Revi's micro home

T93: Wikimedia

Wikidata logo. Wikidata item Q3568028: Wikimedia movementsocial movement around Wikimedia including content publications, Wikimedia organizations, and independent editors
instance of
  • social movement
topic's main category
  • Category:Wikimedia movement
topic's main Wikimedia portal
  • Portal:Wikimedia
different from
  • Wikimedia
has part or parts
  • Wikimedia Foundation
  • Wikimedia Deutschland
  • Wikimedia France
  • Wikimedia UK
  • Wikimedia Sverige
  • Wikimedia CH
  • Wikimedia Austria
  • Wikimedia Netherlands
  • Wikimedia RU
  • Wikimedia Ukraine‎
  • Wikimedia Norge
  • Wikimedia Hong Kong
  • Wikimedia Polska
  • Wikimedia Brasil
  • Wikimedia Portugal
  • Wikimedia Taiwan‎
  • Wikimedia Eesti‎
  • Wikimedia Macedonia
  • Wikimedia Indonesia‎
  • Wikimedia Spain
  • Wikimedia Italia
  • Wikimedia Canada
  • Wikimedia Czech Republic
  • Wikimedia Macau
  • Wikimedia Israel
  • Wikimedia Belgium
  • Wikimedia Argentina
  • Wikimedia Australia
  • Wikimedia Bangladesh‎
  • Wikimedia Chile‎
  • Wikimedia District of Columbia
  • Wikimedia Denmark
  • Wikimedia India
  • Wikimedia Hungary‎
  • Wikimedia Mexico
  • Wiki Society of the Philippines
  • Wikimedia Serbia
  • Wikimedia South Africa
  • Wikimedia Finland
  • Wikimedia Uruguay‎
  • Wikimedia Venezuela
  • Wikimedia New York City‎
  • Wikimedia Armenia
  • Wikimedia Cuteness Association
Commons category
  • Wikimedia movement
practiced by
  • Wikimedian in residence
logo image
  • Property type 'commonsMedia' not supported yet.
image
  • Property type 'commonsMedia' not supported yet.
official website
notable work
  • The Wikimedia Movement

RSS feed icon. RSS feed for the "Wikimedia" tag

Authority Control:
— Quora topic ID: Wikimedia-Movement — Google Knowledge Graph ID: /g/1226skrh


  1. By .

    This year’s candidates are:

    1. Farah Jack Mustaklem
    2. Mike Peel
    3. Gilbert Ndihokubwayo
    4. Tobechukwu Precious Friday
    5. Lionel Scheepmans
    6. Abakar B
    7. Joris Darlington Quarshie
    8. Egbe Eugene Agbor
    9. Kunal Mehta
    10. Shani Evenstein Sigalov
    11. Gina Bennett
    12. Michał Buczyński

    I have opinion on two based on my past interaction, and is gonna be “whatever” for the rest.

    • Kunal M. gets my “HELL YES” sticker. Competent, knowledgeable, and kind person with no negative interactions till date as far as I remember. (That is, 9 years and few months)
    • Shani E. gets my “HELL NO” sticker. Opposing because of her arrogance. Someone else told me they’ve ran away in the middle of Wikipedia rebranding scam discussion, so if true that’ll be another reason. (“Revisiting after Dec 26” which never happened.)

    I can’t really “oppose” someone in the STV system (shit) so I’m just voting for Kunal.

  2. By .
    • Back in November 2021, I sent some legal policy question to [email protected] I had to bug my T&S folks (liaising stewards & WMF) at least 3-5 (possibly more than that) times to get a response, which… came in March 2022 with of course, full of vague “legalese”.
    • Some WMF folk sent email to checkuser-l asking for feedback on something they’ve been working on. I gave them the feedback they asked for. They did not bother to reply.

    Looks like this… is telling me something? Well, things haven’t much changed since 2020.

  3. By .

    Re: Thanking the members of the Funds Dissemination Committee by Shani Evenstein

    The role previously filled by the FDC as a sub-committee to the Board to review the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual plan will be carried out through a movement-wide feedback process that will be built into the Annual Planning Process.

    I am somewhat worried that WMF will use this as their already-exhibiting “say whatever you like during so-called feedback process, and we will do whatever pleases us in the end” tactic. Unless we the community unite and say “HELL NO”, they usually points their middle finger at us and do it anyway.

    EDIT (2022-07-03 09:27 KST): I sort of said the similar thing back in December 2020 (w/r/t feedback process): Oh, and stop doing so called ‘consultation’ and pretend as if you listened to us. You did not.

  4. By .

    Well point 1 proven (somewhat) wrong with Google deal.

    I still find it bit weird for WMF to beg for donor money, put it in WMF’s own jar, and make free money out of contributor’s work.

  5. By .

    Two stuff in mind:

    1. I dunno how sustainable it is, given those rich enough to pay for that Enterprise API also has enough money to hire the human to replace Enterprise API.
    2. I feel like don’t want WMF to make money from my unpaid work, without doing enough in return to the editors - who ultimately gives them the chance to earn that $$$.
  6. By .

    The file that is attached to this post.