikipedia about SOPA/PIPA that tells them to contact their Representatives or Senators to act. This protest will last 24 hours - from midnight to midnight EST.<br />
<br />
====Why is this happening?====<br />
<br />
The English Wikipedia community is opposed to SOPA/PIPA. In an unprecedented decision, the Wikipedia community has chosen to blackout the English version of Wikipedia for 24 hours, in protest against proposed legislation in the United States — the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives, and PROTECTIP Act (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate. If passed, this legislation will harm the free and open Internet and bring about new tools for censorship of international websites inside the United States.<br />
<br />
Wikipedia can only exist in an open and uncensored Internet. SOPA, PIPA, or any future legislation that censors free speech, damages Internet security, or inhibits innovation will hurt and undermine the Internet and the work of our community.<br />
<br />
====Isn't SOPA dead? Wasn't the bill shelved and didn't the White House declare that it won't sign anything that resembles the current bill?====<br />
<br />
No, both SOPA/PIPA are very much alive. On January 17th, SOPA's sponsor said the bill will be discussed and pushed forward in early February. As long as we see the threat of SOPA/PIPA on the horizon, we're going to carry out this protest and send a message that any proposed legislation of this kind that attacks the free and open web isn't welcome.<br />
<br />
====Aren’t SOPA/PIPA as they stand not even really a threat to Wikipedia? Won't the DNS provisions be removed?====<br />
<br />
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has a great post about this [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/how-pipa-and-sopa-violate-white-house-principles-supporting-free-speech here.]<br />
SOPA/PIPA are still alive, and they’re still a threat to the free and open web. Even with the DNS provisions removed, the bill would give the U.S. government extraordinary and loosely-defined powers to take control over content and information on the free web. In its current form the bill would also require U.S. websites to take on the duty of actively policing links for infringing content. There's more to it than that - taking one provision out doesn't make the bill okay - it's still terrible for the free and open web.<br />
<br />
====What about OPEN?====<br />
<br />
The [[:w:en:Online_Protection_and_Enforcement_of_Digital_Trade_Act |OPEN Act]] is another piece of legislation that is different from SOPA, and we're monitoring it, but SOPA/PIPA are the current focus. <br />
<br />
====Why is the Wikipedia mobile site still available?====<br />
<br />
In its blackout decision, the community has asked us to preserve emergency access options to Wikipedia. We've preserved access via the mobile site, and via a small number of backdoors to the main site.<br />
<br />
====Did the Italian Wikipedia’s protest action last year achieve its goal of stopping the Italian law in question?====<br />
<br />
It seems likely that the efforts of the Italian Wikipedia community around a similar Internet censorship bill compelled the Italian Parliament to announce that it would modify the proposed law to include only large online news sites -- meaning that any information outlets that don't fall into that category, Wikipedia among them, would be excluded from the law's reach. <br />
<br />
====Do you think U.S. users will respond to this action?====<br />
<br />
The focus of the message on the Wikipedia blackout page is likely to be action-oriented, with strong encouragement that U.S. users reading the message get in touch with their representatives and voice their displeasure over SOPA and PIPA. This effort is newsworthy to the U.S. and global press, and it’s very significant because it will expand the story beyond tech and media insiders to a wider public audience. Many up to this point have not heard much about the issue.<br />
<br />
====What is the significance of acting in concert with other major sites? Will this really produce a politically effective message beyond acting in isolation?====<br />
<br />
The Wikipedia community has selected January 18th because that was the date the U.S. House of Representatives had contemplated hearings and other actions around SOPA. Although those hearings are not occurring today as planned, they will likely be rescheduled to a later date to avoid the increased public opposition to the legislation that we see today. Further, it appears PIPA is moving forward in the U.S. Senate. The community feels this is the right time to act.<br />
<br />
When many organizations and projects align and protest like this, there’s clearly a big net effect. There’s no question this makes the story bigger than if one site, say Wikipedia, protested alone. Ultimately though it doesn’t look like we’re just following in the steps of others. Our community has strong views about this - and has from the beginning. It doesn’t simply look like they’re viewing activism in terms of how other sites are responding. Conversely, a lot of those other sites are very much looking to Wikipedia to see how our community is responding.<br />
<br />
====Is it still possible to access Wikipedia in any way?====<br />
The Wikipedia community, as part of their request to the Wikimedia Foundation to carry out this protest, asked us to ensure that we make English Wikipedia accessible in some way during an emergency. The English Wikipedia will be accessible on mobile devices and smart phones. Because the protest message is powered by JavaScript, it's also possible to view Wikipedia by completely disabling JavaScript in your browser.<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
====Alternates====<br />
'''JD Forrester Version'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left:5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
For over a decade, global volunteers have compiled billions of facts and contributed millions of hours to build Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
We have done this because we love to share knowledge with everyone. We have only been able to do this because the Internet is free and open.<br />
<br />
But right now, Congress is considering two bills that would hand repressive censorship tools to large commercial lobbyists.<br />
<br />
If [http://link SOPA] or [http://link the PROTECTIP Act] pass, they would destroy the freedom and openness that has made Wikipedia what it is. We have blacked-out access to Wikipedia for today to show what might happen.<br />
<br />
Please, consider whether a free and open Internet that includes Wikipedia is something you, too, care about. Use the tool below to contact your local representative or senator. Tell them that you oppose these acts. Tell them to protect the Internet.<br />
</div><br />
<br />
'''JD Forrester Version 2'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left:5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
For over a decade, global volunteers have compiled billions of facts and contributed millions of hours to build Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
We have only been able to do this because the Internet is free and open.<br />
<br />
But right now, the United States Congress is currently considering legislation that would hand repressive censorship tools to large commercial lobbyists, which could destroy the freedom and openness that has made Wikipedia what it is today.<br />
<br />
Please, consider whether a free and open Internet that includes Wikipedia is something that you, too, care about. Use the tool below to take action. Help protect the Internet.<br />
</div><br />
<br />
'''FT2 Version'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left:5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
'''The Internet needs you to protect free speech'''<br />
<br />
For over a decade, global volunteers have compiled billions of facts and contributed millions of hours to build Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
We have only been able to do this because the Internet is free and open.<br />
<br />
Free speech is in peril like never before. The United States Congress is currently considering striking out rights of free speech and other laws which made Wikipedia possible, forcing us to censor our editor discussions and the information we show you. <br />
<br />
If passed, it would destroy the freedom of Americans to write without censorship, on every website we have, in any language, everywhere.<br />
<br />
Please, consider whether a free and open Internet that includes Wikipedia is something that you, too, care about. Use the tool below to take action. Help protect the Internet.</div><br />
<br />
<br />
== Draft Things to say to elected Representatives ==<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
'''Cybersecurity'''<br />
<br />
As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose a bill that would damage the security of the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act; in the Senate, the PROTECT IP Act).&nbsp; A safe and secure Web is vital to our privacy and to commerce.&nbsp; Over a hundred established authorities on the Internet believe that the required blocking of Internet sites is badly thought out and threatens Internet security.&nbsp; I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.<br />
<br />
'''Censorship'''<br />
<br />
As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose a bill that would censor the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act; in the Senate, the PROTECT IP Act).&nbsp; The Internet has become the most important communications tool for the free flow of ideas.&nbsp; This bill would give the Justice Department power to shut down entire websites — even if the website or its information is not the subject of a complaint.&nbsp; It could provide a model for repressive regimes (who could promote it as the ‘American’ model).&nbsp; I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.<br />
<br />
'''Innovation'''<br />
<br />
As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose a bill that would chill innovation on the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act; in the Senate, the PROTECT IP Act).&nbsp; The Internet has created successful multi-billion-dollar businesses — and it has benefited thousands of small businesses by providing them a previously unreachable worldwide market.&nbsp; This bill would put unreasonable burdens on Internet Service Providers and search engines and would threaten to suffocate our Internet economy.&nbsp; I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.</div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Mobile Learn More Page'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
==Mobile page and message==<br />
<br />
'''Banner message'''<br />
<br />
'''IMAGINE A WORLD WITHOUT FREE KNOWLEDGE '''<br><br />
'''Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could cripple this site and your ability to access information online. Learn more.'''<br />
<br />
(link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Mobile_Learn_more)<br />
<br />
</div></div>Sue Gardnerhttps://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Archive:SOPA/Learn_more&diff=78007Archive:SOPA/Learn more2012-01-18T03:25:44Z<p>Sue Gardner: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
__NOTOC__<br />
<br />
''This is the text we're currently working on....''<br />
<br />
Call your elected officials. <br />
<br />
Tell them you are their constituent, and you oppose SOPA and PIPA.<br />
<br />
Why?<br />
<br />
SOPA and PIPA would cripple the free and open internet. They put the burden on website owners to police user-contributed material, and call for the blocking of entire sites, even if the site's links aren't to infringing material. Small sites won't have sufficient resources to mount a legal challenge. Without opposition, big media companies may seek to cut off funding sources for small competing foreign sites, even if big media are wrong in saying they infringe. Foreign sites will be blacklisted, which means they won't show up in major search engines. <br />
<br />
In a world in which politicians regulate the internet based on the influence of big money, Wikipedia --and many other useful informational sites-- cannot survive. SOPA/PIPA builds a framework for future restrictions and suppression. <br />
<br />
Congress says it's trying to protect the rights of copyright owners, but the "cure" that SOPA and PIPA represent is much more destructive than the disease they are trying to fix. SOPA and PIPA are not the answer: they will cripple the free and open internet.<br />
<br />
'''Blackout Page Text'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
'''IMAGINE A WORLD WITHOUT FREE KNOWLEDGE''' <br />
<br />
For over a decade, we have spent millions of hours building the largest encyclopedia in human history. Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could cripple this site and your ability to access information online. So today, for 24 hours, we are blacking out Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
Tell your representatives you oppose SOPA and PIPA.<br />
</div><br />
<br />
'''Landing Page for U.S. Readers / Congress look-up page'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
For maximum impact, please consider calling your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators. Explain that you are a constituent and that you oppose these bills and similar future legislation. If you'd like to get more informed on SOPA/PIPA, please click here.<br />
<br />
'''Things you may want to say to your Senator or Representative'''<br />
<br />
"As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose SOPA and PIPA, and any future bill that would censor free speech and damage the security of the Internet."<br />
<br />
'''Regarding censorship'''<br />
<br />
“The Internet has become an important communications tool allowing the free flow of ideas. As introduced in the House and the Senate, SOPA and PIPA would give the Justice Department and courts tremendous power to shut down entire sites. Unfortunately, these bills ignore the principles of the First Amendment that require tailored solutions in lieu of across-the-board censorship. They represent terrible precedents for the United States and for the world.”<br />
<br />
<br />
==Social media text==<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Social media tweets/info<br />
|-<br />
| X || All ||<br />
|-<br />
| Google+ || I support the January 18th Wikipedia blackout to protest SOPA and PIPA. Show your support here <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/SOPA/Blackoutpage> ||<br />
|-<br />
| Facebook || <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/SOPA/Blackoutpage> ||<br />
|-<br />
| Twitter || I support #wikipediablackout! Show your support here <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/SOPA/Blackoutpage> ||<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Learn more about SOPA/PIPA below==<br />
<br />
The Wikipedia community has decided to blackout the English version of Wikipedia for 24 hours on January 18th in protest of proposed legislation — the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives, and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate. This legistlation, if passed, will harm the free and open Internet. These bills endanger free speech both in the United States and abroad, potentially setting a frightening precedent of Internet censorship for the world. If you are in the U.S., you can click visit Wikipedia and enter your zipcode to take action.<br />
<br />
==Share your view and tell the world==<br />
<br />
{{SOPABlogShare|wrapper css=text-align:center;}}<br />
<br />
==More information==<br />
<br />
Blog post from Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director, Sue Gardner:<br />
<br />
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/01/16/wikipedias-community-calls-for-anti-sopa-blackout-january-18/<br />
<br />
Official Wikimedia Foundation press release:<br />
<br />
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/English_Wikipedia_to_go_dark<br />
<br />
Statement from the community affirming blackout:<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Action<br />
<br />
Electronic Frontier Foundation blog post on the lingering faults in SOPA/PIPA:<br />
<br />
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/how-pipa-and-sopa-violate-white-house-principles-supporting-free-speech<br />
<br />
Wikipedia's articles on SOPA and PIPA:<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_IP_Act<br />
<br />
==Questions and Answers==<br />
<br />
Talking points<br />
<br />
* On January 18, 2012 (this Wednesday) the English Wikipedia will be protesting SOPA/PIPA with a global Wikipedia blackout. Readers who come to Wikipedia will see a message from Wikipedia about SOPA/PIPA and urging them to contact their Representatives or Senators to act. This protest will last 24hrs - from midnight to midnight EST (05:00 UTC Wed to 05:00 UTC Thu).<br />
<br />
* This decision was made by Wikipedia’s global community. Although the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that operates Wikipedia, opposes SOPA and PIPA, the decision was made by the community and that decision is now being implemented.<br />
<br />
* SOPA/PIPA are still real threats to the free, open, and secure web. Although recent media reports have suggested that the bills are losing support, they are not dead. On January 17th, SOPA's sponsor said the bill will be discussed and pushed forward in early February. PIPA could be debated in the U.S. Senate as soon as next week. There is a need to send a strong message that bills like SOPA and PIPA should not be allowed. Legislatures must understand that they must involve the internet industry in the law-making process to ensure innovation and protection of free expression.<br />
<br />
* Although the bills have changed, they are still a real threat to the free, open, and secure web. Among other serious problems in the current draft of the bills, the requirement exists for US-based sites to actively police links to purported infringing sites. These kinds of self-policing activities are non-sustainable for large, global projects - including possibly projects like Wikipedia. The legislative language is ambiguous and overly broad, even though it touches on protected speech. Our community is incredibly vigilant and proactive in keeping Wikipedia free of links or content that may infringe copyright.<br />
<br />
====What exactly is Wikipedia doing?====<br />
<br />
On January 18, 2012 the English Wikipedia community will be protesting SOPA/PIPA with a global English Wikipedia blackout. U.S. readers who come to English Wikipedia will see a message from Wikipedia about SOPA/PIPA that tells them to contact their Representatives or Senators to act. This protest will last 24 hours - from midnight to midnight EST.<br />
<br />
====Why is this happening?====<br />
<br />
The English Wikipedia community is opposed to SOPA/PIPA. In an unprecedented decision, the Wikipedia community has chosen to blackout the English version of Wikipedia for 24 hours, in protest against proposed legislation in the United States — the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives, and PROTECTIP Act (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate. If passed, this legislation will harm the free and open Internet and bring about new tools for censorship of international websites inside the United States.<br />
<br />
Wikipedia can only exist in an open and uncensored Internet. SOPA, PIPA, or any future legislation that censors free speech, damages Internet security, or inhibits innovation will hurt and undermine the Internet and the work of our community.<br />
<br />
====Isn't SOPA dead? Wasn't the bill shelved and didn't the White House declare that it won't sign anything that resembles the current bill?====<br />
<br />
No, both SOPA/PIPA are very much alive. On January 17th, SOPA's sponsor said the bill will be discussed and pushed forward in early February. As long as we see the threat of SOPA/PIPA on the horizon, we're going to carry out this protest and send a message that any proposed legislation of this kind that attacks the free and open web isn't welcome.<br />
<br />
====Aren’t SOPA/PIPA as they stand not even really a threat to Wikipedia? Won't the DNS provisions be removed?====<br />
<br />
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has a great post about this [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/how-pipa-and-sopa-violate-white-house-principles-supporting-free-speech here.]<br />
SOPA/PIPA are still alive, and they’re still a threat to the free and open web. Even with the DNS provisions removed, the bill would give the U.S. government extraordinary and loosely-defined powers to take control over content and information on the free web. In its current form the bill would also require U.S. websites to take on the duty of actively policing links for infringing content. There's more to it than that - taking one provision out doesn't make the bill okay - it's still terrible for the free and open web.<br />
<br />
====What about OPEN?====<br />
<br />
The [[:w:en:Online_Protection_and_Enforcement_of_Digital_Trade_Act |OPEN Act]] is another piece of legislation that is different from SOPA, and we're monitoring it, but SOPA/PIPA are the current focus. <br />
<br />
====Why is the Wikipedia mobile site still available?====<br />
<br />
In its blackout decision, the community has asked us to preserve emergency access options to Wikipedia. We've preserved access via the mobile site, and via a small number of backdoors to the main site.<br />
<br />
====Did the Italian Wikipedia’s protest action last year achieve its goal of stopping the Italian law in question?====<br />
<br />
It seems likely that the efforts of the Italian Wikipedia community around a similar Internet censorship bill compelled the Italian Parliament to announce that it would modify the proposed law to include only large online news sites -- meaning that any information outlets that don't fall into that category, Wikipedia among them, would be excluded from the law's reach. <br />
<br />
====Do you think U.S. users will respond to this action?====<br />
<br />
The focus of the message on the Wikipedia blackout page is likely to be action-oriented, with strong encouragement that U.S. users reading the message get in touch with their representatives and voice their displeasure over SOPA and PIPA. This effort is newsworthy to the U.S. and global press, and it’s very significant because it will expand the story beyond tech and media insiders to a wider public audience. Many up to this point have not heard much about the issue.<br />
<br />
====What is the significance of acting in concert with other major sites? Will this really produce a politically effective message beyond acting in isolation?====<br />
<br />
The Wikipedia community has selected January 18th because that was the date the U.S. House of Representatives had contemplated hearings and other actions around SOPA. Although those hearings are not occurring today as planned, they will likely be rescheduled to a later date to avoid the increased public opposition to the legislation that we see today. Further, it appears PIPA is moving forward in the U.S. Senate. The community feels this is the right time to act.<br />
<br />
When many organizations and projects align and protest like this, there’s clearly a big net effect. There’s no question this makes the story bigger than if one site, say Wikipedia, protested alone. Ultimately though it doesn’t look like we’re just following in the steps of others. Our community has strong views about this - and has from the beginning. It doesn’t simply look like they’re viewing activism in terms of how other sites are responding. Conversely, a lot of those other sites are very much looking to Wikipedia to see how our community is responding.<br />
<br />
====Is it still possible to access Wikipedia in any way?====<br />
The Wikipedia community, as part of their request to the Wikimedia Foundation to carry out this protest, asked us to ensure that we make English Wikipedia accessible in some way during an emergency. The English Wikipedia will be accessible on mobile devices and smart phones. Because the protest message is powered by JavaScript, it's also possible to view Wikipedia by completely disabling JavaScript in your browser.<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
====Alternates====<br />
'''JD Forrester Version'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left:5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
For over a decade, global volunteers have compiled billions of facts and contributed millions of hours to build Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
We have done this because we love to share knowledge with everyone. We have only been able to do this because the Internet is free and open.<br />
<br />
But right now, Congress is considering two bills that would hand repressive censorship tools to large commercial lobbyists.<br />
<br />
If [http://link SOPA] or [http://link the PROTECTIP Act] pass, they would destroy the freedom and openness that has made Wikipedia what it is. We have blacked-out access to Wikipedia for today to show what might happen.<br />
<br />
Please, consider whether a free and open Internet that includes Wikipedia is something you, too, care about. Use the tool below to contact your local representative or senator. Tell them that you oppose these acts. Tell them to protect the Internet.<br />
</div><br />
<br />
'''JD Forrester Version 2'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left:5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
For over a decade, global volunteers have compiled billions of facts and contributed millions of hours to build Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
We have only been able to do this because the Internet is free and open.<br />
<br />
But right now, the United States Congress is currently considering legislation that would hand repressive censorship tools to large commercial lobbyists, which could destroy the freedom and openness that has made Wikipedia what it is today.<br />
<br />
Please, consider whether a free and open Internet that includes Wikipedia is something that you, too, care about. Use the tool below to take action. Help protect the Internet.<br />
</div><br />
<br />
'''FT2 Version'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left:5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
'''The Internet needs you to protect free speech'''<br />
<br />
For over a decade, global volunteers have compiled billions of facts and contributed millions of hours to build Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
We have only been able to do this because the Internet is free and open.<br />
<br />
Free speech is in peril like never before. The United States Congress is currently considering striking out rights of free speech and other laws which made Wikipedia possible, forcing us to censor our editor discussions and the information we show you. <br />
<br />
If passed, it would destroy the freedom of Americans to write without censorship, on every website we have, in any language, everywhere.<br />
<br />
Please, consider whether a free and open Internet that includes Wikipedia is something that you, too, care about. Use the tool below to take action. Help protect the Internet.</div><br />
<br />
<br />
== Draft Things to say to elected Representatives ==<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
'''Cybersecurity'''<br />
<br />
As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose a bill that would damage the security of the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act; in the Senate, the PROTECT IP Act).&nbsp; A safe and secure Web is vital to our privacy and to commerce.&nbsp; Over a hundred established authorities on the Internet believe that the required blocking of Internet sites is badly thought out and threatens Internet security.&nbsp; I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.<br />
<br />
'''Censorship'''<br />
<br />
As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose a bill that would censor the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act; in the Senate, the PROTECT IP Act).&nbsp; The Internet has become the most important communications tool for the free flow of ideas.&nbsp; This bill would give the Justice Department power to shut down entire websites — even if the website or its information is not the subject of a complaint.&nbsp; It could provide a model for repressive regimes (who could promote it as the ‘American’ model).&nbsp; I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.<br />
<br />
'''Innovation'''<br />
<br />
As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose a bill that would chill innovation on the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act; in the Senate, the PROTECT IP Act).&nbsp; The Internet has created successful multi-billion-dollar businesses — and it has benefited thousands of small businesses by providing them a previously unreachable worldwide market.&nbsp; This bill would put unreasonable burdens on Internet Service Providers and search engines and would threaten to suffocate our Internet economy.&nbsp; I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.</div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Mobile Learn More Page'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
==Mobile page and message==<br />
<br />
'''Banner message'''<br />
<br />
'''IMAGINE A WORLD WITHOUT FREE KNOWLEDGE '''<br><br />
'''Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could cripple this site and your ability to access information online. Learn more.'''<br />
<br />
(link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Mobile_Learn_more)<br />
<br />
</div></div>Sue Gardnerhttps://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Archive:SOPA/Learn_more&diff=78005Archive:SOPA/Learn more2012-01-18T03:24:17Z<p>Sue Gardner: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
__NOTOC__<br />
<br />
''This is the text we're currently working on....''<br />
<br />
Call your elected officials. <br />
<br />
Tell them you are their constituent, and you oppose SOPA and PIPA.<br />
<br />
Why?<br />
<br />
SOPA and PIPA would cripple the free and open internet. They put the burden on website owners to police user-contributed material, and call for the blocking of entire sites, even if the site's links aren't to infringing material. Small sites won't have sufficient resources to mount a legal challenge. Without opposition, big media companies may seek to cut off funding sources for small competing foreign sites, even if big media are wrong in saying they infringe. Foreign sites will be blacklisted, which means they won't show up in major search engines. <br />
<br />
In a world in which politicians regulate the internet based on the influence of big money, Wikipedia --and many other useful informational sites-- cannot survive. SOPA/PIPA builds a framework for future restrictions and suppression. <br />
<br />
Congress says it's trying to protect the rights of copyright owners, but the "cure" that SOPA and PIPA represent is much more destructive than the disease they are trying to fix. SOPA and PIPA are not the answer: they will cripple the free and open internet.<br />
<br />
'''Blackout Page Text'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
'''IMAGINE A WORLD WITHOUT FREE KNOWLEDGE''' <br />
<br />
For over a decade, we have spent millions of hours building the largest encyclopedia in human history. Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could cripple this site and your ability to access information online. So today, for 24 hours, we black out Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
Tell your representatives you oppose SOPA and PIPA.<br />
</div><br />
<br />
'''Landing Page for U.S. Readers / Congress look-up page'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
For maximum impact, please consider calling your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators. Explain that you are a constituent and that you oppose these bills and similar future legislation. If you'd like to get more informed on SOPA/PIPA, please click here.<br />
<br />
'''Things you may want to say to your Senator or Representative'''<br />
<br />
"As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose SOPA and PIPA, and any future bill that would censor free speech and damage the security of the Internet."<br />
<br />
'''Regarding censorship'''<br />
<br />
“The Internet has become an important communications tool allowing the free flow of ideas. As introduced in the House and the Senate, SOPA and PIPA would give the Justice Department and courts tremendous power to shut down entire sites. Unfortunately, these bills ignore the principles of the First Amendment that require tailored solutions in lieu of across-the-board censorship. They represent terrible precedents for the United States and for the world.”<br />
<br />
<br />
==Social media text==<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Social media tweets/info<br />
|-<br />
| X || All ||<br />
|-<br />
| Google+ || I support the January 18th Wikipedia blackout to protest SOPA and PIPA. Show your support here <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/SOPA/Blackoutpage> ||<br />
|-<br />
| Facebook || <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/SOPA/Blackoutpage> ||<br />
|-<br />
| Twitter || I support #wikipediablackout! Show your support here <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/SOPA/Blackoutpage> ||<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Learn more about SOPA/PIPA below==<br />
<br />
The Wikipedia community has decided to blackout the English version of Wikipedia for 24 hours on January 18th in protest of proposed legislation — the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives, and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate. This legistlation, if passed, will harm the free and open Internet. These bills endanger free speech both in the United States and abroad, potentially setting a frightening precedent of Internet censorship for the world. If you are in the U.S., you can click visit Wikipedia and enter your zipcode to take action.<br />
<br />
==Share your view and tell the world==<br />
<br />
{{SOPABlogShare|wrapper css=text-align:center;}}<br />
<br />
==More information==<br />
<br />
Blog post from Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director, Sue Gardner:<br />
<br />
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/01/16/wikipedias-community-calls-for-anti-sopa-blackout-january-18/<br />
<br />
Official Wikimedia Foundation press release:<br />
<br />
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/English_Wikipedia_to_go_dark<br />
<br />
Statement from the community affirming blackout:<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Action<br />
<br />
Electronic Frontier Foundation blog post on the lingering faults in SOPA/PIPA:<br />
<br />
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/how-pipa-and-sopa-violate-white-house-principles-supporting-free-speech<br />
<br />
Wikipedia's articles on SOPA and PIPA:<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_IP_Act<br />
<br />
==Questions and Answers==<br />
<br />
Talking points<br />
<br />
* On January 18, 2012 (this Wednesday) the English Wikipedia will be protesting SOPA/PIPA with a global Wikipedia blackout. Readers who come to Wikipedia will see a message from Wikipedia about SOPA/PIPA and urging them to contact their Representatives or Senators to act. This protest will last 24hrs - from midnight to midnight EST (05:00 UTC Wed to 05:00 UTC Thu).<br />
<br />
* This decision was made by Wikipedia’s global community. Although the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that operates Wikipedia, opposes SOPA and PIPA, the decision was made by the community and that decision is now being implemented.<br />
<br />
* SOPA/PIPA are still real threats to the free, open, and secure web. Although recent media reports have suggested that the bills are losing support, they are not dead. On January 17th, SOPA's sponsor said the bill will be discussed and pushed forward in early February. PIPA could be debated in the U.S. Senate as soon as next week. There is a need to send a strong message that bills like SOPA and PIPA should not be allowed. Legislatures must understand that they must involve the internet industry in the law-making process to ensure innovation and protection of free expression.<br />
<br />
* Although the bills have changed, they are still a real threat to the free, open, and secure web. Among other serious problems in the current draft of the bills, the requirement exists for US-based sites to actively police links to purported infringing sites. These kinds of self-policing activities are non-sustainable for large, global projects - including possibly projects like Wikipedia. The legislative language is ambiguous and overly broad, even though it touches on protected speech. Our community is incredibly vigilant and proactive in keeping Wikipedia free of links or content that may infringe copyright.<br />
<br />
====What exactly is Wikipedia doing?====<br />
<br />
On January 18, 2012 the English Wikipedia community will be protesting SOPA/PIPA with a global English Wikipedia blackout. U.S. readers who come to English Wikipedia will see a message from Wikipedia about SOPA/PIPA that tells them to contact their Representatives or Senators to act. This protest will last 24 hours - from midnight to midnight EST.<br />
<br />
====Why is this happening?====<br />
<br />
The English Wikipedia community is opposed to SOPA/PIPA. In an unprecedented decision, the Wikipedia community has chosen to blackout the English version of Wikipedia for 24 hours, in protest against proposed legislation in the United States — the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives, and PROTECTIP Act (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate. If passed, this legislation will harm the free and open Internet and bring about new tools for censorship of international websites inside the United States.<br />
<br />
Wikipedia can only exist in an open and uncensored Internet. SOPA, PIPA, or any future legislation that censors free speech, damages Internet security, or inhibits innovation will hurt and undermine the Internet and the work of our community.<br />
<br />
====Isn't SOPA dead? Wasn't the bill shelved and didn't the White House declare that it won't sign anything that resembles the current bill?====<br />
<br />
No, both SOPA/PIPA are very much alive. On January 17th, SOPA's sponsor said the bill will be discussed and pushed forward in early February. As long as we see the threat of SOPA/PIPA on the horizon, we're going to carry out this protest and send a message that any proposed legislation of this kind that attacks the free and open web isn't welcome.<br />
<br />
====Aren’t SOPA/PIPA as they stand not even really a threat to Wikipedia? Won't the DNS provisions be removed?====<br />
<br />
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has a great post about this [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/how-pipa-and-sopa-violate-white-house-principles-supporting-free-speech here.]<br />
SOPA/PIPA are still alive, and they’re still a threat to the free and open web. Even with the DNS provisions removed, the bill would give the U.S. government extraordinary and loosely-defined powers to take control over content and information on the free web. In its current form the bill would also require U.S. websites to take on the duty of actively policing links for infringing content. There's more to it than that - taking one provision out doesn't make the bill okay - it's still terrible for the free and open web.<br />
<br />
====What about OPEN?====<br />
<br />
The [[:w:en:Online_Protection_and_Enforcement_of_Digital_Trade_Act |OPEN Act]] is another piece of legislation that is different from SOPA, and we're monitoring it, but SOPA/PIPA are the current focus. <br />
<br />
====Why is the Wikipedia mobile site still available?====<br />
<br />
In its blackout decision, the community has asked us to preserve emergency access options to Wikipedia. We've preserved access via the mobile site, and via a small number of backdoors to the main site.<br />
<br />
====Did the Italian Wikipedia’s protest action last year achieve its goal of stopping the Italian law in question?====<br />
<br />
It seems likely that the efforts of the Italian Wikipedia community around a similar Internet censorship bill compelled the Italian Parliament to announce that it would modify the proposed law to include only large online news sites -- meaning that any information outlets that don't fall into that category, Wikipedia among them, would be excluded from the law's reach. <br />
<br />
====Do you think U.S. users will respond to this action?====<br />
<br />
The focus of the message on the Wikipedia blackout page is likely to be action-oriented, with strong encouragement that U.S. users reading the message get in touch with their representatives and voice their displeasure over SOPA and PIPA. This effort is newsworthy to the U.S. and global press, and it’s very significant because it will expand the story beyond tech and media insiders to a wider public audience. Many up to this point have not heard much about the issue.<br />
<br />
====What is the significance of acting in concert with other major sites? Will this really produce a politically effective message beyond acting in isolation?====<br />
<br />
The Wikipedia community has selected January 18th because that was the date the U.S. House of Representatives had contemplated hearings and other actions around SOPA. Although those hearings are not occurring today as planned, they will likely be rescheduled to a later date to avoid the increased public opposition to the legislation that we see today. Further, it appears PIPA is moving forward in the U.S. Senate. The community feels this is the right time to act.<br />
<br />
When many organizations and projects align and protest like this, there’s clearly a big net effect. There’s no question this makes the story bigger than if one site, say Wikipedia, protested alone. Ultimately though it doesn’t look like we’re just following in the steps of others. Our community has strong views about this - and has from the beginning. It doesn’t simply look like they’re viewing activism in terms of how other sites are responding. Conversely, a lot of those other sites are very much looking to Wikipedia to see how our community is responding.<br />
<br />
====Is it still possible to access Wikipedia in any way?====<br />
The Wikipedia community, as part of their request to the Wikimedia Foundation to carry out this protest, asked us to ensure that we make English Wikipedia accessible in some way during an emergency. The English Wikipedia will be accessible on mobile devices and smart phones. Because the protest message is powered by JavaScript, it's also possible to view Wikipedia by completely disabling JavaScript in your browser.<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
====Alternates====<br />
'''JD Forrester Version'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left:5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
For over a decade, global volunteers have compiled billions of facts and contributed millions of hours to build Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
We have done this because we love to share knowledge with everyone. We have only been able to do this because the Internet is free and open.<br />
<br />
But right now, Congress is considering two bills that would hand repressive censorship tools to large commercial lobbyists.<br />
<br />
If [http://link SOPA] or [http://link the PROTECTIP Act] pass, they would destroy the freedom and openness that has made Wikipedia what it is. We have blacked-out access to Wikipedia for today to show what might happen.<br />
<br />
Please, consider whether a free and open Internet that includes Wikipedia is something you, too, care about. Use the tool below to contact your local representative or senator. Tell them that you oppose these acts. Tell them to protect the Internet.<br />
</div><br />
<br />
'''JD Forrester Version 2'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left:5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
For over a decade, global volunteers have compiled billions of facts and contributed millions of hours to build Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
We have only been able to do this because the Internet is free and open.<br />
<br />
But right now, the United States Congress is currently considering legislation that would hand repressive censorship tools to large commercial lobbyists, which could destroy the freedom and openness that has made Wikipedia what it is today.<br />
<br />
Please, consider whether a free and open Internet that includes Wikipedia is something that you, too, care about. Use the tool below to take action. Help protect the Internet.<br />
</div><br />
<br />
'''FT2 Version'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left:5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
'''The Internet needs you to protect free speech'''<br />
<br />
For over a decade, global volunteers have compiled billions of facts and contributed millions of hours to build Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
We have only been able to do this because the Internet is free and open.<br />
<br />
Free speech is in peril like never before. The United States Congress is currently considering striking out rights of free speech and other laws which made Wikipedia possible, forcing us to censor our editor discussions and the information we show you. <br />
<br />
If passed, it would destroy the freedom of Americans to write without censorship, on every website we have, in any language, everywhere.<br />
<br />
Please, consider whether a free and open Internet that includes Wikipedia is something that you, too, care about. Use the tool below to take action. Help protect the Internet.</div><br />
<br />
<br />
== Draft Things to say to elected Representatives ==<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
'''Cybersecurity'''<br />
<br />
As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose a bill that would damage the security of the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act; in the Senate, the PROTECT IP Act).&nbsp; A safe and secure Web is vital to our privacy and to commerce.&nbsp; Over a hundred established authorities on the Internet believe that the required blocking of Internet sites is badly thought out and threatens Internet security.&nbsp; I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.<br />
<br />
'''Censorship'''<br />
<br />
As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose a bill that would censor the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act; in the Senate, the PROTECT IP Act).&nbsp; The Internet has become the most important communications tool for the free flow of ideas.&nbsp; This bill would give the Justice Department power to shut down entire websites — even if the website or its information is not the subject of a complaint.&nbsp; It could provide a model for repressive regimes (who could promote it as the ‘American’ model).&nbsp; I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.<br />
<br />
'''Innovation'''<br />
<br />
As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose a bill that would chill innovation on the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act; in the Senate, the PROTECT IP Act).&nbsp; The Internet has created successful multi-billion-dollar businesses — and it has benefited thousands of small businesses by providing them a previously unreachable worldwide market.&nbsp; This bill would put unreasonable burdens on Internet Service Providers and search engines and would threaten to suffocate our Internet economy.&nbsp; I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.</div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Mobile Learn More Page'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
==Mobile page and message==<br />
<br />
'''Banner message'''<br />
<br />
'''IMAGINE A WORLD WITHOUT FREE KNOWLEDGE '''<br><br />
'''Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could cripple this site and your ability to access information online. Learn more.'''<br />
<br />
(link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Mobile_Learn_more)<br />
<br />
</div></div>Sue Gardnerhttps://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Archive:SOPA/Learn_more&diff=78004Archive:SOPA/Learn more2012-01-18T03:22:17Z<p>Sue Gardner: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
__NOTOC__<br />
<br />
''This is the text we're currently working on....''<br />
<br />
Call your elected officials. <br />
<br />
Tell them you are their constituent, and you oppose SOPA and PIPA.<br />
<br />
Why?<br />
<br />
SOPA and PIPA would cripple the free and open internet. They put the burden on website owners to police user-contributed material, and call for the blocking of entire sites, even if the site's links aren't to infringing material. Small sites won't have sufficient resources to mount a legal challenge. Without opposition, large media companies may seek to cut off funding sources for small competing foreign sites, even if big media are wrong in saying they infringe. Foreign sites will be blacklisted, which means they won't show up in major search engines. <br />
<br />
In a world in which politicians regulate the internet based on the influence of big money, Wikipedia --and many other useful informational sites-- cannot survive. SOPA/PIPA builds a framework for future restrictions and suppression. <br />
<br />
Congress says it's trying to protect the rights of copyright owners, but the "cure" that SOPA and PIPA represent is much more destructive than the disease they are trying to fix. SOPA and PIPA are not the answer: they will cripple the free and open internet.<br />
<br />
'''Blackout Page Text'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
'''IMAGINE A WORLD WITHOUT FREE KNOWLEDGE''' <br />
<br />
For over a decade, we have spent millions of hours building the largest encyclopedia in human history. Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could cripple this site and your ability to access information online. So today, for 24 hours, we black out Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
Tell your representatives you oppose SOPA and PIPA.<br />
</div><br />
<br />
'''Landing Page for U.S. Readers / Congress look-up page'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
For maximum impact, please consider calling your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators. Explain that you are a constituent and that you oppose these bills and similar future legislation. If you'd like to get more informed on SOPA/PIPA, please click here.<br />
<br />
'''Things you may want to say to your Senator or Representative'''<br />
<br />
"As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose SOPA and PIPA, and any future bill that would censor free speech and damage the security of the Internet."<br />
<br />
'''Regarding censorship'''<br />
<br />
“The Internet has become an important communications tool allowing the free flow of ideas. As introduced in the House and the Senate, SOPA and PIPA would give the Justice Department and courts tremendous power to shut down entire sites. Unfortunately, these bills ignore the principles of the First Amendment that require tailored solutions in lieu of across-the-board censorship. They represent terrible precedents for the United States and for the world.”<br />
<br />
<br />
==Social media text==<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Social media tweets/info<br />
|-<br />
| X || All ||<br />
|-<br />
| Google+ || I support the January 18th Wikipedia blackout to protest SOPA and PIPA. Show your support here <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/SOPA/Blackoutpage> ||<br />
|-<br />
| Facebook || <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/SOPA/Blackoutpage> ||<br />
|-<br />
| Twitter || I support #wikipediablackout! Show your support here <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/SOPA/Blackoutpage> ||<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Learn more about SOPA/PIPA below==<br />
<br />
The Wikipedia community has decided to blackout the English version of Wikipedia for 24 hours on January 18th in protest of proposed legislation — the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives, and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate. This legistlation, if passed, will harm the free and open Internet. These bills endanger free speech both in the United States and abroad, potentially setting a frightening precedent of Internet censorship for the world. If you are in the U.S., you can click visit Wikipedia and enter your zipcode to take action.<br />
<br />
==Share your view and tell the world==<br />
<br />
{{SOPABlogShare|wrapper css=text-align:center;}}<br />
<br />
==More information==<br />
<br />
Blog post from Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director, Sue Gardner:<br />
<br />
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/01/16/wikipedias-community-calls-for-anti-sopa-blackout-january-18/<br />
<br />
Official Wikimedia Foundation press release:<br />
<br />
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/English_Wikipedia_to_go_dark<br />
<br />
Statement from the community affirming blackout:<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Action<br />
<br />
Electronic Frontier Foundation blog post on the lingering faults in SOPA/PIPA:<br />
<br />
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/how-pipa-and-sopa-violate-white-house-principles-supporting-free-speech<br />
<br />
Wikipedia's articles on SOPA and PIPA:<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_IP_Act<br />
<br />
==Questions and Answers==<br />
<br />
Talking points<br />
<br />
* On January 18, 2012 (this Wednesday) the English Wikipedia will be protesting SOPA/PIPA with a global Wikipedia blackout. Readers who come to Wikipedia will see a message from Wikipedia about SOPA/PIPA and urging them to contact their Representatives or Senators to act. This protest will last 24hrs - from midnight to midnight EST (05:00 UTC Wed to 05:00 UTC Thu).<br />
<br />
* This decision was made by Wikipedia’s global community. Although the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that operates Wikipedia, opposes SOPA and PIPA, the decision was made by the community and that decision is now being implemented.<br />
<br />
* SOPA/PIPA are still real threats to the free, open, and secure web. Although recent media reports have suggested that the bills are losing support, they are not dead. On January 17th, SOPA's sponsor said the bill will be discussed and pushed forward in early February. PIPA could be debated in the U.S. Senate as soon as next week. There is a need to send a strong message that bills like SOPA and PIPA should not be allowed. Legislatures must understand that they must involve the internet industry in the law-making process to ensure innovation and protection of free expression.<br />
<br />
* Although the bills have changed, they are still a real threat to the free, open, and secure web. Among other serious problems in the current draft of the bills, the requirement exists for US-based sites to actively police links to purported infringing sites. These kinds of self-policing activities are non-sustainable for large, global projects - including possibly projects like Wikipedia. The legislative language is ambiguous and overly broad, even though it touches on protected speech. Our community is incredibly vigilant and proactive in keeping Wikipedia free of links or content that may infringe copyright.<br />
<br />
====What exactly is Wikipedia doing?====<br />
<br />
On January 18, 2012 the English Wikipedia community will be protesting SOPA/PIPA with a global English Wikipedia blackout. U.S. readers who come to English Wikipedia will see a message from Wikipedia about SOPA/PIPA that tells them to contact their Representatives or Senators to act. This protest will last 24 hours - from midnight to midnight EST.<br />
<br />
====Why is this happening?====<br />
<br />
The English Wikipedia community is opposed to SOPA/PIPA. In an unprecedented decision, the Wikipedia community has chosen to blackout the English version of Wikipedia for 24 hours, in protest against proposed legislation in the United States — the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives, and PROTECTIP Act (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate. If passed, this legislation will harm the free and open Internet and bring about new tools for censorship of international websites inside the United States.<br />
<br />
Wikipedia can only exist in an open and uncensored Internet. SOPA, PIPA, or any future legislation that censors free speech, damages Internet security, or inhibits innovation will hurt and undermine the Internet and the work of our community.<br />
<br />
====Isn't SOPA dead? Wasn't the bill shelved and didn't the White House declare that it won't sign anything that resembles the current bill?====<br />
<br />
No, both SOPA/PIPA are very much alive. On January 17th, SOPA's sponsor said the bill will be discussed and pushed forward in early February. As long as we see the threat of SOPA/PIPA on the horizon, we're going to carry out this protest and send a message that any proposed legislation of this kind that attacks the free and open web isn't welcome.<br />
<br />
====Aren’t SOPA/PIPA as they stand not even really a threat to Wikipedia? Won't the DNS provisions be removed?====<br />
<br />
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has a great post about this [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/how-pipa-and-sopa-violate-white-house-principles-supporting-free-speech here.]<br />
SOPA/PIPA are still alive, and they’re still a threat to the free and open web. Even with the DNS provisions removed, the bill would give the U.S. government extraordinary and loosely-defined powers to take control over content and information on the free web. In its current form the bill would also require U.S. websites to take on the duty of actively policing links for infringing content. There's more to it than that - taking one provision out doesn't make the bill okay - it's still terrible for the free and open web.<br />
<br />
====What about OPEN?====<br />
<br />
The [[:w:en:Online_Protection_and_Enforcement_of_Digital_Trade_Act |OPEN Act]] is another piece of legislation that is different from SOPA, and we're monitoring it, but SOPA/PIPA are the current focus. <br />
<br />
====Why is the Wikipedia mobile site still available?====<br />
<br />
In its blackout decision, the community has asked us to preserve emergency access options to Wikipedia. We've preserved access via the mobile site, and via a small number of backdoors to the main site.<br />
<br />
====Did the Italian Wikipedia’s protest action last year achieve its goal of stopping the Italian law in question?====<br />
<br />
It seems likely that the efforts of the Italian Wikipedia community around a similar Internet censorship bill compelled the Italian Parliament to announce that it would modify the proposed law to include only large online news sites -- meaning that any information outlets that don't fall into that category, Wikipedia among them, would be excluded from the law's reach. <br />
<br />
====Do you think U.S. users will respond to this action?====<br />
<br />
The focus of the message on the Wikipedia blackout page is likely to be action-oriented, with strong encouragement that U.S. users reading the message get in touch with their representatives and voice their displeasure over SOPA and PIPA. This effort is newsworthy to the U.S. and global press, and it’s very significant because it will expand the story beyond tech and media insiders to a wider public audience. Many up to this point have not heard much about the issue.<br />
<br />
====What is the significance of acting in concert with other major sites? Will this really produce a politically effective message beyond acting in isolation?====<br />
<br />
The Wikipedia community has selected January 18th because that was the date the U.S. House of Representatives had contemplated hearings and other actions around SOPA. Although those hearings are not occurring today as planned, they will likely be rescheduled to a later date to avoid the increased public opposition to the legislation that we see today. Further, it appears PIPA is moving forward in the U.S. Senate. The community feels this is the right time to act.<br />
<br />
When many organizations and projects align and protest like this, there’s clearly a big net effect. There’s no question this makes the story bigger than if one site, say Wikipedia, protested alone. Ultimately though it doesn’t look like we’re just following in the steps of others. Our community has strong views about this - and has from the beginning. It doesn’t simply look like they’re viewing activism in terms of how other sites are responding. Conversely, a lot of those other sites are very much looking to Wikipedia to see how our community is responding.<br />
<br />
====Is it still possible to access Wikipedia in any way?====<br />
The Wikipedia community, as part of their request to the Wikimedia Foundation to carry out this protest, asked us to ensure that we make English Wikipedia accessible in some way during an emergency. The English Wikipedia will be accessible on mobile devices and smart phones. Because the protest message is powered by JavaScript, it's also possible to view Wikipedia by completely disabling JavaScript in your browser.<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
====Alternates====<br />
'''JD Forrester Version'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left:5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
For over a decade, global volunteers have compiled billions of facts and contributed millions of hours to build Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
We have done this because we love to share knowledge with everyone. We have only been able to do this because the Internet is free and open.<br />
<br />
But right now, Congress is considering two bills that would hand repressive censorship tools to large commercial lobbyists.<br />
<br />
If [http://link SOPA] or [http://link the PROTECTIP Act] pass, they would destroy the freedom and openness that has made Wikipedia what it is. We have blacked-out access to Wikipedia for today to show what might happen.<br />
<br />
Please, consider whether a free and open Internet that includes Wikipedia is something you, too, care about. Use the tool below to contact your local representative or senator. Tell them that you oppose these acts. Tell them to protect the Internet.<br />
</div><br />
<br />
'''JD Forrester Version 2'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left:5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
For over a decade, global volunteers have compiled billions of facts and contributed millions of hours to build Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
We have only been able to do this because the Internet is free and open.<br />
<br />
But right now, the United States Congress is currently considering legislation that would hand repressive censorship tools to large commercial lobbyists, which could destroy the freedom and openness that has made Wikipedia what it is today.<br />
<br />
Please, consider whether a free and open Internet that includes Wikipedia is something that you, too, care about. Use the tool below to take action. Help protect the Internet.<br />
</div><br />
<br />
'''FT2 Version'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left:5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
'''The Internet needs you to protect free speech'''<br />
<br />
For over a decade, global volunteers have compiled billions of facts and contributed millions of hours to build Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
We have only been able to do this because the Internet is free and open.<br />
<br />
Free speech is in peril like never before. The United States Congress is currently considering striking out rights of free speech and other laws which made Wikipedia possible, forcing us to censor our editor discussions and the information we show you. <br />
<br />
If passed, it would destroy the freedom of Americans to write without censorship, on every website we have, in any language, everywhere.<br />
<br />
Please, consider whether a free and open Internet that includes Wikipedia is something that you, too, care about. Use the tool below to take action. Help protect the Internet.</div><br />
<br />
<br />
== Draft Things to say to elected Representatives ==<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
'''Cybersecurity'''<br />
<br />
As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose a bill that would damage the security of the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act; in the Senate, the PROTECT IP Act).&nbsp; A safe and secure Web is vital to our privacy and to commerce.&nbsp; Over a hundred established authorities on the Internet believe that the required blocking of Internet sites is badly thought out and threatens Internet security.&nbsp; I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.<br />
<br />
'''Censorship'''<br />
<br />
As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose a bill that would censor the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act; in the Senate, the PROTECT IP Act).&nbsp; The Internet has become the most important communications tool for the free flow of ideas.&nbsp; This bill would give the Justice Department power to shut down entire websites — even if the website or its information is not the subject of a complaint.&nbsp; It could provide a model for repressive regimes (who could promote it as the ‘American’ model).&nbsp; I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.<br />
<br />
'''Innovation'''<br />
<br />
As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose a bill that would chill innovation on the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act; in the Senate, the PROTECT IP Act).&nbsp; The Internet has created successful multi-billion-dollar businesses — and it has benefited thousands of small businesses by providing them a previously unreachable worldwide market.&nbsp; This bill would put unreasonable burdens on Internet Service Providers and search engines and would threaten to suffocate our Internet economy.&nbsp; I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.</div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Mobile Learn More Page'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
==Mobile page and message==<br />
<br />
'''Banner message'''<br />
<br />
'''IMAGINE A WORLD WITHOUT FREE KNOWLEDGE '''<br><br />
'''Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could cripple this site and your ability to access information online. Learn more.'''<br />
<br />
(link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Mobile_Learn_more)<br />
<br />
</div></div>Sue Gardnerhttps://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Archive:SOPA/Learn_more&diff=78003Archive:SOPA/Learn more2012-01-18T03:21:45Z<p>Sue Gardner: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
__NOTOC__<br />
<br />
''This is the text we're currently working on....''<br />
<br />
Call your elected officials. <br />
<br />
Tell them you are their constituent, and you oppose SOPA and PIPA.<br />
<br />
Why?<br />
<br />
SOPA and PIPA would cripple the free and open internet. They put the burden on website owners to police user-contributed material, and call for the blocking of entire sites, even if the site's links aren't primarily to infringing material. Small sites won't have sufficient resources to mount a legal challenge. Without opposition, large media companies may seek to cut off funding sources for small competing foreign sites, even if big media are wrong in saying they infringe. Foreign sites will be blacklisted, which means they won't show up in major search engines. <br />
<br />
In a world in which politicians regulate the internet based on the influence of big money, Wikipedia --and many other useful informational sites-- cannot survive. SOPA/PIPA builds a framework for future restrictions and suppression. <br />
<br />
Congress says it's trying to protect the rights of copyright owners, but the "cure" that SOPA and PIPA represent is much more destructive than the disease they are trying to fix. SOPA and PIPA are not the answer: they will cripple the free and open internet.<br />
<br />
'''Blackout Page Text'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
'''IMAGINE A WORLD WITHOUT FREE KNOWLEDGE''' <br />
<br />
For over a decade, we have spent millions of hours building the largest encyclopedia in human history. Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could cripple this site and your ability to access information online. So today, for 24 hours, we black out Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
Tell your representatives you oppose SOPA and PIPA.<br />
</div><br />
<br />
'''Landing Page for U.S. Readers / Congress look-up page'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
For maximum impact, please consider calling your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators. Explain that you are a constituent and that you oppose these bills and similar future legislation. If you'd like to get more informed on SOPA/PIPA, please click here.<br />
<br />
'''Things you may want to say to your Senator or Representative'''<br />
<br />
"As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose SOPA and PIPA, and any future bill that would censor free speech and damage the security of the Internet."<br />
<br />
'''Regarding censorship'''<br />
<br />
“The Internet has become an important communications tool allowing the free flow of ideas. As introduced in the House and the Senate, SOPA and PIPA would give the Justice Department and courts tremendous power to shut down entire sites. Unfortunately, these bills ignore the principles of the First Amendment that require tailored solutions in lieu of across-the-board censorship. They represent terrible precedents for the United States and for the world.”<br />
<br />
<br />
==Social media text==<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Social media tweets/info<br />
|-<br />
| X || All ||<br />
|-<br />
| Google+ || I support the January 18th Wikipedia blackout to protest SOPA and PIPA. Show your support here <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/SOPA/Blackoutpage> ||<br />
|-<br />
| Facebook || <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/SOPA/Blackoutpage> ||<br />
|-<br />
| Twitter || I support #wikipediablackout! Show your support here <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/SOPA/Blackoutpage> ||<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Learn more about SOPA/PIPA below==<br />
<br />
The Wikipedia community has decided to blackout the English version of Wikipedia for 24 hours on January 18th in protest of proposed legislation — the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives, and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate. This legistlation, if passed, will harm the free and open Internet. These bills endanger free speech both in the United States and abroad, potentially setting a frightening precedent of Internet censorship for the world. If you are in the U.S., you can click visit Wikipedia and enter your zipcode to take action.<br />
<br />
==Share your view and tell the world==<br />
<br />
{{SOPABlogShare|wrapper css=text-align:center;}}<br />
<br />
==More information==<br />
<br />
Blog post from Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director, Sue Gardner:<br />
<br />
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/01/16/wikipedias-community-calls-for-anti-sopa-blackout-january-18/<br />
<br />
Official Wikimedia Foundation press release:<br />
<br />
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/English_Wikipedia_to_go_dark<br />
<br />
Statement from the community affirming blackout:<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Action<br />
<br />
Electronic Frontier Foundation blog post on the lingering faults in SOPA/PIPA:<br />
<br />
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/how-pipa-and-sopa-violate-white-house-principles-supporting-free-speech<br />
<br />
Wikipedia's articles on SOPA and PIPA:<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_IP_Act<br />
<br />
==Questions and Answers==<br />
<br />
Talking points<br />
<br />
* On January 18, 2012 (this Wednesday) the English Wikipedia will be protesting SOPA/PIPA with a global Wikipedia blackout. Readers who come to Wikipedia will see a message from Wikipedia about SOPA/PIPA and urging them to contact their Representatives or Senators to act. This protest will last 24hrs - from midnight to midnight EST (05:00 UTC Wed to 05:00 UTC Thu).<br />
<br />
* This decision was made by Wikipedia’s global community. Although the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that operates Wikipedia, opposes SOPA and PIPA, the decision was made by the community and that decision is now being implemented.<br />
<br />
* SOPA/PIPA are still real threats to the free, open, and secure web. Although recent media reports have suggested that the bills are losing support, they are not dead. On January 17th, SOPA's sponsor said the bill will be discussed and pushed forward in early February. PIPA could be debated in the U.S. Senate as soon as next week. There is a need to send a strong message that bills like SOPA and PIPA should not be allowed. Legislatures must understand that they must involve the internet industry in the law-making process to ensure innovation and protection of free expression.<br />
<br />
* Although the bills have changed, they are still a real threat to the free, open, and secure web. Among other serious problems in the current draft of the bills, the requirement exists for US-based sites to actively police links to purported infringing sites. These kinds of self-policing activities are non-sustainable for large, global projects - including possibly projects like Wikipedia. The legislative language is ambiguous and overly broad, even though it touches on protected speech. Our community is incredibly vigilant and proactive in keeping Wikipedia free of links or content that may infringe copyright.<br />
<br />
====What exactly is Wikipedia doing?====<br />
<br />
On January 18, 2012 the English Wikipedia community will be protesting SOPA/PIPA with a global English Wikipedia blackout. U.S. readers who come to English Wikipedia will see a message from Wikipedia about SOPA/PIPA that tells them to contact their Representatives or Senators to act. This protest will last 24 hours - from midnight to midnight EST.<br />
<br />
====Why is this happening?====<br />
<br />
The English Wikipedia community is opposed to SOPA/PIPA. In an unprecedented decision, the Wikipedia community has chosen to blackout the English version of Wikipedia for 24 hours, in protest against proposed legislation in the United States — the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives, and PROTECTIP Act (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate. If passed, this legislation will harm the free and open Internet and bring about new tools for censorship of international websites inside the United States.<br />
<br />
Wikipedia can only exist in an open and uncensored Internet. SOPA, PIPA, or any future legislation that censors free speech, damages Internet security, or inhibits innovation will hurt and undermine the Internet and the work of our community.<br />
<br />
====Isn't SOPA dead? Wasn't the bill shelved and didn't the White House declare that it won't sign anything that resembles the current bill?====<br />
<br />
No, both SOPA/PIPA are very much alive. On January 17th, SOPA's sponsor said the bill will be discussed and pushed forward in early February. As long as we see the threat of SOPA/PIPA on the horizon, we're going to carry out this protest and send a message that any proposed legislation of this kind that attacks the free and open web isn't welcome.<br />
<br />
====Aren’t SOPA/PIPA as they stand not even really a threat to Wikipedia? Won't the DNS provisions be removed?====<br />
<br />
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has a great post about this [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/how-pipa-and-sopa-violate-white-house-principles-supporting-free-speech here.]<br />
SOPA/PIPA are still alive, and they’re still a threat to the free and open web. Even with the DNS provisions removed, the bill would give the U.S. government extraordinary and loosely-defined powers to take control over content and information on the free web. In its current form the bill would also require U.S. websites to take on the duty of actively policing links for infringing content. There's more to it than that - taking one provision out doesn't make the bill okay - it's still terrible for the free and open web.<br />
<br />
====What about OPEN?====<br />
<br />
The [[:w:en:Online_Protection_and_Enforcement_of_Digital_Trade_Act |OPEN Act]] is another piece of legislation that is different from SOPA, and we're monitoring it, but SOPA/PIPA are the current focus. <br />
<br />
====Why is the Wikipedia mobile site still available?====<br />
<br />
In its blackout decision, the community has asked us to preserve emergency access options to Wikipedia. We've preserved access via the mobile site, and via a small number of backdoors to the main site.<br />
<br />
====Did the Italian Wikipedia’s protest action last year achieve its goal of stopping the Italian law in question?====<br />
<br />
It seems likely that the efforts of the Italian Wikipedia community around a similar Internet censorship bill compelled the Italian Parliament to announce that it would modify the proposed law to include only large online news sites -- meaning that any information outlets that don't fall into that category, Wikipedia among them, would be excluded from the law's reach. <br />
<br />
====Do you think U.S. users will respond to this action?====<br />
<br />
The focus of the message on the Wikipedia blackout page is likely to be action-oriented, with strong encouragement that U.S. users reading the message get in touch with their representatives and voice their displeasure over SOPA and PIPA. This effort is newsworthy to the U.S. and global press, and it’s very significant because it will expand the story beyond tech and media insiders to a wider public audience. Many up to this point have not heard much about the issue.<br />
<br />
====What is the significance of acting in concert with other major sites? Will this really produce a politically effective message beyond acting in isolation?====<br />
<br />
The Wikipedia community has selected January 18th because that was the date the U.S. House of Representatives had contemplated hearings and other actions around SOPA. Although those hearings are not occurring today as planned, they will likely be rescheduled to a later date to avoid the increased public opposition to the legislation that we see today. Further, it appears PIPA is moving forward in the U.S. Senate. The community feels this is the right time to act.<br />
<br />
When many organizations and projects align and protest like this, there’s clearly a big net effect. There’s no question this makes the story bigger than if one site, say Wikipedia, protested alone. Ultimately though it doesn’t look like we’re just following in the steps of others. Our community has strong views about this - and has from the beginning. It doesn’t simply look like they’re viewing activism in terms of how other sites are responding. Conversely, a lot of those other sites are very much looking to Wikipedia to see how our community is responding.<br />
<br />
====Is it still possible to access Wikipedia in any way?====<br />
The Wikipedia community, as part of their request to the Wikimedia Foundation to carry out this protest, asked us to ensure that we make English Wikipedia accessible in some way during an emergency. The English Wikipedia will be accessible on mobile devices and smart phones. Because the protest message is powered by JavaScript, it's also possible to view Wikipedia by completely disabling JavaScript in your browser.<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
====Alternates====<br />
'''JD Forrester Version'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left:5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
For over a decade, global volunteers have compiled billions of facts and contributed millions of hours to build Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
We have done this because we love to share knowledge with everyone. We have only been able to do this because the Internet is free and open.<br />
<br />
But right now, Congress is considering two bills that would hand repressive censorship tools to large commercial lobbyists.<br />
<br />
If [http://link SOPA] or [http://link the PROTECTIP Act] pass, they would destroy the freedom and openness that has made Wikipedia what it is. We have blacked-out access to Wikipedia for today to show what might happen.<br />
<br />
Please, consider whether a free and open Internet that includes Wikipedia is something you, too, care about. Use the tool below to contact your local representative or senator. Tell them that you oppose these acts. Tell them to protect the Internet.<br />
</div><br />
<br />
'''JD Forrester Version 2'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left:5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
For over a decade, global volunteers have compiled billions of facts and contributed millions of hours to build Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
We have only been able to do this because the Internet is free and open.<br />
<br />
But right now, the United States Congress is currently considering legislation that would hand repressive censorship tools to large commercial lobbyists, which could destroy the freedom and openness that has made Wikipedia what it is today.<br />
<br />
Please, consider whether a free and open Internet that includes Wikipedia is something that you, too, care about. Use the tool below to take action. Help protect the Internet.<br />
</div><br />
<br />
'''FT2 Version'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left:5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
'''The Internet needs you to protect free speech'''<br />
<br />
For over a decade, global volunteers have compiled billions of facts and contributed millions of hours to build Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
We have only been able to do this because the Internet is free and open.<br />
<br />
Free speech is in peril like never before. The United States Congress is currently considering striking out rights of free speech and other laws which made Wikipedia possible, forcing us to censor our editor discussions and the information we show you. <br />
<br />
If passed, it would destroy the freedom of Americans to write without censorship, on every website we have, in any language, everywhere.<br />
<br />
Please, consider whether a free and open Internet that includes Wikipedia is something that you, too, care about. Use the tool below to take action. Help protect the Internet.</div><br />
<br />
<br />
== Draft Things to say to elected Representatives ==<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
'''Cybersecurity'''<br />
<br />
As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose a bill that would damage the security of the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act; in the Senate, the PROTECT IP Act).&nbsp; A safe and secure Web is vital to our privacy and to commerce.&nbsp; Over a hundred established authorities on the Internet believe that the required blocking of Internet sites is badly thought out and threatens Internet security.&nbsp; I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.<br />
<br />
'''Censorship'''<br />
<br />
As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose a bill that would censor the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act; in the Senate, the PROTECT IP Act).&nbsp; The Internet has become the most important communications tool for the free flow of ideas.&nbsp; This bill would give the Justice Department power to shut down entire websites — even if the website or its information is not the subject of a complaint.&nbsp; It could provide a model for repressive regimes (who could promote it as the ‘American’ model).&nbsp; I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.<br />
<br />
'''Innovation'''<br />
<br />
As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose a bill that would chill innovation on the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act; in the Senate, the PROTECT IP Act).&nbsp; The Internet has created successful multi-billion-dollar businesses — and it has benefited thousands of small businesses by providing them a previously unreachable worldwide market.&nbsp; This bill would put unreasonable burdens on Internet Service Providers and search engines and would threaten to suffocate our Internet economy.&nbsp; I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.</div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Mobile Learn More Page'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
==Mobile page and message==<br />
<br />
'''Banner message'''<br />
<br />
'''IMAGINE A WORLD WITHOUT FREE KNOWLEDGE '''<br><br />
'''Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could cripple this site and your ability to access information online. Learn more.'''<br />
<br />
(link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Mobile_Learn_more)<br />
<br />
</div></div>Sue Gardnerhttps://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Archive:SOPA/Learn_more&diff=78002Archive:SOPA/Learn more2012-01-18T03:21:19Z<p>Sue Gardner: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
__NOTOC__<br />
<br />
''This is the text we're currently working on....''<br />
<br />
Call your elected officials. <br />
<br />
Tell them you are their constituent, and you oppose SOPA and PIPA.<br />
<br />
Why?<br />
<br />
SOPA and PIPA would cripple the free and open internet. They put the burden on website owners to police user-contributed material, and call for the blocking of entire sites, even if the site's links aren't primarily to infringing material. Small sites won't have sufficient resources to mount a legal challenge. Without opposition, large media companies may seek to cut off funding sources for small competing foreign sites, even if big media are wrong in saying they infringe. Foreign sites will be blacklisted, which means they won't show up in major search engines. <br />
<br />
In a world in which politicians regulate the internet based on the influence of big money, Wikipedia --and many other useful informational sites-- cannot survive. SOPA/PIPA builds a framework for future restrictions and suppression. Congress says it's trying to protect the rights of copyright owners, but the "cure" that SOPA and PIPA represent is much more destructive than the disease they are trying to fix. SOPA and PIPA are not the answer: they will cripple the free and open internet.<br />
<br />
'''Blackout Page Text'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
'''IMAGINE A WORLD WITHOUT FREE KNOWLEDGE''' <br />
<br />
For over a decade, we have spent millions of hours building the largest encyclopedia in human history. Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could cripple this site and your ability to access information online. So today, for 24 hours, we black out Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
Tell your representatives you oppose SOPA and PIPA.<br />
</div><br />
<br />
'''Landing Page for U.S. Readers / Congress look-up page'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
For maximum impact, please consider calling your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators. Explain that you are a constituent and that you oppose these bills and similar future legislation. If you'd like to get more informed on SOPA/PIPA, please click here.<br />
<br />
'''Things you may want to say to your Senator or Representative'''<br />
<br />
"As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose SOPA and PIPA, and any future bill that would censor free speech and damage the security of the Internet."<br />
<br />
'''Regarding censorship'''<br />
<br />
“The Internet has become an important communications tool allowing the free flow of ideas. As introduced in the House and the Senate, SOPA and PIPA would give the Justice Department and courts tremendous power to shut down entire sites. Unfortunately, these bills ignore the principles of the First Amendment that require tailored solutions in lieu of across-the-board censorship. They represent terrible precedents for the United States and for the world.”<br />
<br />
<br />
==Social media text==<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Social media tweets/info<br />
|-<br />
| X || All ||<br />
|-<br />
| Google+ || I support the January 18th Wikipedia blackout to protest SOPA and PIPA. Show your support here <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/SOPA/Blackoutpage> ||<br />
|-<br />
| Facebook || <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/SOPA/Blackoutpage> ||<br />
|-<br />
| Twitter || I support #wikipediablackout! Show your support here <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/SOPA/Blackoutpage> ||<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Learn more about SOPA/PIPA below==<br />
<br />
The Wikipedia community has decided to blackout the English version of Wikipedia for 24 hours on January 18th in protest of proposed legislation — the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives, and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate. This legistlation, if passed, will harm the free and open Internet. These bills endanger free speech both in the United States and abroad, potentially setting a frightening precedent of Internet censorship for the world. If you are in the U.S., you can click visit Wikipedia and enter your zipcode to take action.<br />
<br />
==Share your view and tell the world==<br />
<br />
{{SOPABlogShare|wrapper css=text-align:center;}}<br />
<br />
==More information==<br />
<br />
Blog post from Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director, Sue Gardner:<br />
<br />
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/01/16/wikipedias-community-calls-for-anti-sopa-blackout-january-18/<br />
<br />
Official Wikimedia Foundation press release:<br />
<br />
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/English_Wikipedia_to_go_dark<br />
<br />
Statement from the community affirming blackout:<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Action<br />
<br />
Electronic Frontier Foundation blog post on the lingering faults in SOPA/PIPA:<br />
<br />
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/how-pipa-and-sopa-violate-white-house-principles-supporting-free-speech<br />
<br />
Wikipedia's articles on SOPA and PIPA:<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_IP_Act<br />
<br />
==Questions and Answers==<br />
<br />
Talking points<br />
<br />
* On January 18, 2012 (this Wednesday) the English Wikipedia will be protesting SOPA/PIPA with a global Wikipedia blackout. Readers who come to Wikipedia will see a message from Wikipedia about SOPA/PIPA and urging them to contact their Representatives or Senators to act. This protest will last 24hrs - from midnight to midnight EST (05:00 UTC Wed to 05:00 UTC Thu).<br />
<br />
* This decision was made by Wikipedia’s global community. Although the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that operates Wikipedia, opposes SOPA and PIPA, the decision was made by the community and that decision is now being implemented.<br />
<br />
* SOPA/PIPA are still real threats to the free, open, and secure web. Although recent media reports have suggested that the bills are losing support, they are not dead. On January 17th, SOPA's sponsor said the bill will be discussed and pushed forward in early February. PIPA could be debated in the U.S. Senate as soon as next week. There is a need to send a strong message that bills like SOPA and PIPA should not be allowed. Legislatures must understand that they must involve the internet industry in the law-making process to ensure innovation and protection of free expression.<br />
<br />
* Although the bills have changed, they are still a real threat to the free, open, and secure web. Among other serious problems in the current draft of the bills, the requirement exists for US-based sites to actively police links to purported infringing sites. These kinds of self-policing activities are non-sustainable for large, global projects - including possibly projects like Wikipedia. The legislative language is ambiguous and overly broad, even though it touches on protected speech. Our community is incredibly vigilant and proactive in keeping Wikipedia free of links or content that may infringe copyright.<br />
<br />
====What exactly is Wikipedia doing?====<br />
<br />
On January 18, 2012 the English Wikipedia community will be protesting SOPA/PIPA with a global English Wikipedia blackout. U.S. readers who come to English Wikipedia will see a message from Wikipedia about SOPA/PIPA that tells them to contact their Representatives or Senators to act. This protest will last 24 hours - from midnight to midnight EST.<br />
<br />
====Why is this happening?====<br />
<br />
The English Wikipedia community is opposed to SOPA/PIPA. In an unprecedented decision, the Wikipedia community has chosen to blackout the English version of Wikipedia for 24 hours, in protest against proposed legislation in the United States — the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives, and PROTECTIP Act (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate. If passed, this legislation will harm the free and open Internet and bring about new tools for censorship of international websites inside the United States.<br />
<br />
Wikipedia can only exist in an open and uncensored Internet. SOPA, PIPA, or any future legislation that censors free speech, damages Internet security, or inhibits innovation will hurt and undermine the Internet and the work of our community.<br />
<br />
====Isn't SOPA dead? Wasn't the bill shelved and didn't the White House declare that it won't sign anything that resembles the current bill?====<br />
<br />
No, both SOPA/PIPA are very much alive. On January 17th, SOPA's sponsor said the bill will be discussed and pushed forward in early February. As long as we see the threat of SOPA/PIPA on the horizon, we're going to carry out this protest and send a message that any proposed legislation of this kind that attacks the free and open web isn't welcome.<br />
<br />
====Aren’t SOPA/PIPA as they stand not even really a threat to Wikipedia? Won't the DNS provisions be removed?====<br />
<br />
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has a great post about this [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/how-pipa-and-sopa-violate-white-house-principles-supporting-free-speech here.]<br />
SOPA/PIPA are still alive, and they’re still a threat to the free and open web. Even with the DNS provisions removed, the bill would give the U.S. government extraordinary and loosely-defined powers to take control over content and information on the free web. In its current form the bill would also require U.S. websites to take on the duty of actively policing links for infringing content. There's more to it than that - taking one provision out doesn't make the bill okay - it's still terrible for the free and open web.<br />
<br />
====What about OPEN?====<br />
<br />
The [[:w:en:Online_Protection_and_Enforcement_of_Digital_Trade_Act |OPEN Act]] is another piece of legislation that is different from SOPA, and we're monitoring it, but SOPA/PIPA are the current focus. <br />
<br />
====Why is the Wikipedia mobile site still available?====<br />
<br />
In its blackout decision, the community has asked us to preserve emergency access options to Wikipedia. We've preserved access via the mobile site, and via a small number of backdoors to the main site.<br />
<br />
====Did the Italian Wikipedia’s protest action last year achieve its goal of stopping the Italian law in question?====<br />
<br />
It seems likely that the efforts of the Italian Wikipedia community around a similar Internet censorship bill compelled the Italian Parliament to announce that it would modify the proposed law to include only large online news sites -- meaning that any information outlets that don't fall into that category, Wikipedia among them, would be excluded from the law's reach. <br />
<br />
====Do you think U.S. users will respond to this action?====<br />
<br />
The focus of the message on the Wikipedia blackout page is likely to be action-oriented, with strong encouragement that U.S. users reading the message get in touch with their representatives and voice their displeasure over SOPA and PIPA. This effort is newsworthy to the U.S. and global press, and it’s very significant because it will expand the story beyond tech and media insiders to a wider public audience. Many up to this point have not heard much about the issue.<br />
<br />
====What is the significance of acting in concert with other major sites? Will this really produce a politically effective message beyond acting in isolation?====<br />
<br />
The Wikipedia community has selected January 18th because that was the date the U.S. House of Representatives had contemplated hearings and other actions around SOPA. Although those hearings are not occurring today as planned, they will likely be rescheduled to a later date to avoid the increased public opposition to the legislation that we see today. Further, it appears PIPA is moving forward in the U.S. Senate. The community feels this is the right time to act.<br />
<br />
When many organizations and projects align and protest like this, there’s clearly a big net effect. There’s no question this makes the story bigger than if one site, say Wikipedia, protested alone. Ultimately though it doesn’t look like we’re just following in the steps of others. Our community has strong views about this - and has from the beginning. It doesn’t simply look like they’re viewing activism in terms of how other sites are responding. Conversely, a lot of those other sites are very much looking to Wikipedia to see how our community is responding.<br />
<br />
====Is it still possible to access Wikipedia in any way?====<br />
The Wikipedia community, as part of their request to the Wikimedia Foundation to carry out this protest, asked us to ensure that we make English Wikipedia accessible in some way during an emergency. The English Wikipedia will be accessible on mobile devices and smart phones. Because the protest message is powered by JavaScript, it's also possible to view Wikipedia by completely disabling JavaScript in your browser.<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
====Alternates====<br />
'''JD Forrester Version'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left:5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
For over a decade, global volunteers have compiled billions of facts and contributed millions of hours to build Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
We have done this because we love to share knowledge with everyone. We have only been able to do this because the Internet is free and open.<br />
<br />
But right now, Congress is considering two bills that would hand repressive censorship tools to large commercial lobbyists.<br />
<br />
If [http://link SOPA] or [http://link the PROTECTIP Act] pass, they would destroy the freedom and openness that has made Wikipedia what it is. We have blacked-out access to Wikipedia for today to show what might happen.<br />
<br />
Please, consider whether a free and open Internet that includes Wikipedia is something you, too, care about. Use the tool below to contact your local representative or senator. Tell them that you oppose these acts. Tell them to protect the Internet.<br />
</div><br />
<br />
'''JD Forrester Version 2'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left:5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
For over a decade, global volunteers have compiled billions of facts and contributed millions of hours to build Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
We have only been able to do this because the Internet is free and open.<br />
<br />
But right now, the United States Congress is currently considering legislation that would hand repressive censorship tools to large commercial lobbyists, which could destroy the freedom and openness that has made Wikipedia what it is today.<br />
<br />
Please, consider whether a free and open Internet that includes Wikipedia is something that you, too, care about. Use the tool below to take action. Help protect the Internet.<br />
</div><br />
<br />
'''FT2 Version'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left:5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
'''The Internet needs you to protect free speech'''<br />
<br />
For over a decade, global volunteers have compiled billions of facts and contributed millions of hours to build Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
We have only been able to do this because the Internet is free and open.<br />
<br />
Free speech is in peril like never before. The United States Congress is currently considering striking out rights of free speech and other laws which made Wikipedia possible, forcing us to censor our editor discussions and the information we show you. <br />
<br />
If passed, it would destroy the freedom of Americans to write without censorship, on every website we have, in any language, everywhere.<br />
<br />
Please, consider whether a free and open Internet that includes Wikipedia is something that you, too, care about. Use the tool below to take action. Help protect the Internet.</div><br />
<br />
<br />
== Draft Things to say to elected Representatives ==<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
'''Cybersecurity'''<br />
<br />
As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose a bill that would damage the security of the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act; in the Senate, the PROTECT IP Act).&nbsp; A safe and secure Web is vital to our privacy and to commerce.&nbsp; Over a hundred established authorities on the Internet believe that the required blocking of Internet sites is badly thought out and threatens Internet security.&nbsp; I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.<br />
<br />
'''Censorship'''<br />
<br />
As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose a bill that would censor the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act; in the Senate, the PROTECT IP Act).&nbsp; The Internet has become the most important communications tool for the free flow of ideas.&nbsp; This bill would give the Justice Department power to shut down entire websites — even if the website or its information is not the subject of a complaint.&nbsp; It could provide a model for repressive regimes (who could promote it as the ‘American’ model).&nbsp; I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.<br />
<br />
'''Innovation'''<br />
<br />
As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose a bill that would chill innovation on the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act; in the Senate, the PROTECT IP Act).&nbsp; The Internet has created successful multi-billion-dollar businesses — and it has benefited thousands of small businesses by providing them a previously unreachable worldwide market.&nbsp; This bill would put unreasonable burdens on Internet Service Providers and search engines and would threaten to suffocate our Internet economy.&nbsp; I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.</div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Mobile Learn More Page'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
==Mobile page and message==<br />
<br />
'''Banner message'''<br />
<br />
'''IMAGINE A WORLD WITHOUT FREE KNOWLEDGE '''<br><br />
'''Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could cripple this site and your ability to access information online. Learn more.'''<br />
<br />
(link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Mobile_Learn_more)<br />
<br />
</div></div>Sue Gardnerhttps://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Archive:SOPA/Learn_more&diff=77998Archive:SOPA/Learn more2012-01-18T03:12:28Z<p>Sue Gardner: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
__NOTOC__<br />
<br />
''This is the text we're currently working on....''<br />
<br />
Call your elected officials. <br />
<br />
Tell them you are their constituent, and you oppose SOPA and PIPA.<br />
<br />
Why?<br />
<br />
SOPA and PIPA would cripple the free and open internet. They put the onus on website owners to police user-contributed material and call for the blocking of entire sites, even if the site's links aren't primarily to infringing material. Small sites will not have sufficient resources to mount a legal challenge. Without opposition, large media companies may seek to cut off funding sources for small competing foreign sites, even if big media are wrong in saying they infringe. Foreign sites will be blacklisted, which means they won't show up in major search engines. <br />
<br />
In a world in which politicians regulate the internet based on the influence of big money, Wikipedia --and many other useful informational sites-- cannot survive. SOPA/PIPA represent a framework for future restrictions and suppression. Congress says it's trying to protect the rights of copyright owners, but the "cure" that SOPA and PIPA represent is much more destructive than the disease they are trying to fix. <br />
<br />
'''Blackout Page Text'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
'''IMAGINE A WORLD WITHOUT FREE KNOWLEDGE''' <br />
<br />
For over a decade, we have spent millions of hours building the largest encyclopedia in human history. Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could cripple this site and your ability to access information online. So today, for 24 hours, we black out Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
Tell your representatives you oppose SOPA and PIPA.<br />
</div><br />
<br />
'''Landing Page for U.S. Readers / Congress look-up page'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
For maximum impact, please consider calling your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators. Explain that you are a constituent and that you oppose these bills and similar future legislation. If you'd like to get more informed on SOPA/PIPA, please click here.<br />
<br />
'''Things you may want to say to your Senator or Representative'''<br />
<br />
"As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose SOPA and PIPA, and any future bill that would censor free speech and damage the security of the Internet."<br />
<br />
'''Regarding censorship'''<br />
<br />
“The Internet has become an important communications tool allowing the free flow of ideas. As introduced in the House and the Senate, SOPA and PIPA would give the Justice Department and courts tremendous power to shut down entire sites. Unfortunately, these bills ignore the principles of the First Amendment that require tailored solutions in lieu of across-the-board censorship. They represent terrible precedents for the United States and for the world.”<br />
<br />
<br />
==Social media text==<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Social media tweets/info<br />
|-<br />
| X || All ||<br />
|-<br />
| Google+ || I support the January 18th Wikipedia blackout to protest SOPA and PIPA. Show your support here <link> ||<br />
|-<br />
| Facebook || <link> ||<br />
|-<br />
| Twitter || I support #wikipediablackout! Show your support here <link> ||<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Learn more about SOPA/PIPA below==<br />
<br />
The Wikipedia community has decided to blackout the English version of Wikipedia for 24 hours on January 18th in protest of proposed legislation — the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives, and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate. This legistlation, if passed, will harm the free and open Internet. These bills endanger free speech both in the United States and abroad, potentially setting a frightening precedent of Internet censorship for the world. If you are in the U.S., you can click visit Wikipedia and enter your zipcode to take action.<br />
<br />
==Share your view and tell the world==<br />
<br />
{{SOPABlogShare|wrapper css=text-align:center;}}<br />
<br />
==More information==<br />
<br />
Blog post from Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director, Sue Gardner:<br />
<br />
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/01/16/wikipedias-community-calls-for-anti-sopa-blackout-january-18/<br />
<br />
Official Wikimedia Foundation press release:<br />
<br />
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/English_Wikipedia_to_go_dark<br />
<br />
Statement from the community affirming blackout:<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Action<br />
<br />
Electronic Frontier Foundation blog post on the lingering faults in SOPA/PIPA:<br />
<br />
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/how-pipa-and-sopa-violate-white-house-principles-supporting-free-speech<br />
<br />
Wikipedia's articles on SOPA and PIPA:<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_IP_Act<br />
<br />
==Questions and Answers==<br />
<br />
Talking points<br />
<br />
* On January 18, 2012 (this Wednesday) the English Wikipedia will be protesting SOPA/PIPA with a global Wikipedia blackout. Readers who come to Wikipedia will see a message from Wikipedia about SOPA/PIPA and urging them to contact their Representatives or Senators to act. This protest will last 24hrs - from midnight to midnight EST (05:00 UTC Wed to 05:00 UTC Thu).<br />
<br />
* This decision was made by Wikipedia’s global community. Although the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that operates Wikipedia, opposes SOPA and PIPA, the decision was made by the community and that decision is now being implemented.<br />
<br />
* SOPA/PIPA are still real threats to the free, open, and secure web. Although recent media reports have suggested that the bills are losing support, they are not dead. On January 17th, SOPA's sponsor said the bill will be discussed and pushed forward in early February. PIPA could be debated in the U.S. Senate as soon as next week. There is a need to send a strong message that bills like SOPA and PIPA should not be allowed. Legislatures must understand that they must involve the internet industry in the law-making process to ensure innovation and protection of free expression.<br />
<br />
* Although the bills have changed, they are still a real threat to the free, open, and secure web. Among other serious problems in the current draft of the bills, the requirement exists for US-based sites to actively police links to purported infringing sites. These kinds of self-policing activities are non-sustainable for large, global projects - including possibly projects like Wikipedia. The legislative language is ambiguous and overly broad, even though it touches on protected speech. Our community is incredibly vigilant and proactive in keeping Wikipedia free of links or content that may infringe copyright.<br />
<br />
====What exactly is Wikipedia doing?====<br />
<br />
On January 18, 2012 the English Wikipedia community will be protesting SOPA/PIPA with a global English Wikipedia blackout. U.S. readers who come to English Wikipedia will see a message from Wikipedia about SOPA/PIPA that tells them to contact their Representatives or Senators to act. This protest will last 24 hours - from midnight to midnight EST.<br />
<br />
====Why is this happening?====<br />
<br />
The English Wikipedia community is opposed to SOPA/PIPA. In an unprecedented decision, the Wikipedia community has chosen to blackout the English version of Wikipedia for 24 hours, in protest against proposed legislation in the United States — the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives, and PROTECTIP Act (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate. If passed, this legislation will harm the free and open Internet and bring about new tools for censorship of international websites inside the United States.<br />
<br />
Wikipedia can only exist in an open and uncensored Internet. SOPA, PIPA, or any future legislation that censors free speech, damages Internet security, or inhibits innovation will hurt and undermine the Internet and the work of our community.<br />
<br />
====Isn't SOPA dead? Wasn't the bill shelved and didn't the White House declare that it won't sign anything that resembles the current bill?====<br />
<br />
No, both SOPA/PIPA are very much alive. On January 17th, SOPA's sponsor said the bill will be discussed and pushed forward in early February. As long as we see the threat of SOPA/PIPA on the horizon, we're going to carry out this protest and send a message that any proposed legislation of this kind that attacks the free and open web isn't welcome.<br />
<br />
====Aren’t SOPA/PIPA as they stand not even really a threat to Wikipedia? Won't the DNS provisions be removed?====<br />
<br />
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has a great post about this [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/how-pipa-and-sopa-violate-white-house-principles-supporting-free-speech here.]<br />
SOPA/PIPA are still alive, and they’re still a threat to the free and open web. Even with the DNS provisions removed, the bill would give the U.S. government extraordinary and loosely-defined powers to take control over content and information on the free web. In its current form the bill would also require U.S. websites to take on the duty of actively policing links for infringing content. There's more to it than that - taking one provision out doesn't make the bill okay - it's still terrible for the free and open web.<br />
<br />
====What about OPEN?====<br />
<br />
The [[:w:en:Online_Protection_and_Enforcement_of_Digital_Trade_Act |OPEN Act]] is another piece of legislation that is different from SOPA, and we're monitoring it, but SOPA/PIPA are the current focus. <br />
<br />
====Why is the Wikipedia mobile site still available?====<br />
<br />
In its blackout decision, the community has asked us to preserve emergency access options to Wikipedia. We've preserved access via the mobile site, and via a small number of backdoors to the main site.<br />
<br />
====Did the Italian Wikipedia’s protest action last year achieve its goal of stopping the Italian law in question?====<br />
<br />
It seems likely that the efforts of the Italian Wikipedia community around a similar Internet censorship bill compelled the Italian Parliament to announce that it would modify the proposed law to include only large online news sites -- meaning that any information outlets that don't fall into that category, Wikipedia among them, would be excluded from the law's reach. <br />
<br />
====Do you think U.S. users will respond to this action?====<br />
<br />
The focus of the message on the Wikipedia blackout page is likely to be action-oriented, with strong encouragement that U.S. users reading the message get in touch with their representatives and voice their displeasure over SOPA and PIPA. This effort is newsworthy to the U.S. and global press, and it’s very significant because it will expand the story beyond tech and media insiders to a wider public audience. Many up to this point have not heard much about the issue.<br />
<br />
====What is the significance of acting in concert with other major sites? Will this really produce a politically effective message beyond acting in isolation?====<br />
<br />
The Wikipedia community has selected January 18th because that was the date the U.S. House of Representatives had contemplated hearings and other actions around SOPA. Although those hearings are not occurring today as planned, they will likely be rescheduled to a later date to avoid the increased public opposition to the legislation that we see today. Further, it appears PIPA is moving forward in the U.S. Senate. The community feels this is the right time to act.<br />
<br />
When many organizations and projects align and protest like this, there’s clearly a big net effect. There’s no question this makes the story bigger than if one site, say Wikipedia, protested alone. Ultimately though it doesn’t look like we’re just following in the steps of others. Our community has strong views about this - and has from the beginning. It doesn’t simply look like they’re viewing activism in terms of how other sites are responding. Conversely, a lot of those other sites are very much looking to Wikipedia to see how our community is responding.<br />
<br />
====Is it still possible to access Wikipedia in any way?====<br />
The Wikipedia community, as part of their request to the Wikimedia Foundation to carry out this protest, asked us to ensure that we make English Wikipedia accessible in some way during an emergency. The English Wikipedia will be accessible on mobile devices and smart phones. Because the protest message is powered by JavaScript, it's also possible to view Wikipedia by completely disabling JavaScript in your browser.<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
====Alternates====<br />
'''JD Forrester Version'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left:5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
For over a decade, global volunteers have compiled billions of facts and contributed millions of hours to build Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
We have done this because we love to share knowledge with everyone. We have only been able to do this because the Internet is free and open.<br />
<br />
But right now, Congress is considering two bills that would hand repressive censorship tools to large commercial lobbyists.<br />
<br />
If [http://link SOPA] or [http://link the PROTECTIP Act] pass, they would destroy the freedom and openness that has made Wikipedia what it is. We have blacked-out access to Wikipedia for today to show what might happen.<br />
<br />
Please, consider whether a free and open Internet that includes Wikipedia is something you, too, care about. Use the tool below to contact your local representative or senator. Tell them that you oppose these acts. Tell them to protect the Internet.<br />
</div><br />
<br />
'''JD Forrester Version 2'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left:5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
For over a decade, global volunteers have compiled billions of facts and contributed millions of hours to build Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
We have only been able to do this because the Internet is free and open.<br />
<br />
But right now, the United States Congress is currently considering legislation that would hand repressive censorship tools to large commercial lobbyists, which could destroy the freedom and openness that has made Wikipedia what it is today.<br />
<br />
Please, consider whether a free and open Internet that includes Wikipedia is something that you, too, care about. Use the tool below to take action. Help protect the Internet.<br />
</div><br />
<br />
'''FT2 Version'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left:5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
'''The Internet needs you to protect free speech'''<br />
<br />
For over a decade, global volunteers have compiled billions of facts and contributed millions of hours to build Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
We have only been able to do this because the Internet is free and open.<br />
<br />
Free speech is in peril like never before. The United States Congress is currently considering striking out rights of free speech and other laws which made Wikipedia possible, forcing us to censor our editor discussions and the information we show you. <br />
<br />
If passed, it would destroy the freedom of Americans to write without censorship, on every website we have, in any language, everywhere.<br />
<br />
Please, consider whether a free and open Internet that includes Wikipedia is something that you, too, care about. Use the tool below to take action. Help protect the Internet.</div><br />
<br />
<br />
== Draft Things to say to elected Representatives ==<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
'''Cybersecurity'''<br />
<br />
As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose a bill that would damage the security of the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act; in the Senate, the PROTECT IP Act).&nbsp; A safe and secure Web is vital to our privacy and to commerce.&nbsp; Over a hundred established authorities on the Internet believe that the required blocking of Internet sites is badly thought out and threatens Internet security.&nbsp; I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.<br />
<br />
'''Censorship'''<br />
<br />
As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose a bill that would censor the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act; in the Senate, the PROTECT IP Act).&nbsp; The Internet has become the most important communications tool for the free flow of ideas.&nbsp; This bill would give the Justice Department power to shut down entire websites — even if the website or its information is not the subject of a complaint.&nbsp; It could provide a model for repressive regimes (who could promote it as the ‘American’ model).&nbsp; I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.<br />
<br />
'''Innovation'''<br />
<br />
As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose a bill that would chill innovation on the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act; in the Senate, the PROTECT IP Act).&nbsp; The Internet has created successful multi-billion-dollar businesses — and it has benefited thousands of small businesses by providing them a previously unreachable worldwide market.&nbsp; This bill would put unreasonable burdens on Internet Service Providers and search engines and would threaten to suffocate our Internet economy.&nbsp; I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.</div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Mobile Learn More Page'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
==Mobile page and message==<br />
<br />
'''Banner message'''<br />
<br />
'''IMAGINE A WORLD WITHOUT FREE KNOWLEDGE '''<br><br />
'''Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could cripple this site and your ability to access information online. Learn more.'''<br />
<br />
(link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Mobile_Learn_more)<br />
<br />
</div></div>Sue Gardnerhttps://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Archive:SOPA/Learn_more&diff=77997Archive:SOPA/Learn more2012-01-18T03:12:03Z<p>Sue Gardner: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
__NOTOC__<br />
<br />
''This is the text we're currently working on....''<br />
<br />
Call your elected officials. <br />
<br />
Tell them you are their constituent, and you oppose SOPA and PIPA.<br />
<br />
Why?<br />
<br />
SOPA and PIPA would cripple the free and open internet. They put the onus on website owners to police user-contributed material and call for the blocking of entire sites, even if their links are not primarily to infringing material. Small sites will not have sufficient resources to mount a legal challenge. Without opposition, large media companies may seek to cut off funding sources for small competing foreign sites, even if big media are wrong in saying they infringe. Foreign sites will be blacklisted, which means they won't show up in major search engines. <br />
<br />
In a world in which politicians regulate the internet based on the influence of big money, Wikipedia --and many other useful informational sites-- cannot survive. SOPA/PIPA represent a framework for future restrictions and suppression. Congress says it's trying to protect the rights of copyright owners, but the "cure" that SOPA and PIPA represent is much more destructive than the disease they are trying to fix. <br />
<br />
'''Blackout Page Text'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
'''IMAGINE A WORLD WITHOUT FREE KNOWLEDGE''' <br />
<br />
For over a decade, we have spent millions of hours building the largest encyclopedia in human history. Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could cripple this site and your ability to access information online. So today, for 24 hours, we black out Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
Tell your representatives you oppose SOPA and PIPA.<br />
</div><br />
<br />
'''Landing Page for U.S. Readers / Congress look-up page'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
For maximum impact, please consider calling your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators. Explain that you are a constituent and that you oppose these bills and similar future legislation. If you'd like to get more informed on SOPA/PIPA, please click here.<br />
<br />
'''Things you may want to say to your Senator or Representative'''<br />
<br />
"As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose SOPA and PIPA, and any future bill that would censor free speech and damage the security of the Internet."<br />
<br />
'''Regarding censorship'''<br />
<br />
“The Internet has become an important communications tool allowing the free flow of ideas. As introduced in the House and the Senate, SOPA and PIPA would give the Justice Department and courts tremendous power to shut down entire sites. Unfortunately, these bills ignore the principles of the First Amendment that require tailored solutions in lieu of across-the-board censorship. They represent terrible precedents for the United States and for the world.”<br />
<br />
<br />
==Social media text==<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Social media tweets/info<br />
|-<br />
| X || All ||<br />
|-<br />
| Google+ || I support the January 18th Wikipedia blackout to protest SOPA and PIPA. Show your support here <link> ||<br />
|-<br />
| Facebook || <link> ||<br />
|-<br />
| Twitter || I support #wikipediablackout! Show your support here <link> ||<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Learn more about SOPA/PIPA below==<br />
<br />
The Wikipedia community has decided to blackout the English version of Wikipedia for 24 hours on January 18th in protest of proposed legislation — the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives, and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate. This legistlation, if passed, will harm the free and open Internet. These bills endanger free speech both in the United States and abroad, potentially setting a frightening precedent of Internet censorship for the world. If you are in the U.S., you can click visit Wikipedia and enter your zipcode to take action.<br />
<br />
==Share your view and tell the world==<br />
<br />
{{SOPABlogShare|wrapper css=text-align:center;}}<br />
<br />
==More information==<br />
<br />
Blog post from Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director, Sue Gardner:<br />
<br />
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/01/16/wikipedias-community-calls-for-anti-sopa-blackout-january-18/<br />
<br />
Official Wikimedia Foundation press release:<br />
<br />
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/English_Wikipedia_to_go_dark<br />
<br />
Statement from the community affirming blackout:<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Action<br />
<br />
Electronic Frontier Foundation blog post on the lingering faults in SOPA/PIPA:<br />
<br />
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/how-pipa-and-sopa-violate-white-house-principles-supporting-free-speech<br />
<br />
Wikipedia's articles on SOPA and PIPA:<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_IP_Act<br />
<br />
==Questions and Answers==<br />
<br />
Talking points<br />
<br />
* On January 18, 2012 (this Wednesday) the English Wikipedia will be protesting SOPA/PIPA with a global Wikipedia blackout. Readers who come to Wikipedia will see a message from Wikipedia about SOPA/PIPA and urging them to contact their Representatives or Senators to act. This protest will last 24hrs - from midnight to midnight EST (05:00 UTC Wed to 05:00 UTC Thu).<br />
<br />
* This decision was made by Wikipedia’s global community. Although the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that operates Wikipedia, opposes SOPA and PIPA, the decision was made by the community and that decision is now being implemented.<br />
<br />
* SOPA/PIPA are still real threats to the free, open, and secure web. Although recent media reports have suggested that the bills are losing support, they are not dead. On January 17th, SOPA's sponsor said the bill will be discussed and pushed forward in early February. PIPA could be debated in the U.S. Senate as soon as next week. There is a need to send a strong message that bills like SOPA and PIPA should not be allowed. Legislatures must understand that they must involve the internet industry in the law-making process to ensure innovation and protection of free expression.<br />
<br />
* Although the bills have changed, they are still a real threat to the free, open, and secure web. Among other serious problems in the current draft of the bills, the requirement exists for US-based sites to actively police links to purported infringing sites. These kinds of self-policing activities are non-sustainable for large, global projects - including possibly projects like Wikipedia. The legislative language is ambiguous and overly broad, even though it touches on protected speech. Our community is incredibly vigilant and proactive in keeping Wikipedia free of links or content that may infringe copyright.<br />
<br />
====What exactly is Wikipedia doing?====<br />
<br />
On January 18, 2012 the English Wikipedia community will be protesting SOPA/PIPA with a global English Wikipedia blackout. U.S. readers who come to English Wikipedia will see a message from Wikipedia about SOPA/PIPA that tells them to contact their Representatives or Senators to act. This protest will last 24 hours - from midnight to midnight EST.<br />
<br />
====Why is this happening?====<br />
<br />
The English Wikipedia community is opposed to SOPA/PIPA. In an unprecedented decision, the Wikipedia community has chosen to blackout the English version of Wikipedia for 24 hours, in protest against proposed legislation in the United States — the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives, and PROTECTIP Act (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate. If passed, this legislation will harm the free and open Internet and bring about new tools for censorship of international websites inside the United States.<br />
<br />
Wikipedia can only exist in an open and uncensored Internet. SOPA, PIPA, or any future legislation that censors free speech, damages Internet security, or inhibits innovation will hurt and undermine the Internet and the work of our community.<br />
<br />
====Isn't SOPA dead? Wasn't the bill shelved and didn't the White House declare that it won't sign anything that resembles the current bill?====<br />
<br />
No, both SOPA/PIPA are very much alive. On January 17th, SOPA's sponsor said the bill will be discussed and pushed forward in early February. As long as we see the threat of SOPA/PIPA on the horizon, we're going to carry out this protest and send a message that any proposed legislation of this kind that attacks the free and open web isn't welcome.<br />
<br />
====Aren’t SOPA/PIPA as they stand not even really a threat to Wikipedia? Won't the DNS provisions be removed?====<br />
<br />
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has a great post about this [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/how-pipa-and-sopa-violate-white-house-principles-supporting-free-speech here.]<br />
SOPA/PIPA are still alive, and they’re still a threat to the free and open web. Even with the DNS provisions removed, the bill would give the U.S. government extraordinary and loosely-defined powers to take control over content and information on the free web. In its current form the bill would also require U.S. websites to take on the duty of actively policing links for infringing content. There's more to it than that - taking one provision out doesn't make the bill okay - it's still terrible for the free and open web.<br />
<br />
====What about OPEN?====<br />
<br />
The [[:w:en:Online_Protection_and_Enforcement_of_Digital_Trade_Act |OPEN Act]] is another piece of legislation that is different from SOPA, and we're monitoring it, but SOPA/PIPA are the current focus. <br />
<br />
====Why is the Wikipedia mobile site still available?====<br />
<br />
In its blackout decision, the community has asked us to preserve emergency access options to Wikipedia. We've preserved access via the mobile site, and via a small number of backdoors to the main site.<br />
<br />
====Did the Italian Wikipedia’s protest action last year achieve its goal of stopping the Italian law in question?====<br />
<br />
It seems likely that the efforts of the Italian Wikipedia community around a similar Internet censorship bill compelled the Italian Parliament to announce that it would modify the proposed law to include only large online news sites -- meaning that any information outlets that don't fall into that category, Wikipedia among them, would be excluded from the law's reach. <br />
<br />
====Do you think U.S. users will respond to this action?====<br />
<br />
The focus of the message on the Wikipedia blackout page is likely to be action-oriented, with strong encouragement that U.S. users reading the message get in touch with their representatives and voice their displeasure over SOPA and PIPA. This effort is newsworthy to the U.S. and global press, and it’s very significant because it will expand the story beyond tech and media insiders to a wider public audience. Many up to this point have not heard much about the issue.<br />
<br />
====What is the significance of acting in concert with other major sites? Will this really produce a politically effective message beyond acting in isolation?====<br />
<br />
The Wikipedia community has selected January 18th because that was the date the U.S. House of Representatives had contemplated hearings and other actions around SOPA. Although those hearings are not occurring today as planned, they will likely be rescheduled to a later date to avoid the increased public opposition to the legislation that we see today. Further, it appears PIPA is moving forward in the U.S. Senate. The community feels this is the right time to act.<br />
<br />
When many organizations and projects align and protest like this, there’s clearly a big net effect. There’s no question this makes the story bigger than if one site, say Wikipedia, protested alone. Ultimately though it doesn’t look like we’re just following in the steps of others. Our community has strong views about this - and has from the beginning. It doesn’t simply look like they’re viewing activism in terms of how other sites are responding. Conversely, a lot of those other sites are very much looking to Wikipedia to see how our community is responding.<br />
<br />
====Is it still possible to access Wikipedia in any way?====<br />
The Wikipedia community, as part of their request to the Wikimedia Foundation to carry out this protest, asked us to ensure that we make English Wikipedia accessible in some way during an emergency. The English Wikipedia will be accessible on mobile devices and smart phones. Because the protest message is powered by JavaScript, it's also possible to view Wikipedia by completely disabling JavaScript in your browser.<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
====Alternates====<br />
'''JD Forrester Version'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left:5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
For over a decade, global volunteers have compiled billions of facts and contributed millions of hours to build Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
We have done this because we love to share knowledge with everyone. We have only been able to do this because the Internet is free and open.<br />
<br />
But right now, Congress is considering two bills that would hand repressive censorship tools to large commercial lobbyists.<br />
<br />
If [http://link SOPA] or [http://link the PROTECTIP Act] pass, they would destroy the freedom and openness that has made Wikipedia what it is. We have blacked-out access to Wikipedia for today to show what might happen.<br />
<br />
Please, consider whether a free and open Internet that includes Wikipedia is something you, too, care about. Use the tool below to contact your local representative or senator. Tell them that you oppose these acts. Tell them to protect the Internet.<br />
</div><br />
<br />
'''JD Forrester Version 2'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left:5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
For over a decade, global volunteers have compiled billions of facts and contributed millions of hours to build Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
We have only been able to do this because the Internet is free and open.<br />
<br />
But right now, the United States Congress is currently considering legislation that would hand repressive censorship tools to large commercial lobbyists, which could destroy the freedom and openness that has made Wikipedia what it is today.<br />
<br />
Please, consider whether a free and open Internet that includes Wikipedia is something that you, too, care about. Use the tool below to take action. Help protect the Internet.<br />
</div><br />
<br />
'''FT2 Version'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left:5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
'''The Internet needs you to protect free speech'''<br />
<br />
For over a decade, global volunteers have compiled billions of facts and contributed millions of hours to build Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
We have only been able to do this because the Internet is free and open.<br />
<br />
Free speech is in peril like never before. The United States Congress is currently considering striking out rights of free speech and other laws which made Wikipedia possible, forcing us to censor our editor discussions and the information we show you. <br />
<br />
If passed, it would destroy the freedom of Americans to write without censorship, on every website we have, in any language, everywhere.<br />
<br />
Please, consider whether a free and open Internet that includes Wikipedia is something that you, too, care about. Use the tool below to take action. Help protect the Internet.</div><br />
<br />
<br />
== Draft Things to say to elected Representatives ==<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
'''Cybersecurity'''<br />
<br />
As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose a bill that would damage the security of the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act; in the Senate, the PROTECT IP Act).&nbsp; A safe and secure Web is vital to our privacy and to commerce.&nbsp; Over a hundred established authorities on the Internet believe that the required blocking of Internet sites is badly thought out and threatens Internet security.&nbsp; I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.<br />
<br />
'''Censorship'''<br />
<br />
As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose a bill that would censor the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act; in the Senate, the PROTECT IP Act).&nbsp; The Internet has become the most important communications tool for the free flow of ideas.&nbsp; This bill would give the Justice Department power to shut down entire websites — even if the website or its information is not the subject of a complaint.&nbsp; It could provide a model for repressive regimes (who could promote it as the ‘American’ model).&nbsp; I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.<br />
<br />
'''Innovation'''<br />
<br />
As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose a bill that would chill innovation on the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act; in the Senate, the PROTECT IP Act).&nbsp; The Internet has created successful multi-billion-dollar businesses — and it has benefited thousands of small businesses by providing them a previously unreachable worldwide market.&nbsp; This bill would put unreasonable burdens on Internet Service Providers and search engines and would threaten to suffocate our Internet economy.&nbsp; I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.</div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Mobile Learn More Page'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
==Mobile page and message==<br />
<br />
'''Banner message'''<br />
<br />
'''IMAGINE A WORLD WITHOUT FREE KNOWLEDGE '''<br><br />
'''Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could cripple this site and your ability to access information online. Learn more.'''<br />
<br />
(link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Mobile_Learn_more)<br />
<br />
</div></div>Sue Gardnerhttps://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Archive:SOPA/Learn_more&diff=77996Archive:SOPA/Learn more2012-01-18T03:11:35Z<p>Sue Gardner: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
__NOTOC__<br />
<br />
''This is the text we're currently working on....''<br />
<br />
Call your elected officials. <br />
<br />
Tell them you are their constituent, and you oppose SOPA and PIPA.<br />
<br />
Why?<br />
<br />
SOPA and PIPA cripple the free and open internet. They put the onus on website owners to police user-contributed material and call for the blocking of entire sites, even if their links are not primarily to infringing material. Small sites will not have sufficient resources to mount a legal challenge. Without opposition, large media companies may seek to cut off funding sources for small competing foreign sites, even if big media are wrong in saying they infringe. Foreign sites will be blacklisted, which means they won't show up in major search engines. <br />
<br />
In a world in which politicians regulate the internet based on the influence of big money, Wikipedia --and many other useful informational sites-- cannot survive. SOPA/PIPA represent a framework for future restrictions and suppression. Congress says it's trying to protect the rights of copyright owners, but the "cure" that SOPA and PIPA represent is much more destructive than the disease they are trying to fix. <br />
<br />
'''Blackout Page Text'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
'''IMAGINE A WORLD WITHOUT FREE KNOWLEDGE''' <br />
<br />
For over a decade, we have spent millions of hours building the largest encyclopedia in human history. Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could cripple this site and your ability to access information online. So today, for 24 hours, we black out Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
Tell your representatives you oppose SOPA and PIPA.<br />
</div><br />
<br />
'''Landing Page for U.S. Readers / Congress look-up page'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
For maximum impact, please consider calling your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators. Explain that you are a constituent and that you oppose these bills and similar future legislation. If you'd like to get more informed on SOPA/PIPA, please click here.<br />
<br />
'''Things you may want to say to your Senator or Representative'''<br />
<br />
"As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose SOPA and PIPA, and any future bill that would censor free speech and damage the security of the Internet."<br />
<br />
'''Regarding censorship'''<br />
<br />
“The Internet has become an important communications tool allowing the free flow of ideas. As introduced in the House and the Senate, SOPA and PIPA would give the Justice Department and courts tremendous power to shut down entire sites. Unfortunately, these bills ignore the principles of the First Amendment that require tailored solutions in lieu of across-the-board censorship. They represent terrible precedents for the United States and for the world.”<br />
<br />
<br />
==Social media text==<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Social media tweets/info<br />
|-<br />
| X || All ||<br />
|-<br />
| Google+ || I support the January 18th Wikipedia blackout to protest SOPA and PIPA. Show your support here <link> ||<br />
|-<br />
| Facebook || <link> ||<br />
|-<br />
| Twitter || I support #wikipediablackout! Show your support here <link> ||<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Learn more about SOPA/PIPA below==<br />
<br />
The Wikipedia community has decided to blackout the English version of Wikipedia for 24 hours on January 18th in protest of proposed legislation — the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives, and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate. This legistlation, if passed, will harm the free and open Internet. These bills endanger free speech both in the United States and abroad, potentially setting a frightening precedent of Internet censorship for the world. If you are in the U.S., you can click visit Wikipedia and enter your zipcode to take action.<br />
<br />
==Share your view and tell the world==<br />
<br />
{{SOPABlogShare|wrapper css=text-align:center;}}<br />
<br />
==More information==<br />
<br />
Blog post from Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director, Sue Gardner:<br />
<br />
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/01/16/wikipedias-community-calls-for-anti-sopa-blackout-january-18/<br />
<br />
Official Wikimedia Foundation press release:<br />
<br />
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/English_Wikipedia_to_go_dark<br />
<br />
Statement from the community affirming blackout:<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Action<br />
<br />
Electronic Frontier Foundation blog post on the lingering faults in SOPA/PIPA:<br />
<br />
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/how-pipa-and-sopa-violate-white-house-principles-supporting-free-speech<br />
<br />
Wikipedia's articles on SOPA and PIPA:<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_IP_Act<br />
<br />
==Questions and Answers==<br />
<br />
Talking points<br />
<br />
* On January 18, 2012 (this Wednesday) the English Wikipedia will be protesting SOPA/PIPA with a global Wikipedia blackout. Readers who come to Wikipedia will see a message from Wikipedia about SOPA/PIPA and urging them to contact their Representatives or Senators to act. This protest will last 24hrs - from midnight to midnight EST (05:00 UTC Wed to 05:00 UTC Thu).<br />
<br />
* This decision was made by Wikipedia’s global community. Although the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that operates Wikipedia, opposes SOPA and PIPA, the decision was made by the community and that decision is now being implemented.<br />
<br />
* SOPA/PIPA are still real threats to the free, open, and secure web. Although recent media reports have suggested that the bills are losing support, they are not dead. On January 17th, SOPA's sponsor said the bill will be discussed and pushed forward in early February. PIPA could be debated in the U.S. Senate as soon as next week. There is a need to send a strong message that bills like SOPA and PIPA should not be allowed. Legislatures must understand that they must involve the internet industry in the law-making process to ensure innovation and protection of free expression.<br />
<br />
* Although the bills have changed, they are still a real threat to the free, open, and secure web. Among other serious problems in the current draft of the bills, the requirement exists for US-based sites to actively police links to purported infringing sites. These kinds of self-policing activities are non-sustainable for large, global projects - including possibly projects like Wikipedia. The legislative language is ambiguous and overly broad, even though it touches on protected speech. Our community is incredibly vigilant and proactive in keeping Wikipedia free of links or content that may infringe copyright.<br />
<br />
====What exactly is Wikipedia doing?====<br />
<br />
On January 18, 2012 the English Wikipedia community will be protesting SOPA/PIPA with a global English Wikipedia blackout. U.S. readers who come to English Wikipedia will see a message from Wikipedia about SOPA/PIPA that tells them to contact their Representatives or Senators to act. This protest will last 24 hours - from midnight to midnight EST.<br />
<br />
====Why is this happening?====<br />
<br />
The English Wikipedia community is opposed to SOPA/PIPA. In an unprecedented decision, the Wikipedia community has chosen to blackout the English version of Wikipedia for 24 hours, in protest against proposed legislation in the United States — the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives, and PROTECTIP Act (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate. If passed, this legislation will harm the free and open Internet and bring about new tools for censorship of international websites inside the United States.<br />
<br />
Wikipedia can only exist in an open and uncensored Internet. SOPA, PIPA, or any future legislation that censors free speech, damages Internet security, or inhibits innovation will hurt and undermine the Internet and the work of our community.<br />
<br />
====Isn't SOPA dead? Wasn't the bill shelved and didn't the White House declare that it won't sign anything that resembles the current bill?====<br />
<br />
No, both SOPA/PIPA are very much alive. On January 17th, SOPA's sponsor said the bill will be discussed and pushed forward in early February. As long as we see the threat of SOPA/PIPA on the horizon, we're going to carry out this protest and send a message that any proposed legislation of this kind that attacks the free and open web isn't welcome.<br />
<br />
====Aren’t SOPA/PIPA as they stand not even really a threat to Wikipedia? Won't the DNS provisions be removed?====<br />
<br />
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has a great post about this [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/how-pipa-and-sopa-violate-white-house-principles-supporting-free-speech here.]<br />
SOPA/PIPA are still alive, and they’re still a threat to the free and open web. Even with the DNS provisions removed, the bill would give the U.S. government extraordinary and loosely-defined powers to take control over content and information on the free web. In its current form the bill would also require U.S. websites to take on the duty of actively policing links for infringing content. There's more to it than that - taking one provision out doesn't make the bill okay - it's still terrible for the free and open web.<br />
<br />
====What about OPEN?====<br />
<br />
The [[:w:en:Online_Protection_and_Enforcement_of_Digital_Trade_Act |OPEN Act]] is another piece of legislation that is different from SOPA, and we're monitoring it, but SOPA/PIPA are the current focus. <br />
<br />
====Why is the Wikipedia mobile site still available?====<br />
<br />
In its blackout decision, the community has asked us to preserve emergency access options to Wikipedia. We've preserved access via the mobile site, and via a small number of backdoors to the main site.<br />
<br />
====Did the Italian Wikipedia’s protest action last year achieve its goal of stopping the Italian law in question?====<br />
<br />
It seems likely that the efforts of the Italian Wikipedia community around a similar Internet censorship bill compelled the Italian Parliament to announce that it would modify the proposed law to include only large online news sites -- meaning that any information outlets that don't fall into that category, Wikipedia among them, would be excluded from the law's reach. <br />
<br />
====Do you think U.S. users will respond to this action?====<br />
<br />
The focus of the message on the Wikipedia blackout page is likely to be action-oriented, with strong encouragement that U.S. users reading the message get in touch with their representatives and voice their displeasure over SOPA and PIPA. This effort is newsworthy to the U.S. and global press, and it’s very significant because it will expand the story beyond tech and media insiders to a wider public audience. Many up to this point have not heard much about the issue.<br />
<br />
====What is the significance of acting in concert with other major sites? Will this really produce a politically effective message beyond acting in isolation?====<br />
<br />
The Wikipedia community has selected January 18th because that was the date the U.S. House of Representatives had contemplated hearings and other actions around SOPA. Although those hearings are not occurring today as planned, they will likely be rescheduled to a later date to avoid the increased public opposition to the legislation that we see today. Further, it appears PIPA is moving forward in the U.S. Senate. The community feels this is the right time to act.<br />
<br />
When many organizations and projects align and protest like this, there’s clearly a big net effect. There’s no question this makes the story bigger than if one site, say Wikipedia, protested alone. Ultimately though it doesn’t look like we’re just following in the steps of others. Our community has strong views about this - and has from the beginning. It doesn’t simply look like they’re viewing activism in terms of how other sites are responding. Conversely, a lot of those other sites are very much looking to Wikipedia to see how our community is responding.<br />
<br />
====Is it still possible to access Wikipedia in any way?====<br />
The Wikipedia community, as part of their request to the Wikimedia Foundation to carry out this protest, asked us to ensure that we make English Wikipedia accessible in some way during an emergency. The English Wikipedia will be accessible on mobile devices and smart phones. Because the protest message is powered by JavaScript, it's also possible to view Wikipedia by completely disabling JavaScript in your browser.<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
====Alternates====<br />
'''JD Forrester Version'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left:5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
For over a decade, global volunteers have compiled billions of facts and contributed millions of hours to build Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
We have done this because we love to share knowledge with everyone. We have only been able to do this because the Internet is free and open.<br />
<br />
But right now, Congress is considering two bills that would hand repressive censorship tools to large commercial lobbyists.<br />
<br />
If [http://link SOPA] or [http://link the PROTECTIP Act] pass, they would destroy the freedom and openness that has made Wikipedia what it is. We have blacked-out access to Wikipedia for today to show what might happen.<br />
<br />
Please, consider whether a free and open Internet that includes Wikipedia is something you, too, care about. Use the tool below to contact your local representative or senator. Tell them that you oppose these acts. Tell them to protect the Internet.<br />
</div><br />
<br />
'''JD Forrester Version 2'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left:5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
For over a decade, global volunteers have compiled billions of facts and contributed millions of hours to build Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
We have only been able to do this because the Internet is free and open.<br />
<br />
But right now, the United States Congress is currently considering legislation that would hand repressive censorship tools to large commercial lobbyists, which could destroy the freedom and openness that has made Wikipedia what it is today.<br />
<br />
Please, consider whether a free and open Internet that includes Wikipedia is something that you, too, care about. Use the tool below to take action. Help protect the Internet.<br />
</div><br />
<br />
'''FT2 Version'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left:5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
'''The Internet needs you to protect free speech'''<br />
<br />
For over a decade, global volunteers have compiled billions of facts and contributed millions of hours to build Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
We have only been able to do this because the Internet is free and open.<br />
<br />
Free speech is in peril like never before. The United States Congress is currently considering striking out rights of free speech and other laws which made Wikipedia possible, forcing us to censor our editor discussions and the information we show you. <br />
<br />
If passed, it would destroy the freedom of Americans to write without censorship, on every website we have, in any language, everywhere.<br />
<br />
Please, consider whether a free and open Internet that includes Wikipedia is something that you, too, care about. Use the tool below to take action. Help protect the Internet.</div><br />
<br />
<br />
== Draft Things to say to elected Representatives ==<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
'''Cybersecurity'''<br />
<br />
As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose a bill that would damage the security of the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act; in the Senate, the PROTECT IP Act).&nbsp; A safe and secure Web is vital to our privacy and to commerce.&nbsp; Over a hundred established authorities on the Internet believe that the required blocking of Internet sites is badly thought out and threatens Internet security.&nbsp; I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.<br />
<br />
'''Censorship'''<br />
<br />
As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose a bill that would censor the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act; in the Senate, the PROTECT IP Act).&nbsp; The Internet has become the most important communications tool for the free flow of ideas.&nbsp; This bill would give the Justice Department power to shut down entire websites — even if the website or its information is not the subject of a complaint.&nbsp; It could provide a model for repressive regimes (who could promote it as the ‘American’ model).&nbsp; I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.<br />
<br />
'''Innovation'''<br />
<br />
As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose a bill that would chill innovation on the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act; in the Senate, the PROTECT IP Act).&nbsp; The Internet has created successful multi-billion-dollar businesses — and it has benefited thousands of small businesses by providing them a previously unreachable worldwide market.&nbsp; This bill would put unreasonable burdens on Internet Service Providers and search engines and would threaten to suffocate our Internet economy.&nbsp; I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.</div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Mobile Learn More Page'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
==Mobile page and message==<br />
<br />
'''Banner message'''<br />
<br />
'''IMAGINE A WORLD WITHOUT FREE KNOWLEDGE '''<br><br />
'''Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could cripple this site and your ability to access information online. Learn more.'''<br />
<br />
(link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Mobile_Learn_more)<br />
<br />
</div></div>Sue Gardnerhttps://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Archive:SOPA/Learn_more&diff=77993Archive:SOPA/Learn more2012-01-18T02:40:22Z<p>Sue Gardner: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
__NOTOC__<br />
<br />
''This is the text we're currently working on....''<br />
<br />
Call your elected officials. <br />
<br />
Tell them you are their constituent, and you oppose SOPA and PIPA.<br />
<br />
Why?<br />
<br />
SOPA and PIPA cripple the free and open internet. They put the onus on website owners to police user-contributed material, which means that disputed material will only stay up if the site has sufficient resources to mount a legal challenge. Copyright owners will be able to cut off funding sources for foreign sites that they believe host material infringing their copyrights, even if they're wrong. Foreign sites will be blacklisted, which means they won't show up in major search engines. <br />
<br />
In a post SOPA/PIPA world, Wikipedia --and many other useful informational sites-- cannot exist. Congress says it's trying to protect the rights of copyright owners, but the "cure" that SOPA and PIPA represent is much more destructive than the disease they are trying to fix. <br />
<br />
'''Blackout Page Text'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
'''IMAGINE A WORLD WITHOUT FREE KNOWLEDGE''' <br />
<br />
For over a decade, we have spent millions of hours building the largest encyclopedia in human history. Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could cripple this site and your ability to access information online. So today, for 24 hours, we black out Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
Tell your representatives you oppose SOPA and PIPA.<br />
</div><br />
<br />
'''Landing Page for U.S. Readers / Congress look-up page'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
For maximum impact, please consider calling your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators. Explain that you are a constituent and that you oppose these bills and similar future legislation. If you'd like to get more informed on SOPA/PIPA, please click here.<br />
<br />
'''Things you may want to say to your Senator or Representative'''<br />
<br />
"As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose SOPA and PIPA, and any future bill that would censor free speech and damage the security of the Internet."<br />
<br />
'''Regarding censorship'''<br />
<br />
“The Internet has become an important communications tool allowing the free flow of ideas. As introduced in the House and the Senate, SOPA and PIPA would give the Justice Department and courts tremendous power to shut down entire sites. Unfortunately, these bills ignore the principles of the First Amendment that require tailored solutions in lieu of across-the-board censorship. They represent terrible precedents for the United States and for the world.”<br />
<br />
<br />
==Social media text==<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Social media tweets/info<br />
|-<br />
| X || All ||<br />
|-<br />
| Google+ || I support the January 18th Wikipedia blackout to protest SOPA and PIPA. Show your support here <link> ||<br />
|-<br />
| Facebook || <link> ||<br />
|-<br />
| Twitter || I support #wikipediablackout! Show your support here <link> ||<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Learn more about SOPA/PIPA below==<br />
<br />
The Wikipedia community has decided to blackout the English version of Wikipedia for 24 hours on January 18th in protest of proposed legislation — the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives, and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate. This legistlation, if passed, will harm the free and open Internet. These bills endanger free speech both in the United States and abroad, potentially setting a frightening precedent of Internet censorship for the world. If you are in the U.S., you can click visit Wikipedia and enter your zipcode to take action.<br />
<br />
==Share your view and tell the world==<br />
<br />
{{SOPABlogShare|wrapper css=text-align:center;}}<br />
<br />
==More information==<br />
<br />
Blog post from Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director, Sue Gardner:<br />
<br />
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/01/16/wikipedias-community-calls-for-anti-sopa-blackout-january-18/<br />
<br />
Official Wikimedia Foundation press release:<br />
<br />
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/English_Wikipedia_to_go_dark<br />
<br />
Statement from the community affirming blackout:<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Action<br />
<br />
Electronic Frontier Foundation blog post on the lingering faults in SOPA/PIPA:<br />
<br />
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/how-pipa-and-sopa-violate-white-house-principles-supporting-free-speech<br />
<br />
Wikipedia's articles on SOPA and PIPA:<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_IP_Act<br />
<br />
==Questions and Answers==<br />
<br />
Talking points<br />
<br />
* On January 18, 2012 (this Wednesday) the English Wikipedia will be protesting SOPA/PIPA with a global Wikipedia blackout. Readers who come to Wikipedia will see a message from Wikipedia about SOPA/PIPA and urging them to contact their Representatives or Senators to act. This protest will last 24hrs - from midnight to midnight EST (05:00 UTC Wed to 05:00 UTC Thu).<br />
<br />
* This decision was made by Wikipedia’s global community. Although the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that operates Wikipedia, opposes SOPA and PIPA, the decision was made by the community and that decision is now being implemented.<br />
<br />
* SOPA/PIPA are still real threats to the free, open, and secure web. Although recent media reports have suggested that the bills are losing support, they are not dead. On January 17th, SOPA's sponsor said the bill will be discussed and pushed forward in early February. PIPA could be debated in the U.S. Senate as soon as next week. There is a need to send a strong message that bills like SOPA and PIPA should not be allowed. Legislatures must understand that they must involve the internet industry in the law-making process to ensure innovation and protection of free expression.<br />
<br />
* Although the bills have changed, they are still a real threat to the free, open, and secure web. Among other serious problems in the current draft of the bills, the requirement exists for US-based sites to actively police links to purported infringing sites. These kinds of self-policing activities are non-sustainable for large, global projects - including possibly projects like Wikipedia. The legislative language is ambiguous and overly broad, even though it touches on protected speech. Our community is incredibly vigilant and proactive in keeping Wikipedia free of links or content that may infringe copyright.<br />
<br />
====What exactly is Wikipedia doing?====<br />
<br />
On January 18, 2012 the English Wikipedia community will be protesting SOPA/PIPA with a global English Wikipedia blackout. U.S. readers who come to English Wikipedia will see a message from Wikipedia about SOPA/PIPA that tells them to contact their Representatives or Senators to act. This protest will last 24 hours - from midnight to midnight EST.<br />
<br />
====Why is this happening?====<br />
<br />
The English Wikipedia community is opposed to SOPA/PIPA. In an unprecedented decision, the Wikipedia community has chosen to blackout the English version of Wikipedia for 24 hours, in protest against proposed legislation in the United States — the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives, and PROTECTIP Act (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate. If passed, this legislation will harm the free and open Internet and bring about new tools for censorship of international websites inside the United States.<br />
<br />
Wikipedia can only exist in an open and uncensored Internet. SOPA, PIPA, or any future legislation that censors free speech, damages Internet security, or inhibits innovation will hurt and undermine the Internet and the work of our community.<br />
<br />
====Isn't SOPA dead? Wasn't the bill shelved and didn't the White House declare that it won't sign anything that resembles the current bill?====<br />
<br />
No, both SOPA/PIPA are very much alive. On January 17th, SOPA's sponsor said the bill will be discussed and pushed forward in early February. As long as we see the threat of SOPA/PIPA on the horizon, we're going to carry out this protest and send a message that any proposed legislation of this kind that attacks the free and open web isn't welcome.<br />
<br />
====Aren’t SOPA/PIPA as they stand not even really a threat to Wikipedia? Won't the DNS provisions be removed?====<br />
<br />
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has a great post about this [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/how-pipa-and-sopa-violate-white-house-principles-supporting-free-speech here.]<br />
SOPA/PIPA are still alive, and they’re still a threat to the free and open web. Even with the DNS provisions removed, the bill would give the U.S. government extraordinary and loosely-defined powers to take control over content and information on the free web. In its current form the bill would also require U.S. websites to take on the duty of actively policing links for infringing content. There's more to it than that - taking one provision out doesn't make the bill okay - it's still terrible for the free and open web.<br />
<br />
====What about OPEN?====<br />
<br />
The [[:w:en:Online_Protection_and_Enforcement_of_Digital_Trade_Act |OPEN Act]] is another piece of legislation that is different from SOPA, and we're monitoring it, but SOPA/PIPA are the current focus. <br />
<br />
====Why is the Wikipedia mobile site still available?====<br />
<br />
In its blackout decision, the community has asked us to preserve emergency access options to Wikipedia. We've preserved access via the mobile site, and via a small number of backdoors to the main site.<br />
<br />
====Did the Italian Wikipedia’s protest action last year achieve its goal of stopping the Italian law in question?====<br />
<br />
It seems likely that the efforts of the Italian Wikipedia community around a similar Internet censorship bill compelled the Italian Parliament to announce that it would modify the proposed law to include only large online news sites -- meaning that any information outlets that don't fall into that category, Wikipedia among them, would be excluded from the law's reach. <br />
<br />
====Do you think U.S. users will respond to this action?====<br />
<br />
The focus of the message on the Wikipedia blackout page is likely to be action-oriented, with strong encouragement that U.S. users reading the message get in touch with their representatives and voice their displeasure over SOPA and PIPA. This effort is newsworthy to the U.S. and global press, and it’s very significant because it will expand the story beyond tech and media insiders to a wider public audience. Many up to this point have not heard much about the issue.<br />
<br />
====What is the significance of acting in concert with other major sites? Will this really produce a politically effective message beyond acting in isolation?====<br />
<br />
The Wikipedia community has selected January 18th because that was the date the U.S. House of Representatives had contemplated hearings and other actions around SOPA. Although those hearings are not occurring today as planned, they will likely be rescheduled to a later date to avoid the increased public opposition to the legislation that we see today. Further, it appears PIPA is moving forward in the U.S. Senate. The community feels this is the right time to act.<br />
<br />
When many organizations and projects align and protest like this, there’s clearly a big net effect. There’s no question this makes the story bigger than if one site, say Wikipedia, protested alone. Ultimately though it doesn’t look like we’re just following in the steps of others. Our community has strong views about this - and has from the beginning. It doesn’t simply look like they’re viewing activism in terms of how other sites are responding. Conversely, a lot of those other sites are very much looking to Wikipedia to see how our community is responding.<br />
<br />
====Is it still possible to access Wikipedia in any way?====<br />
The Wikipedia community, as part of their request to the Wikimedia Foundation to carry out this protest, asked us to ensure that we make English Wikipedia accessible in some way during an emergency. The English Wikipedia will be accessible on mobile devices and smart phones. Because the protest message is powered by JavaScript, it's also possible to view Wikipedia by completely disabling JavaScript in your browser.<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
====Alternates====<br />
'''JD Forrester Version'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left:5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
For over a decade, global volunteers have compiled billions of facts and contributed millions of hours to build Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
We have done this because we love to share knowledge with everyone. We have only been able to do this because the Internet is free and open.<br />
<br />
But right now, Congress is considering two bills that would hand repressive censorship tools to large commercial lobbyists.<br />
<br />
If [http://link SOPA] or [http://link the PROTECTIP Act] pass, they would destroy the freedom and openness that has made Wikipedia what it is. We have blacked-out access to Wikipedia for today to show what might happen.<br />
<br />
Please, consider whether a free and open Internet that includes Wikipedia is something you, too, care about. Use the tool below to contact your local representative or senator. Tell them that you oppose these acts. Tell them to protect the Internet.<br />
</div><br />
<br />
'''JD Forrester Version 2'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left:5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
For over a decade, global volunteers have compiled billions of facts and contributed millions of hours to build Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
We have only been able to do this because the Internet is free and open.<br />
<br />
But right now, the United States Congress is currently considering legislation that would hand repressive censorship tools to large commercial lobbyists, which could destroy the freedom and openness that has made Wikipedia what it is today.<br />
<br />
Please, consider whether a free and open Internet that includes Wikipedia is something that you, too, care about. Use the tool below to take action. Help protect the Internet.<br />
</div><br />
<br />
'''FT2 Version'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left:5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
'''The Internet needs you to protect free speech'''<br />
<br />
For over a decade, global volunteers have compiled billions of facts and contributed millions of hours to build Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
We have only been able to do this because the Internet is free and open.<br />
<br />
Free speech is in peril like never before. The United States Congress is currently considering striking out rights of free speech and other laws which made Wikipedia possible, forcing us to censor our editor discussions and the information we show you. <br />
<br />
If passed, it would destroy the freedom of Americans to write without censorship, on every website we have, in any language, everywhere.<br />
<br />
Please, consider whether a free and open Internet that includes Wikipedia is something that you, too, care about. Use the tool below to take action. Help protect the Internet.</div><br />
<br />
<br />
== Draft Things to say to elected Representatives ==<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
'''Cybersecurity'''<br />
<br />
As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose a bill that would damage the security of the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act; in the Senate, the PROTECT IP Act).&nbsp; A safe and secure Web is vital to our privacy and to commerce.&nbsp; Over a hundred established authorities on the Internet believe that the required blocking of Internet sites is badly thought out and threatens Internet security.&nbsp; I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.<br />
<br />
'''Censorship'''<br />
<br />
As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose a bill that would censor the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act; in the Senate, the PROTECT IP Act).&nbsp; The Internet has become the most important communications tool for the free flow of ideas.&nbsp; This bill would give the Justice Department power to shut down entire websites — even if the website or its information is not the subject of a complaint.&nbsp; It could provide a model for repressive regimes (who could promote it as the ‘American’ model).&nbsp; I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.<br />
<br />
'''Innovation'''<br />
<br />
As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose a bill that would chill innovation on the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act; in the Senate, the PROTECT IP Act).&nbsp; The Internet has created successful multi-billion-dollar businesses — and it has benefited thousands of small businesses by providing them a previously unreachable worldwide market.&nbsp; This bill would put unreasonable burdens on Internet Service Providers and search engines and would threaten to suffocate our Internet economy.&nbsp; I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.</div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Mobile Learn More Page'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
==Mobile page and message==<br />
<br />
'''Banner message'''<br />
<br />
'''IMAGINE A WORLD WITHOUT FREE KNOWLEDGE '''<br><br />
'''Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could cripple this site and your ability to access information online. Learn more.'''<br />
<br />
(link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Mobile_Learn_more)<br />
<br />
</div></div>Sue Gardnerhttps://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Archive:SOPA/Learn_more&diff=77992Archive:SOPA/Learn more2012-01-18T02:39:37Z<p>Sue Gardner: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
__NOTOC__<br />
<br />
''This is the text we're currently working on....''<br />
<br />
Call your elected officials. <br />
<br />
Tell them you are their constituent, and you oppose SOPA and PIPA.<br />
<br />
SOPA and PIPA cripple the free and open internet. They put the onus on website owners to police user-contributed material, which means that disputed material will only stay up if the site has sufficient resources to mount a legal challenge. Copyright owners will be able to cut off funding sources for foreign sites that they believe host material infringing their copyrights, even if they're wrong. Foreign sites will be blacklisted, which means they won't show up in major search engines. <br />
<br />
In a post SOPA/PIPA world, Wikipedia --and many other useful informational sites-- cannot exist. Congress says it's trying to protect the rights of copyright owners, but the "cure" that SOPA and PIPA represent is much more destructive than the disease they are trying to fix. <br />
<br />
'''Blackout Page Text'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
'''IMAGINE A WORLD WITHOUT FREE KNOWLEDGE''' <br />
<br />
For over a decade, we have spent millions of hours building the largest encyclopedia in human history. Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could cripple this site and your ability to access information online. So today, for 24 hours, we black out Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
Tell your representatives you oppose SOPA and PIPA.<br />
</div><br />
<br />
'''Landing Page for U.S. Readers / Congress look-up page'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
For maximum impact, please consider calling your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators. Explain that you are a constituent and that you oppose these bills and similar future legislation. If you'd like to get more informed on SOPA/PIPA, please click here.<br />
<br />
'''Things you may want to say to your Senator or Representative'''<br />
<br />
"As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose SOPA and PIPA, and any future bill that would censor free speech and damage the security of the Internet."<br />
<br />
'''Regarding censorship'''<br />
<br />
“The Internet has become an important communications tool allowing the free flow of ideas. As introduced in the House and the Senate, SOPA and PIPA would give the Justice Department and courts tremendous power to shut down entire sites. Unfortunately, these bills ignore the principles of the First Amendment that require tailored solutions in lieu of across-the-board censorship. They represent terrible precedents for the United States and for the world.”<br />
<br />
<br />
==Social media text==<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! Social media tweets/info<br />
|-<br />
| X || All ||<br />
|-<br />
| Google+ || I support the January 18th Wikipedia blackout to protest SOPA and PIPA. Show your support here <link> ||<br />
|-<br />
| Facebook || <link> ||<br />
|-<br />
| Twitter || I support #wikipediablackout! Show your support here <link> ||<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Learn more about SOPA/PIPA below==<br />
<br />
The Wikipedia community has decided to blackout the English version of Wikipedia for 24 hours on January 18th in protest of proposed legislation — the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives, and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate. This legistlation, if passed, will harm the free and open Internet. These bills endanger free speech both in the United States and abroad, potentially setting a frightening precedent of Internet censorship for the world. If you are in the U.S., you can click visit Wikipedia and enter your zipcode to take action.<br />
<br />
==Share your view and tell the world==<br />
<br />
{{SOPABlogShare|wrapper css=text-align:center;}}<br />
<br />
==More information==<br />
<br />
Blog post from Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director, Sue Gardner:<br />
<br />
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/01/16/wikipedias-community-calls-for-anti-sopa-blackout-january-18/<br />
<br />
Official Wikimedia Foundation press release:<br />
<br />
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/English_Wikipedia_to_go_dark<br />
<br />
Statement from the community affirming blackout:<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Action<br />
<br />
Electronic Frontier Foundation blog post on the lingering faults in SOPA/PIPA:<br />
<br />
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/how-pipa-and-sopa-violate-white-house-principles-supporting-free-speech<br />
<br />
Wikipedia's articles on SOPA and PIPA:<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_IP_Act<br />
<br />
==Questions and Answers==<br />
<br />
Talking points<br />
<br />
* On January 18, 2012 (this Wednesday) the English Wikipedia will be protesting SOPA/PIPA with a global Wikipedia blackout. Readers who come to Wikipedia will see a message from Wikipedia about SOPA/PIPA and urging them to contact their Representatives or Senators to act. This protest will last 24hrs - from midnight to midnight EST (05:00 UTC Wed to 05:00 UTC Thu).<br />
<br />
* This decision was made by Wikipedia’s global community. Although the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that operates Wikipedia, opposes SOPA and PIPA, the decision was made by the community and that decision is now being implemented.<br />
<br />
* SOPA/PIPA are still real threats to the free, open, and secure web. Although recent media reports have suggested that the bills are losing support, they are not dead. On January 17th, SOPA's sponsor said the bill will be discussed and pushed forward in early February. PIPA could be debated in the U.S. Senate as soon as next week. There is a need to send a strong message that bills like SOPA and PIPA should not be allowed. Legislatures must understand that they must involve the internet industry in the law-making process to ensure innovation and protection of free expression.<br />
<br />
* Although the bills have changed, they are still a real threat to the free, open, and secure web. Among other serious problems in the current draft of the bills, the requirement exists for US-based sites to actively police links to purported infringing sites. These kinds of self-policing activities are non-sustainable for large, global projects - including possibly projects like Wikipedia. The legislative language is ambiguous and overly broad, even though it touches on protected speech. Our community is incredibly vigilant and proactive in keeping Wikipedia free of links or content that may infringe copyright.<br />
<br />
====What exactly is Wikipedia doing?====<br />
<br />
On January 18, 2012 the English Wikipedia community will be protesting SOPA/PIPA with a global English Wikipedia blackout. U.S. readers who come to English Wikipedia will see a message from Wikipedia about SOPA/PIPA that tells them to contact their Representatives or Senators to act. This protest will last 24 hours - from midnight to midnight EST.<br />
<br />
====Why is this happening?====<br />
<br />
The English Wikipedia community is opposed to SOPA/PIPA. In an unprecedented decision, the Wikipedia community has chosen to blackout the English version of Wikipedia for 24 hours, in protest against proposed legislation in the United States — the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives, and PROTECTIP Act (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate. If passed, this legislation will harm the free and open Internet and bring about new tools for censorship of international websites inside the United States.<br />
<br />
Wikipedia can only exist in an open and uncensored Internet. SOPA, PIPA, or any future legislation that censors free speech, damages Internet security, or inhibits innovation will hurt and undermine the Internet and the work of our community.<br />
<br />
====Isn't SOPA dead? Wasn't the bill shelved and didn't the White House declare that it won't sign anything that resembles the current bill?====<br />
<br />
No, both SOPA/PIPA are very much alive. On January 17th, SOPA's sponsor said the bill will be discussed and pushed forward in early February. As long as we see the threat of SOPA/PIPA on the horizon, we're going to carry out this protest and send a message that any proposed legislation of this kind that attacks the free and open web isn't welcome.<br />
<br />
====Aren’t SOPA/PIPA as they stand not even really a threat to Wikipedia? Won't the DNS provisions be removed?====<br />
<br />
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has a great post about this [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/how-pipa-and-sopa-violate-white-house-principles-supporting-free-speech here.]<br />
SOPA/PIPA are still alive, and they’re still a threat to the free and open web. Even with the DNS provisions removed, the bill would give the U.S. government extraordinary and loosely-defined powers to take control over content and information on the free web. In its current form the bill would also require U.S. websites to take on the duty of actively policing links for infringing content. There's more to it than that - taking one provision out doesn't make the bill okay - it's still terrible for the free and open web.<br />
<br />
====What about OPEN?====<br />
<br />
The [[:w:en:Online_Protection_and_Enforcement_of_Digital_Trade_Act |OPEN Act]] is another piece of legislation that is different from SOPA, and we're monitoring it, but SOPA/PIPA are the current focus. <br />
<br />
====Why is the Wikipedia mobile site still available?====<br />
<br />
In its blackout decision, the community has asked us to preserve emergency access options to Wikipedia. We've preserved access via the mobile site, and via a small number of backdoors to the main site.<br />
<br />
====Did the Italian Wikipedia’s protest action last year achieve its goal of stopping the Italian law in question?====<br />
<br />
It seems likely that the efforts of the Italian Wikipedia community around a similar Internet censorship bill compelled the Italian Parliament to announce that it would modify the proposed law to include only large online news sites -- meaning that any information outlets that don't fall into that category, Wikipedia among them, would be excluded from the law's reach. <br />
<br />
====Do you think U.S. users will respond to this action?====<br />
<br />
The focus of the message on the Wikipedia blackout page is likely to be action-oriented, with strong encouragement that U.S. users reading the message get in touch with their representatives and voice their displeasure over SOPA and PIPA. This effort is newsworthy to the U.S. and global press, and it’s very significant because it will expand the story beyond tech and media insiders to a wider public audience. Many up to this point have not heard much about the issue.<br />
<br />
====What is the significance of acting in concert with other major sites? Will this really produce a politically effective message beyond acting in isolation?====<br />
<br />
The Wikipedia community has selected January 18th because that was the date the U.S. House of Representatives had contemplated hearings and other actions around SOPA. Although those hearings are not occurring today as planned, they will likely be rescheduled to a later date to avoid the increased public opposition to the legislation that we see today. Further, it appears PIPA is moving forward in the U.S. Senate. The community feels this is the right time to act.<br />
<br />
When many organizations and projects align and protest like this, there’s clearly a big net effect. There’s no question this makes the story bigger than if one site, say Wikipedia, protested alone. Ultimately though it doesn’t look like we’re just following in the steps of others. Our community has strong views about this - and has from the beginning. It doesn’t simply look like they’re viewing activism in terms of how other sites are responding. Conversely, a lot of those other sites are very much looking to Wikipedia to see how our community is responding.<br />
<br />
====Is it still possible to access Wikipedia in any way?====<br />
The Wikipedia community, as part of their request to the Wikimedia Foundation to carry out this protest, asked us to ensure that we make English Wikipedia accessible in some way during an emergency. The English Wikipedia will be accessible on mobile devices and smart phones. Because the protest message is powered by JavaScript, it's also possible to view Wikipedia by completely disabling JavaScript in your browser.<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
====Alternates====<br />
'''JD Forrester Version'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left:5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
For over a decade, global volunteers have compiled billions of facts and contributed millions of hours to build Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
We have done this because we love to share knowledge with everyone. We have only been able to do this because the Internet is free and open.<br />
<br />
But right now, Congress is considering two bills that would hand repressive censorship tools to large commercial lobbyists.<br />
<br />
If [http://link SOPA] or [http://link the PROTECTIP Act] pass, they would destroy the freedom and openness that has made Wikipedia what it is. We have blacked-out access to Wikipedia for today to show what might happen.<br />
<br />
Please, consider whether a free and open Internet that includes Wikipedia is something you, too, care about. Use the tool below to contact your local representative or senator. Tell them that you oppose these acts. Tell them to protect the Internet.<br />
</div><br />
<br />
'''JD Forrester Version 2'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left:5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
For over a decade, global volunteers have compiled billions of facts and contributed millions of hours to build Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
We have only been able to do this because the Internet is free and open.<br />
<br />
But right now, the United States Congress is currently considering legislation that would hand repressive censorship tools to large commercial lobbyists, which could destroy the freedom and openness that has made Wikipedia what it is today.<br />
<br />
Please, consider whether a free and open Internet that includes Wikipedia is something that you, too, care about. Use the tool below to take action. Help protect the Internet.<br />
</div><br />
<br />
'''FT2 Version'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left:5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
'''The Internet needs you to protect free speech'''<br />
<br />
For over a decade, global volunteers have compiled billions of facts and contributed millions of hours to build Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
We have only been able to do this because the Internet is free and open.<br />
<br />
Free speech is in peril like never before. The United States Congress is currently considering striking out rights of free speech and other laws which made Wikipedia possible, forcing us to censor our editor discussions and the information we show you. <br />
<br />
If passed, it would destroy the freedom of Americans to write without censorship, on every website we have, in any language, everywhere.<br />
<br />
Please, consider whether a free and open Internet that includes Wikipedia is something that you, too, care about. Use the tool below to take action. Help protect the Internet.</div><br />
<br />
<br />
== Draft Things to say to elected Representatives ==<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
'''Cybersecurity'''<br />
<br />
As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose a bill that would damage the security of the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act; in the Senate, the PROTECT IP Act).&nbsp; A safe and secure Web is vital to our privacy and to commerce.&nbsp; Over a hundred established authorities on the Internet believe that the required blocking of Internet sites is badly thought out and threatens Internet security.&nbsp; I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.<br />
<br />
'''Censorship'''<br />
<br />
As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose a bill that would censor the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act; in the Senate, the PROTECT IP Act).&nbsp; The Internet has become the most important communications tool for the free flow of ideas.&nbsp; This bill would give the Justice Department power to shut down entire websites — even if the website or its information is not the subject of a complaint.&nbsp; It could provide a model for repressive regimes (who could promote it as the ‘American’ model).&nbsp; I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.<br />
<br />
'''Innovation'''<br />
<br />
As one of your concerned constituents, I urge you to oppose a bill that would chill innovation on the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act; in the Senate, the PROTECT IP Act).&nbsp; The Internet has created successful multi-billion-dollar businesses — and it has benefited thousands of small businesses by providing them a previously unreachable worldwide market.&nbsp; This bill would put unreasonable burdens on Internet Service Providers and search engines and would threaten to suffocate our Internet economy.&nbsp; I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.</div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Mobile Learn More Page'''<br />
<br />
<div style="background: lightgrey; padding: 5px; margin: 1em; margin-left: 5em; border: 1px black dashed"><br />
<br />
==Mobile page and message==<br />
<br />
'''Banner message'''<br />
<br />
'''IMAGINE A WORLD WITHOUT FREE KNOWLEDGE '''<br><br />
'''Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could cripple this site and your ability to access information online. Learn more.'''<br />
<br />
(link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Mobile_Learn_more)<br />
<br />
</div></div>Sue Gardner