Pine is on a temporary Wikibreak
Hello Pine and welcome to the Outreach Wiki!
Our mission is to recruit and support new Wikimedians and to build strong relationships with cultural and educational institutions. Want to help? Here are ways that you can get involved:
- Indicate your languages and skills on your user page so we know how you can best help!
- Review the bookshelf materials, help with localization and add your feedback.
- Learn about our work with cultural institutions, educational institutions, and libraries.
Hi Pine, I need some advice please. I recently ran a project for Wikimedia Australia to generate some interest in the university sector - Wikipedia training day, Bendigo Victoria. As a follow up one of the participants is creating a project page. This is currently housed on her Wikipedia user page, but looking at the page and what she is trying to do, I wonder if it would be better here. Knowing that you are active on both Wikipedia and Outreach, would you be able to have a look and let me know your opinion? Sorry, was not logged in, have done so and added signature. --Peterdownunder (talk) 08:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, yes I think that page would be a good fit for the Outreach wiki although keeping it on English Wikipedia is also ok. I think it would be preferable to have the page on Outreach so it's more visible to participants and organizers from other outreach programs who may be interested in seeing what projects have been done elsewhere. --Pine✉ 17:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
WikiArS and the English Wikipedia Graphics Lab
Hi Pine, thanks for your message. I know Graphics Lab but I wanna to know more deeply to recommend to the schools of art. The idea of the WikiArS assignments is a bit different from graphic labs, these are images that needs an expert to give orientations to the students and to check the image before uploading. But yes, are neighbor ideas and I'll take in account ways of relation between it. --Dvdgmz (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Belfer Center fiasco
Why are you expressing so much concern about "not outing people's pseudonymous accounts here"? As far as I can tell, no such outing has taken place on the Belfer Center WiR postmortem page. I suppose you're talking about the comments made on the associated Talk page, about Wikipedia users Jruggie (who edited about John Ruggie) and Cmejia.botero (who also edited about John Ruggie, who in real life works at the same employer as Carmen Mejia. I personally wouldn't have a problem with those "outing" attempts to be removed from the Talk page. But what's really the crux of contention on the postmortem page is that Wikimedia Foundation trustees, former staff, and program affiliates are trying to hide information about the Belfer Center's and the Wikimedia Foundation's various conflicts of interest. It looks terrible for any organization that professes to honor openness and transparency. - 2601:B:BB80:E0:6D9B:C6AC:7F03:36B2 10:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- The consensus is that the comments on the talk page about the Jruggie and Cmejia.botero accounts can remain public. Those users seem to have made no attempt to conceal their identities. As you say, the Belfer affair in general should never have happened and I think WMF agrees. You can discuss your thoughts about the Belfer Center and the Wikimedia Foundation's possible conflicts of interest on the Belfer report's talk page. --Pine✉ 22:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for inspiring me
Your introduction was thoughtful. Comprehensive while brief. Well connected to the event and the audience. And inspiring at the end. Thank you for writing it.
That the idea of sharing this video in this venue was suggested by you, and that the lightning talk was led by you, and that this education program was being celebrated by you rather than by my team was significant and meaningful. You are an influential member of our movement. And when you talk, people listen. I'm told that there were at least 32 people watching the live stream on YouTube. And countless more may watch it later. I hope that they do! Because this collaboration was really inspiring. :)
Thanks again for doing this, Pine. I'm grateful to you, more than you know.
- P.S. It's still watchable on YouTube; start it at 35:40; press play now! :) Anna Koval (WMF) (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Ras Benjih ok, what would you like changed from that version? --Pine✉ 20:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Any choice of yours will be accepted.
For Your Creation
- Hi Felipe da Fonseca, I have used revdel to hide the edit. I do not have the more advanced "suppressrevision" user permission which oversighters have, and there are no local oversighters on Outreach wiki, so I will request that a steward upgrade the revdel to suppression. If this happens again on the Outreach wiki, then I suggest that you privately send an email to the stewards through this contact page or contact a steward privately on IRC, because making a request on a public talk page can attract more public attention to your IP. Please let me know if you have any questions. --Pine✉ 19:35, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Admin requirement discussion
Reading Wikimedia:Village pump#Where to request File mover rights on Outreach wiki I was very confused, since I remembered outreachwiki to be a wiki where adminship has never been such a big deal that such subgroups as proposed there would be necessary. I was already drafting a response pointing to this but when I opened the RFP page I was rather shocked by the, in my opinion, unreasonably high requirements introduced by you in 2017, cf. . I would strongly suggest to at least remove the first and last criterion, so that active long-term contributors to this project like Masssly are not being excluded from obtaining permissions necessary for their work in the future. Kind regards, --Vogone (SWMT) 23:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Vogone, I am wondering if you are reading the events of 2017 in the correct order. Massly made his request before the discussion about the change of requirements for administrator permissions, and I didn't have Massly in mind when I suggested those changes. I believed at the time, and continue to believe, that we now have an adequate number of active Outreach administrators to address the needs of Outreach wiki. Also, I am always concerned about the security of Wikimedia sites and the quality of their administration. Raising the requirements for administrative permissions decreases the possibility of having inexperienced administrators who make bad mistakes or intentionally cause harm, and also reduces the number of accounts that can be used by bad actors who who could cause harm here with an administrative account. I think that the new requirements are somewhat high for all of those good reasons. Also, I think that it is unlikely that anyone's development of content on Outreach wiki is being negatively affected by their lack of administrative permissions. If there becomes a situation in which someone who does not meet the new requirements for administrators is finding that their work is being negatively affected then that person is welcome to bring that situation to the attention of me or any other administrator here, preferably at the Village Pump or at Request for Permissions. --Pine✉ 20:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I realised the order of events, but please understand this as a general remark. At the moment, outreachwiki has higher requirements for adminship than metawiki and even higher requirements than those for stewards. Please don't get me wrong, but in my opinion this is somewhat out of proportion. --Vogone (SWMT) 21:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Vogone, as you probably know there can be significant differences between the minimum requirements that are specified in policies and the minimum requirements that voters will support in practice. I doubt that anyone would be elected to the role of steward if they simply met the minimum requirements that are currently specified in the policy for stewards but lacked significant additional experience and qualifications. I think that the requirements that we developed here for Outreach wiki are a little on the high side but are certainly achievable, and are comparable to what I think the voters on English Wikipedia would expect of people who apply for administrator permissions on English Wikipedia's Request for Administrator process. If we get into a situation where we have a problem with the Outreach requirements being a a little high then I would be willing to reconsider those requirements, for example if we get into a situation where we have too few active administrators here and there are some very good candidates who don't meet all of the current Outreach criteria. However, we are not currently in that situation. If you continue to believe that we should lower our requirements then I invite you to make a proposal at the Village Pump. You can make a proposal at the Village Pump on this subject even if I disagree with it. Although I proposed the 2017 revisions, they are not my personal policy and they are not set in stone. The policy can be changed if there is consensus, even if I personally think that there are good reasons for the 2017 policy to remain as it is. --Pine✉ 22:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)