[00:00:39] what do you mean by doesn't exist? [00:00:42] getting an error? [18:46:06] Good morning. [18:57:11] Heya everyone. [18:58:30] Hi James_F. Would you change the channel topic, please? [18:59:15] Patience. :-) [19:00:09] Hey everyone, I'm IRC person again. [19:00:17] We're starting soon. [19:00:40] Hello, IRC person again. [19:00:45] Things are a little different today because our main presenting space is unavailable, so if things are broken or don't seem to be working as you expect please shout out. [19:01:26] The wonderful brendan_campbell is running the A/V side, JoshM is our MC, and I'm doing IRC. [19:02:00] Thanks, brendan_campbell . [19:02:22] OK, we're about to get started, I think. [19:02:42] Allo all! [19:02:57] * James_F hands foks an '. [19:03:16] OK, off we go. [19:03:23] Hello from rainy SF (approximately 1.2 miles from the WMF office) [19:03:35] Cheers James. [19:04:20] Does anyone else have video? [19:04:26] Audio just dropped. [19:04:26] had it, don't now [19:04:27] I do [19:04:27] Yeah I see the youtube stream [19:04:29] Is it down? [19:04:29] Yes, video is fine. [19:04:30] Video up for me [19:04:32] just see the slide [19:04:34] Audio working too [19:04:34] Oops, audio just cut out [19:04:34] Hmm, I'll refresh [19:04:34] no audio [19:04:40] Whoa wait no audio [19:04:45] ^ brendan_campbell [19:04:46] brendan_campbell, ^ [19:04:46] audio dropped on youtube [19:04:48] Down for me. [19:04:50] audio is back [19:04:50] :D [19:04:52] audio dropped [19:04:53] me too [19:04:54] youtube audio drop [19:04:57] back [19:05:01] back [19:05:06] back on youtube for me [19:05:07] Yup back [19:05:10] meh not back yet for me (youtube) [19:05:15] ... there it is [19:05:16] not for me (youtube) [19:05:25] ah..nevermind - finally back [19:05:55] Welcome, Angel and Francisco. :) [19:06:11] Congratulations all! [19:06:13] Yes, we found another Emily Wood (not Keilana) and hired her :D [19:06:29] Oh, I assumed it was her. [19:06:30] It's definitely not confusing. [19:06:32] sorry about that [19:06:35] yay Max & Yuvi! [19:06:42] Congrats matt_flaschen ! [19:06:43] Thanks Brendan :) [19:06:52] Thanks, RoanKattouw. :) [19:06:57] How is Maria's sound? [19:06:59] Congrats to the other anniversary people! [19:07:00] Congrats all! [19:07:20] Congrats team mate matt_flaschen ! [19:07:30] Thanks, jmatazzoni_ :) [19:08:15] foks: Maria's audio is a little quiet and echo-y but I can still understand it. [19:08:43] Cool! [19:08:47] It's a weird setup. [19:09:12] That's really impressive, especially considering they're BLPs (so harder to write). [19:09:35] BLP? [19:09:39] matt_flaschen: agreed [19:09:42] Biographies of Living People [19:09:44] mooeypoo: Biographies of Living People. [19:09:45] oh! [19:09:52] mooeypoo: Subject to more stringent quality criteria. [19:09:53] mooeypoo, they have special rules to ensure anti-libel, etc. [19:09:58] Yeah [19:10:03] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons [19:10:09] Uludag must be in Azerbaijan? [19:10:26] (not that it really matters) [19:11:14] Oh, Turkey! Oo. [19:11:21] * Pine supports a 200% budget increase for Community Tech [19:12:44] Link for the Canada case? [19:13:20] Yes, thanks for the security work, and especially for enabling two-factor! [19:13:21] http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/when-search-engines-omit-results-our-rights-are-jeopardized/article33240768/ [19:13:29] Thanks, foks [19:13:30] (I believe) [19:13:32] Hm, security and legal for TFA? Wouldn't that be security and ops? [19:13:42] Off-topic, but the results for wlm are just in: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2016_winners#Winners [19:14:05] Ainali, nice! Thanks :) I don't think it's off-topic at all! [19:14:11] The link for the slide is https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Audience_research/Research_and_notes if you didn't grab it. [19:14:22] Err. From the slide. :-) Worth following along. [19:14:43] So much gender binary! :p [19:15:03] guillome: agreed [19:15:12] +1 as an agender person ;) [19:15:24] Pine, Legal was involved. Probably also ops, though. [19:15:30] OK [19:16:02] (IIRC this poster is near the kitchen entrance on the 6th floor) [19:16:13] World population is now 7.4 billion. [19:19:19] oh the editor funnel :) [19:19:46] 45,950 not 45,550 [19:19:56] RoanKattouw: 49,950 actually. [19:20:02] ... right [19:20:13] RoanKattouw: I'll excuse your tiredness. :-) [19:21:43] I wish we would hear more from Japanese Wikipedians. https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/Sitemap.htm makes their community look impressive, but I hear surprisingly little from them about meta topics. [19:21:45] I'd love to see this chart with relative sizes tight to number of people :) [19:22:21] Disruptors (vandals are included in this group) contribute equally to Grantees? [19:22:35] joal: Comparing 4bn (potential online readers) and 200 (active community translators) would be a design challenge. [19:22:51] matt_flaschen: I think it's about "impact", not "value". [19:22:57] Right James_F :) [19:23:11] James_F, so a negative impact is still a contribution, kind of an absolute value thing? [19:23:17] Can you please share the Audience Research link that's linked in the slides? (or how to get there?) [19:23:20] matt_flaschen: Yeah. [19:23:28] jorgevargas_: You mean https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Audience_research/Research_and_notes ? [19:23:38] That's the link ^ [19:23:43] I guess in that case it's pretty favorable, if a few dozen? grantees have more (hopefully positive) impact than tens of thousands of vandals. [19:23:59] Thanks melodykramer. [19:24:01] Thanks Mel! [19:24:16] \o/ [19:24:44] Wow, congratulations. That's really early. [19:24:49] \o/ [19:24:50] impressive [19:24:52] YAY [19:25:30] Thank you, to Fundraising and to our donors. [19:25:39] James_F: could you queue up a question for someone (not sure who to direct this to) about what could be done to encourage the Japanese Wikipedia community to participate more in meta discussions? They have some impressive community statistics and I would like to hear more about topics such as how they're so successful and what other community projects could learn from them. [19:26:21] Pine: I could ask it, but I'm not sure whom to ask. It might be more valuable to ask that as part of the strategy work, perhaps? It's a systemic issue (and not only with Japanese communities). [19:26:46] we <3 you fundraiding tech! [19:26:52] OK. DarTar ^ could you put this on your agenda, somewhere? [19:26:53] *fundraising!!! [19:27:36] Wow! [19:27:42] honestly I think the text is a big helper for the new banners (and emails) anecdotally the whole fake news/need a good place to get information really gets to people. [19:27:46] 45% improvement in one year, that's impressive for *any* metric. [19:27:55] Amazing work. [19:27:57] Indeed. [19:28:01] yeah [19:28:18] Jamesofur: are there a/b tests on the fake news, I'm sure lots of people are curious [19:28:27] Pine: can you post your Q to wikiresearch-l so more people can chime in? [19:28:30] And the mobile improvement is even better, which is essential since people are moving to mobile. [19:28:31] OK [19:28:39] thanks [19:28:53] milimetric: I'm certain there are but would be a question for Megan/FR about what the results were overall [19:29:20] That's also interesting about longer emails performing better. A little against the conventional wisdom. [19:29:48] yeah matt_flaschen, it’s been really encouraging that we have more space to talk about our work [19:30:06] if news coverage of it is any indication, I think people found the new text/approach really really effective [19:30:07] Did we send more than 1 email to each past donor? [19:30:16] ccogdill, just wondering, were there A/B tests specifically about length? [19:30:17] a max of 3 appeals to each past donor [19:30:18] matt_flaschen: I think it's because people who donate to wikipedia obviously love to read :) [19:30:25] re: dollar per email increase, wondering if it’s because it’s a resource that historically we haven’t used systematically, compared to banner [19:30:28] the-wub, good point. [19:30:31] *banners [19:30:33] matt_flaschen: it looks like it's continuing which is really nice to see but I remember when we started to see that with the appeal letters in 2010/11 too about how when we made longer landing page letters people actually stayed on those pages longer and READ them which was really surprising [19:30:35] matt_flaschen, yeah. some tests that add/subtract paragraphs [19:30:51] Cool [19:30:59] Worth noting that I’ve seen more than a few OTRS mails commenting negatively on the “we don’t have resources to chase you up… that’s not our style” wording. [19:31:07] Whoa is that Seddon interviewing Jimmy? [19:31:12] Where can I see these videos? [19:31:14] DarTar, there are people on this list who have been getting appeals since 2011. the majority of the list is from 2013 - 2015 though [19:31:17] Seddon's moving on up. ;P [19:31:31] Samwalton9 I hear that. we’re working hard to change that line. We’ve tried over 20 variations of it so far [19:31:43] foks: Nah, it's just that Jimmy isn't that important so we send the junior staff ;P [19:31:54] ;) [19:31:59] "millions of people came together to share this vast treasury of knowledge"? [19:32:00] ccogdill: great, I’m sure you’re more than aware of how different wordings are perceived. :) [19:32:06] Does that mean millions of contributors? [19:32:16] RoanKattouw The videos were/are not going to be produced at full length. [19:32:16] ccogdill: true, I am one of those, but the revamp of focus on email is quite recent, also HTML email (which I love!) may have a novelty effect. In any case, impressive numbers [19:32:27] I wonder if there are any estimates on how any actual people have ever contributed to Wikipedia (even once). [19:32:33] :) thanks! [19:33:01] matt_flaschen: I think we generated stats on unique accounts some time in the past [19:33:14] there’s also halfak’s work on labor hours that went into making WP [19:33:24] heatherw, how long were they? ~30s, 1m? [19:33:29] heatherw: Fair enough, but there's some nonzero amount of video that I should be able to locate somewhere on the internet, right? [19:33:37] DarTar, a lot of the drive-bys are probably anons, though (probably enough to impact the magnitutde), plus there are socks (not sure how significant in big picture). [19:33:41] yeah basically what Roan asked [19:33:45] matt_flaschen: Narrowing it down to unique individuals is probably almost impossible for a lot of reasons but I did a lookup of unblocked accounts with at least 1 edit on all wikis and got 21.2M [19:34:03] matt_flaschen: I was asked how many humans had ever use the visual editor a few months ago. I guess "well over a million", but… [19:34:12] Jamesofur, yeah, I'm thinking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_problem style. [19:34:20] * James_F nods. [19:34:21] matt_flaschen: yeah that’s why we’re always cautioning against the use of the word “people” [19:34:22] That's not dedupped obviously (and in many ways fully dedupping would be almost impossible) but it also doesn't include any IPs and we KNOW that there are a ton of those [19:34:37] so I think we can safely think "millions" or "over 20M" [19:34:45] Meta note: having a bit of a problem with slides right now [19:34:49] I'm one in at least 21.2 M. [19:34:55] should be back in the flow soon [19:35:16] Jamesofur, interesting, that's more than I would have guessed. [19:35:47] distributed consensus is a difficult problem [19:37:04] Email message is great! [19:37:10] RoanKattouw: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:VGrigas_(WMF) [19:37:10] gwicke: I wrestle with that all the time. There are conventional mechanisms that we have in the community but they're far from perfect, and sometimes I'm not sure if they're even good. But we haven't come up with anything better. [19:37:30] thanks, sadads! riffs always welcome, if it inspires you :) [19:37:34] Wow, 9,000 frames! [19:37:57] it strikes me that not many people have made the connection between no ads <—> less prone to propagating fake news (beyond the obvious quality control mechanisms/verifiability policies) [19:38:50] @ccogdill We are going to iterate on the Wikipedia as information literacy bit for the #1lib1ref campaign in January: 1lib1ref.org [19:38:56] given the incentives in content distribution platforms running ads for “engaging content” [19:38:58] ty meganhernandez [19:39:04] (Collecting IRC questions.) [19:39:05] Pine: yeah, agreed; my remark was more of a lame joke referencing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_(computer_science) [19:39:08] There are some audiences (particularly librarians and teachers), where that story is gold. [19:39:09] awesome sadads, I’ll keep my eyes out for what you come up with [19:39:18] Thank you Fundraising!!!!! [19:39:21] James_F: maybe I missed this, but has there been a decision to take the banners down after the campaign hits its goal? If not, what will be done with the funds received that are in excess over the goal? [19:39:38] Pine: Megan said there'd be an announcement coming out later today. [19:39:41] OK [19:39:42] hahaha [19:39:53] +1000 [19:40:31] (That "not afraid to prepare" joke may have gone over people's heads a bit. It's not an attack on anyone in the call. :P ) [19:41:06] foks: A Trump reference? [19:41:08] foks: Given that our call is streamed, you don't know that for sure. [19:41:17] Touché. [19:41:20] Ainali, I think so. [19:41:22] :) [19:41:24] James_F, it's a safe bet they're not on IRC on YouTube either, though. :) [19:41:39] Though CIA is here. [19:41:47] that's a tautology [19:42:04] milimetric, what? [19:42:06] CIA is always here :) [19:42:11] Exactly [19:42:19] This whole conversation is going over my head. [19:42:53] Sorry, I'll stop now. [19:44:06] "not afraid to prepare" was a reference to the VP debates in which Pence criticized Kaine for preparing for the debate [19:44:31] * milimetric has goosebumps [19:44:42] I would appreciate it if we could leave US politics out of Wikimedia and WMF discussions, to the extent possible. [19:44:44] MEMES! [19:44:59] Political neutrality is important for Wikimedia. [19:45:05] Pine, unfortunately they have the potential to directly impact us. [19:45:07] There are limited exceptions for supporting freedom of speech. [19:45:13] Wikimedia Foundation does not equal Wikipedia. [19:45:17] 2~ [19:45:18] Gawd I didn't know my memes would be publicized today. [19:45:19] As much as I agree. [19:45:25] Pine: this discussion is the only thing that explicitly referenced [19:45:39] guillom: Good news. The slides when they make it to Commons won't. [19:45:46] pfeww. [19:45:54] Hooray for copyright! Wait. [19:46:31] James_F: should i edit that slide out of the recording before uploading to commons? [19:46:39] brendan_campbell: Yeah, if possible. [19:46:47] yeah, no big deal [19:46:52] brendan_campbell: Awesome, thank you. [19:46:59] Black box over it? :) [19:47:08] guillom: they are beautiful [19:47:11] foks: yup, i think that should do [19:48:07] Hooray guillom! [19:48:39] I also did not know that my face would be on the screen today :p [19:48:41] +1 guillom [19:48:46] Nice. :) [19:48:56] guillom: I've got bad news about wikimediafoundation.org. :-) [19:49:21] Any questions? [19:49:27] hmm I do not see staff in there [19:49:45] @guillom Such popularity ;-) [19:49:48] James_F, how does the role of this new strategy group relate to the roles of the Board of Trustees and Advisory Board? [19:49:55] Thanks matt. [19:50:23] "Camel of knowledge"? [19:50:29] * foks pings James_F about Pine's Japan question, assuming Pine still wishes it answered. [19:50:31] bold camel of knowledge [19:50:41] funcrunch, in its hump? Pure knowledge. [19:50:42] * funcrunch associates camels with Perl programming [19:50:44] foks: we're going to do that on Research-l, but thanks. [19:50:51] Pine, nice, okay! [19:50:55] Can't hear James very well... [19:51:07] (he just repeated matt's question from about a page up) [19:51:11] funcrunch: oh dear, that would make camels significantly more scary to me [19:51:12] Oh, sorry. I'm used to being treated to my own microphone. :-) [19:51:28] James_F: did the fundraising related questions get answered? [19:51:44] I suppose probably no one reads printed O'Reilly books anymore though [19:51:51] * guillom snuggles JeanFred. [19:52:15] JoshM: The one about "will they get switched off immediately" did with Megan saying she'd make an announcement later today on that. [19:52:23] JoshM: Not sure if I missed other ones. [19:52:32] Thank you [19:52:33] Any questions welcome. [19:52:36] I've recently bought a printed O'Reilly book... I'm that old-school :) [19:52:43] I don't know if I heard before that it was a BoT initiative. [19:53:01] I would argue that the BoT should also be representing all these stakeholders, but if it's kind of a spin off of BoT it makes more sense. [19:53:33] * James_F nods. [19:53:57] matt_flaschen: I remember an email from Christophe with 3 priorities, the 3rd being movement strategy. [19:53:58] @guillom There will be plenty of bread and brioche for strategizing well. [19:54:27] JeanFred: Gotta keep those little grey cells well fed! [19:54:29] I've never seen a 15-year strategy before. It seems clear that the movement's priorities will need shift during that vast stretch of time. Is there an example you can show of what a plan like this looks like for a similar organization? [19:55:06] jmatazzoni_: government organizations routinely plan that far ahead. [19:55:09] jmatazzoni_, this was confusing to me first as well. I think a better way of thinking about it is as a *direction* and not as a *goal*. [19:55:40] However, I'm not sure if media and tech organizations usually plan that far ahead. [19:55:41] Thinking about where we will be in 15 years is hard. It's much easier to think about which direction we want to go in. [19:55:50] question for Megan: Do we have a target effectiveness rate for our banners? i.e. is there a certain effectiveness at which we will be happy and hold steady at? [19:56:56] great Q, kaldari [19:57:09] kaldari, serious question. Why set a target max? If we can keep increasing it, we have options (showing banners for less time, raising more money). To avoid it being annoying? I would argue that is kind of a separate metric. [19:57:25] 15 years seems long even for government organizations. [19:57:47] James_F: I'll ask another question about strategy. How do we ensure that we don't spend needless millions of dollars on consultants on a strategic plan? In other words, how do we ensure that we get great value for the time and money that are invested in strategic planning? [19:57:51] matt_flaschen: well, we could reach 100% effectiveness if we want, just black out the site with a fundraising banner, right? [19:57:55] matt_flaschen: Back in the UK we had 20- and 30-year look-ahead visions. [19:58:16] Or, *needlessly spend millions of dollars. [19:58:30] kaldari, how are you measuring effectiveness. I thought it was "percentage of banner-viewers donating"? [19:58:36] kaldari: apropos! [19:58:39] That wouldn't be 100% even in your scenario (it would probably fall due to backlash). [19:58:44] at 17 I had a 15 year plan :) I'm way off, but I found the making of it and the having it priceless [19:58:56] At WikiConference North America we broken into groups to discuss 5 year visions, but we only had about 15 minutes :) [19:59:03] *broke [19:59:27] Pine: Libraries and educational communities do plan that far ahead. [19:59:33] Oooh, how do I do wikilove from... not on the video feed? [20:00:00] Jackson Pollock paintings seem like a great analogy for "Wikipedia doesn't work in theory, only in practice" :) [20:00:20] K4-713: Proxy via James_F? [20:00:24] no that wasn't the question, but oh well [20:00:27] Hmm. [20:00:35] I've got a meeting starting in -1 minute. [20:01:02] So we probably won't get to have a thanks session this time, as we over-ran. [20:01:16] Unless someone else can take over your mic. [20:01:34] I wanted to know if we have a target effectiveness rate or we just balance it against feedback in an ad hoc way. [20:01:51] How do you define 'target effectiveness rate'? [20:01:55] Pine: The problem is that we'd then be stealing time from everyone attending the meeting. [20:02:20] yes, there are thousands of donor dollars in this meeting right now probably [20:02:38] hundreds of millions :) [20:02:41] Re strategy, I'm most hopeful about what we can accomplish by better partnering with external organizations. [20:02:48] Over 9000, clearly. [20:03:10] matt_flaschen: donations per banner views or something like that. [20:03:13] kaldari, I’m not on the banner team specifically, but yes, I would say we balance it against feedback in an ad-hoc way. we still only get ~1% of readers to give, so it’s not like our donations per impression is at a rate where it makes sense to say we cracked the code [20:03:15] I vaguely calculated that this meeting costs approximately US$200 a minute, ignoring volunteers' time (which is definitely not free). [20:03:32] Just for the record, if something is below industry standard, that doesn't mean that I'd support paying for it. I'm interested in value for us, not value relative to the industry. [20:03:56] ccogdill: thanks [20:05:08] Good point. I think we should have a strategy, but I want to ensure that we get good value for money. [20:05:20] (Responding to the audio... not sure who that was commenting) [20:05:42] How do I add my wikilove? [20:05:51] agh. [20:05:57] Pine: the way I look at it is that, not, is strategy work worth prioritizing vs., for example, doubling Community Tech. But, instead, strategy work is the critical thing we need to do to tractably decide as a movement to do things like double Community Tech. [20:05:58] post it now! [20:06:06] JoshM: Where? [20:06:10] here! [20:06:13] Pine, think that was Lisa Gruwell [20:06:27] (then a brief comment from Katherine) [20:06:29] Yeah, Lisa, Anna and Katherine were the ones responding about strategy. [20:06:34] WikiLove from me: I want to give a shoutout to Adam Wight. Of all the people at the Foundation, I've probably worked with him directly more than anyone else. In all that time, I have never known him to sit quietly when he sees an opportunity to do more good. I've received many notes over the years from seemingly random people, letting me know that Adam's contributions turned something in their world around for the better. He's moved more than a fe [20:06:35] OK, thanks [20:06:48] awight is wonderful! +1 to that K4-713 [20:06:54] +1 K4-713 [20:07:05] +1000! [20:07:37] :) awight knows we all love him [20:07:38] I'd like to give WIkiLove to Chris "Jethro" Schilling who has been very helpful working with me on anti-harassment. [20:07:48] wikilove to Robert for all of his hard work [20:07:57] +1 [20:08:01] yeah Robert for the debugging! [20:08:05] :D [20:08:05] +1 [20:08:18] +8 infinity [20:08:22] debugging, heh [20:08:30] too easy to make that one :P [20:08:37] :P [20:08:42] i'm sad i didn't think of it [20:08:58] Thanks everyone! [20:09:22] Thanks, that was really a great metrics. [20:09:26] :) [20:09:46] * urandom groans [20:09:48] I kind of like that room other than people probably not fitting. It's a different vibe. [20:10:00] matt_flaschen: +1 [20:10:12] Ciao all [20:10:30] extra wikilove for the editors: https://imgur.com/gallery/4QEhH [20:10:57] Have a great rest of the week everyone! Ciao