Wikimania 2019

[eagle]

Which is not a problem in my view, nor implies that their contribution might not be even better than academic contributors'.
I only see a problem in academics being an "underrepresented" social group. I bet this finding is missing from the Diversity Group's research.

They do not include academics, experts or competent editors. The Diversity Working Group instead focuses upon women, indigenous language speakers and people from low income economic groups (which includes many academics). Since we are trying to address "knowledge equity" I hope that they would attract people who have knowledge and writing skills, although that has not bee explicitly discussed.

[Kumioko]

Yeah I thought those percentages they through out there were pure garbage. There is no doubt there are some experts, but the only way they could achieve those stats is by cooking the numbers and manipulating it to look more positive.

As Mark Twain once said, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics". Give that the WMF and the WMF community are prone to lying, there is no reason at all their stats wouldn't be any exception.

[Kumioko]

Here's another funny post from the Wikimania twitter pages:
https://twitter.com/WikiResearch/status ... 16/photo/1

here is a related link: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/20 ... _Wikipedia
Certainly there are some that fit this explanation, but there are a lot that wouldn't exist, like mine, if the community and the WMF weren't threatening, intimidating and retaliating at editors they disagree with.

[mendaliv]

We need a wikimania photo drinking game.
Every photo of a post-20s adult wearing a graphic tee when giving a presentation: 1 drink

[Poetlister]

Since we are trying to address "knowledge equity" I hope that they would attract people who have knowledge and writing skills, although that has not bee explicitly discussed.

That would require a significant change in mental attitudes. I wonder if people still feel scarred by the scandal of self-proclaimed expert Essjay (T-C-L) and Jimbo's preposterous reaction when the fraud was exposed.

Mr Wales said the site and its users will soon devise a scheme to adequately check credentials of those Wikipedia editors who claim to possess them. But Wikipedia, by its nature, is self-policing and its experts are not required to have credentials, so a valid check will be hard to implement.

Times Online (archived)

Needless to say, "soon" is not to be taken in its normal meaning; the quote is from 2007.

[Kumioko]

Another stat from Wikimania. 37% of edits made with tools. I wish I knew which tools they included. Does this include AWB and Visual editor? Has this increased or decreased from previous years? A simple % without the supporting data is pretty useless.

[Smiley]

We need a wikimania photo drinking game.
Every photo of a post-20s adult wearing a graphic tee when giving a presentation: 1 drink

Jimmy Wales demonstrates woodblock printing in a Visual Editor T-shirt.
See you in casualty.

[C&B]

Another stat from Wikimania. 37% of edits made with tools.

Another stat: 100% of edits on Wikipedia are made by tools

[Kumioko]

Another stat from Wikimania. 37% of edits made with tools.

Another stat: 100% of edits on Wikipedia are made by tools

Well yeah that's kinda what I was getting at.

I think it's useful to take these stats in context with one another.

9% of edits are done by students in editing class assignments
37% is done by tools
as much as 35% are considered experts.
122,062 registered users did at least one edit in the last 30 days.
Of that around 1200 are admins
That 122, 962 includes vandalism, spam and other edits that got reverted. (not sure how much)

Anyone think 35% makes sense now?

Basically this is the WMF bullshitting people that don't know any better and didn't bother to do any fact checking. Snopes, your turn!

[Jans Hammer]

Probably not the best composed picture ever taken

So, she has gotten herself a "Dalahäst", (or, in en.wp: Dalecarlian horse (T-H-L))...the about most touristy thing you can get in Sweden...

The most common may be chlamydia.

[Jans Hammer]

Have any of the regulars here been to one of these shindigs? Care to share your experiences?

Is Farhad known?

[Kumioko]

I went to the one in Washington DC. There were aspects of it that were enjoyable, but for the most part it was very clickish. Admins hung out with admins, devs with devs, Wikiproject mebers, etc. I was able to meet a few people and put a few faces with names (Not sure if Beeblebrox remembers me..lol) but largely it was a waste of time. It was a lot of the WMF backpatting themselves for the volunteers work and insiders looking to get in the good graces of the WMF for a job.

[Jans Hammer]

I went to the one in Washington DC. There were aspects of it that were enjoyable, but for the most part it was very clickish. Admins hung out with admins, devs with devs, Wikiproject mebers, etc. I was able to meet a few people and put a few faces with names (Not sure if Beeblebrox remembers me..lol) but largely it was a waste of time. It was a lot of the WMF backpatting themselves for the volunteers work and insiders looking to get in the good graces of the WMF for a job.

So does the official accreditation show your WP User: Id?

[Smiley]

Closing ceremony.

Traditionally attired performers depict the concept of "editwarring" via the medium of interpretative dance:

[Kumioko]

I went to the one in Washington DC. There were aspects of it that were enjoyable, but for the most part it was very clickish. Admins hung out with admins, devs with devs, Wikiproject mebers, etc. I was able to meet a few people and put a few faces with names (Not sure if Beeblebrox remembers me..lol) but largely it was a waste of time. It was a lot of the WMF backpatting themselves for the volunteers work and insiders looking to get in the good graces of the WMF for a job.

So does the official accreditation show your WP User: Id?

Yeah I'm sure it does but a lot of the people that went back then had at least heard of me and were familiar with my work. OF course that was before some editors started lying and manipulating policy to get me banned and before the WMF decided to get in the habit of banning editors to protect abusive admins and to intimidate the community by showing them what happens when you criticize those admins, so a lot has changed since then.

[Jans Hammer]

Right up Kudpung's street!

[Jans Hammer]

Closing ceremony.

Traditionally attired performers depict the concept of "editwarring" via the medium of interpretative dance:

Eric???

[Kumioko]

When else are the people in the Wikipedia community ever going to say or hear the words bang and kok in the same sentence?

[Smiley]

Closing ceremony.

Jimmy Wales stands in front of a sign saying "Wikipedia is a beacon of civil discourse and positivity" wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with the words "Quality Education":



Bottoms up!

[Kumioko]

Yeah that's complete bullshit!

[Jans Hammer]

He needs to look at the file marked "Laura Hale / Fram"

[eagle]

As a throwback to how the Strategic Working Groups got started, you might want to view this video from Wikimania 2017 Montreal: The point is that the then-WMF Board Chair as well as Katherine Maher were very out front in gathering support for the Strategic Review. Now, ask yourself how much the ED, Board Chair and Mr. Wales were outspoken in Stockholm on the Framgate issue?

[Kumioko]

I bet they hurried to change the subject anytime Fram or Laura Hale were even mentioned.

[eagle]

I bet they hurried to change the subject anytime Fram or Laura Hale were even mentioned.

I saw Maria opening the Opening Session, but did anyone see her wife, LH in any of the videos or photos from Wikimania 2019?

[Osborne]

Another stat from Wikimania. 37% of edits made with tools. I wish I knew which tools they included. Does this include AWB and Visual editor? Has this increased or decreased from previous years? A simple % without the supporting data is pretty useless.

This reads to me like: 37% of edits are half- (AWB) or full-automated (bot) batch-edits. Which means it's housekeeping, not added content.

Edit count metrics should count only individual edits, not the 10-100 edits/minute rampages, then admins would not be able to boast about their edit counts, which added zero content (thus lacks research work). Negative edits that remove content should be counted separately, as "cleanup". An extreme example of such edit statistics would be - who else - the deletionist Bbb23, with 6.3+ MB content removed ("Article diffs excluding reverts") in 52k+ edits. Talk about net negative...

I think I'll make this into a suggestion for the WGs.
I also made a draft workflow for the planned "user reporting system", that's been talked about much, but nobody has an idea, how it will work

[Vigilant]

Jimbo Wales, a liar to the end.

[mendaliv]

We need a wikimania photo drinking game.
Every photo of a post-20s adult wearing a graphic tee when giving a presentation: 1 drink

Jimmy Wales demonstrates woodblock printing in a Visual Editor T-shirt.
See you in casualty.

Jimmy Wales being a poser: 0 drinks (we'd all be in the hospital)

[eagle]

One of the lightning talks gave a controversial conclusion. The researcher coded articles in terms of whether they had local content or "culturally connected content". Most Wikipedias have about 25% of articles in this class, but English Wikipedia was about 44%. These articles tend to be the more popular ones (more page views.)

Traditionally, when a new Wikipedia starts, it is encouraged to cover the 1000 Vital articles (T-H-L) that librarians and scholars consider most essential for a valid reference work. However, this researcher argues (t=26:00) instead that "start creating what is relevant for the neighbors" would be better. This knowledge might get lost if it is not included. Because this will increase page views, it will lead to a "healthier Wikipedia." Put charitably, English Wikipedia has already established credibility as a serious reference source, so if we start a new language Wikipedia, focus in stead on anticipating what is locally popular.

[Beeblebrox]

I was also at Wikimania DC in 2012. My takeaways were as follows:

--Yes, I got a scholarship. If I'm going to pay to get on a plane and fly all day I'm not going to a nerd conference,

-A lot of the presentations were very interesting. Some of them really, really were not.

-I personally enjoyed the small impromptu conversations over lunch and so forth much more than any of the official content.

-Yes, a significant number of attendees are socially awkward white males, but most of them were pretty ok, just goofy.

-The thing mentioned in a previous post about everybody standing up is a thing Jimbo does every year. Everyone stands up, then he has people sit down in the reverse order of when they started editing, like "sit down if your first edit was in 2018" and so on. In 2012, by the time he got to 2007, the year I started, 3/4 of the audience was seated. By the time he got to 2001 it was like 3 people left standing, and then they get a big round of applause. It's a fairly decent feel good gimmick to kick off the event.

-Most of the nastiness you see in the back rooms of WP doesn't show its face at these events. It's different meeting people face-to-face and seeing them as people instead of just words on a screen.

-I was, however, in the room when the Big Dramatic Moment of that conference happened. It was the only time I recall people really being upset. (I believe it has been discussed here before but I wasn't active here back then) Suffice it to say it was a tense couple of minutes, but came right at the end of that particular presentation, which by and large was pretty good except for one shortsighted mistake that kicked off the drama.

-I did meet a guy who snuck in, not because he was a banned user but because he was an alumnus of the college where the conference was taking place and apparently just wanted to see what was going on/get a free lunch. He was a pretty funny guy..

-Several European people gave me shit for wearing shorts all the time. I'm from Alaska, I don't do 98F and 95% humidity and I don't give a fuck what you think about it.

[Anroth]

-I was, however, in the room when the Big Dramatic Moment of that conference happened. It was the only time I recall people really being upset. (I believe it has been discussed here before but I wasn't active here back then) Suffice it to say it was a tense couple of minutes, but came right at the end of that particular presentation, which by and large was pretty good except for one shortsighted mistake that kicked off the drama.

Gormon & Corbett "Cuntgate"? Dont think I ever read an explanation of what actually happened, other than Kevin tried to get someone to address Corbett's behaviour.

[Kumioko]

One of the lightning talks gave a controversial conclusion. The researcher coded articles in terms of whether they had local content or "culturally connected content". Most Wikipedias have about 25% of articles in this class, but English Wikipedia was about 44%. These articles tend to be the more popular ones (more page views.)

Traditionally, when a new Wikipedia starts, it is encouraged to cover the 1000 Vital articles (T-H-L) that librarians and scholars consider most essential for a valid reference work. However, this researcher argues (t=26:00) instead that "start creating what is relevant for the neighbors" would be better. This knowledge might get lost if it is not included. Because this will increase page views, it will lead to a "healthier Wikipedia." Put charitably, English Wikipedia has already established credibility as a serious reference source, so if we start a new language Wikipedia, focus in stead on anticipating what is locally popular.

I imagine a lot of the talks were fairly good but there's always going to be some bad ones. That's pretty typical of these sorts of events.

I think there are some merits to the argument, however I do disagree that Wikipedia is a reliable reference source though. It's nothing more than a mass marketed fan site at this point. It started off with a noble goal but over the years it's slipped more and more off the rails into what it is today, a mouth piece for the WMF to push their political views and amass donations. At this point, Wikipedia's community is so toxic and the content so biased on so many topics no rational person can really consider it reliable or unbiased.

[Kumioko]

-I was, however, in the room when the Big Dramatic Moment of that conference happened. It was the only time I recall people really being upset. (I believe it has been discussed here before but I wasn't active here back then) Suffice it to say it was a tense couple of minutes, but came right at the end of that particular presentation, which by and large was pretty good except for one shortsighted mistake that kicked off the drama.

Gormon & Corbett "Cuntgate"? Dont think I ever read an explanation of what actually happened, other than Kevin tried to get someone to address Corbett's behaviour.

Tried and failed!

[Poetlister]

Another stat from Wikimania. 37% of edits made with tools.

Another stat: 100% of edits on Wikipedia are made by tools

Well yeah that's kinda what I was getting at.

I think it's useful to take these stats in context with one another.

9% of edits are done by students in editing class assignments
37% is done by tools
as much as 35% are considered experts.
122,062 registered users did at least one edit in the last 30 days.
Of that around 1200 are admins
That 122, 962 includes vandalism, spam and other edits that got reverted. (not sure how much)

Anyone think 35% makes sense now?

Basically this is the WMF bullshitting people that don't know any better and didn't bother to do any fact checking. Snopes, your turn!

Some will be reversions that shouldn't have been made, such as in edit wars or by idiots. And of course some of those reverts will have used automatic tools.

[Kumioko]

I agree, but it shows that the simple statistic given lacks any usefulness and is almost dishonest. Unless you are familiar with the tools and the site you wouldn't really catch it, but anyone who has been editing for a while can easily read between the lines.

[eagle]

The closing session which includes both Mr. Wales' and Ms. Maher's addresses can be found here: I don't know why the "awards" portion of the Wikimania is delegated to Mr. Wales. The number of awards has decreased down to "Wikipedian of the Year." I have recommended before and I strongly recommend now that the organizing committee select an awards subcommittee who can come up with a decent set of honorees. This is too important to leave to just Jimbo. Mr. Wales basically retracted what he had said about the Strategy Working Groups and praised them for their hard work. He also spoke about the importance of civility and put up quotes from his past Wikimania speeches on the subject. Mr. Wales remarks were relatively brief, but he made the point that he does not like "toxic" users.

Far more time had been allocated to Katherine Maher's remarks. She came across as an inarticulate school girl who giggled every time she had difficulty reading her teleprompter. Most of her speech recounted the accomplishments of the WMF over the past year. She started discussing movement strategy at 1:21:30 of the video.

The movement itself has been evolving.

Strategy is the sum total of the decisions and the trade offs (where we chose one thing over another) where an organization (or in our case a movement) make to reach it desired goals given the external and internal opportunities and constraints. *** There may be tensions associated with that.

Maher noted that the interest was so high in the Working Group sessions that they had to move extra chairs into the meeting room.

It is clear that the WMF Board met earlier in the week and they have doubled down on the Movement Strategy. The problem is that "international sentiment" is at its zenith at Wikimania. They are using "strategy salons" in the Global South, the Wikimedia Summit in Berlin, one other face-to-face meeting and now Wikimania to make this the most international of WMF strategy consultations. Of course, the result is an incoherent mess with no clear consensus.

[lonza leggiera]

-I was, however, in the room when the Big Dramatic Moment of that conference happened. It was the only time I recall people really being upset. (I believe it has been discussed here before but I wasn't active here back then) Suffice it to say it was a tense couple of minutes, but came right at the end of that particular presentation, which by and large was pretty good except for one shortsighted mistake that kicked off the drama.

Gormon & Corbett "Cuntgate"? Dont think I ever read an explanation of what actually happened, other than Kevin tried to get someone to address Corbett's behaviour.

The only thing I could find on this site about a Big Dramatic Moment at that conference was this, which doesn't appear to have anything to do with Mr Corbett or his behaviour.

[eagle]

We are shutting down the beer keg and VPN at the WO safehouse. Many thanks to our many members who went to Stockholm to photograph the many participants who were wearing the "do not photograph" lanyards. And thanks to the T&S Staff with their red bandanas, who kept the spaces safe.

[mendaliv]

the "do not photograph" lanyards.

Is that really a thing?

[eagle]

the "do not photograph" lanyards.

Is that really a thing?

Yes. Some people were given name tags and special color-coded lanyards so marked. The idea is that you consent to photography as a part of the registration process unless you don't. So, we may never know if LH or Esra’a Al Shafei were there are not.

[Anroth]

-I was, however, in the room when the Big Dramatic Moment of that conference happened. It was the only time I recall people really being upset. (I believe it has been discussed here before but I wasn't active here back then) Suffice it to say it was a tense couple of minutes, but came right at the end of that particular presentation, which by and large was pretty good except for one shortsighted mistake that kicked off the drama.

Gormon & Corbett "Cuntgate"? Dont think I ever read an explanation of what actually happened, other than Kevin tried to get someone to address Corbett's behaviour.

The only thing I could find on this site about a Big Dramatic Moment at that conference was this, which doesn't appear to have anything to do with Mr Corbett or his behaviour.

:Just do a seach for Wikimania 2012 and it comes up a few pages in. The obvious problems with searching 'wikimania' and '2012' apply. Its the only thing I can think of thats been discussed here that happened in 2012 that would even qualify as a DRAMAH moment.

[Osborne]

Maher noted that the interest was so high in the Working Group sessions that they had to move extra chairs into the meeting room.

Because the Karman room, where these are held accommodates 30 people in total... bit of an underestimate based on the significance of these recommendations. Sadly, these meetings were not streamed, but I have a little hope it was recorded, and will be uploaded.

[Kumioko]

Maher noted that the interest was so high in the Working Group sessions that they had to move extra chairs into the meeting room.

Because the Karman room, where these are held url=https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/2019:Program#Rooms]accommodates 30 people in total[/url]... bit of an underestimate based on the significance of these recommendations. Sadly, these meetings were not streamed, but I have a little hope it was recorded, and will be uploaded.

Some of my onsite spies in the field told me that some of the Working Groups had more attendees than some of the main events in the Auditorium. At one point apparently one of the Working groups had over 50 people while at the same time the Auditorium had less than half that number.

So really, to me, this illustrates how the WMF plans their events and how they implement and manages those plans. No reason they manage their events any better than they run their organization.

[Beeblebrox]

-I was, however, in the room when the Big Dramatic Moment of that conference happened. It was the only time I recall people really being upset. (I believe it has been discussed here before but I wasn't active here back then) Suffice it to say it was a tense couple of minutes, but came right at the end of that particular presentation, which by and large was pretty good except for one shortsighted mistake that kicked off the drama.

Gormon & Corbett "Cuntgate"? Dont think I ever read an explanation of what actually happened, other than Kevin tried to get someone to address Corbett's behaviour.

Tried and failed!

Not at all what I'm talking about. This was something that happened in real time with real people during one of the larger presentations in a small theatre-type room that sat maybe 100 people.

The presentation was about the role of Jimbo, and dude was doing a powerpoint style presentation about the increasingly rare instances of Jimbo using his founder status. When it came time to talk about the jihad against porn on Commons, he, without warning, put up a slide of one of the rather graphic images that had been deleted.

When the Q&A session started at the end, Mindspillage, who had only just been named chair of the board, called him out on putting graphic content in a Wikimania presentation and not letting anybody know it was coming. There was some talk of NOTCENSORED, but when it was pointed out that nobody but him made the choice, the rest of us were subjected to it rather than seeking it out, that was the end of that. Q&A was ended, next presentation started, for some reason dude chose to stay up in the front of the room looking all dejected. WMF took down videos of his presentation so it's not findable online anymore as far as I know.

[Beeblebrox]

-I was, however, in the room when the Big Dramatic Moment of that conference happened. It was the only time I recall people really being upset. (I believe it has been discussed here before but I wasn't active here back then) Suffice it to say it was a tense couple of minutes, but came right at the end of that particular presentation, which by and large was pretty good except for one shortsighted mistake that kicked off the drama.

Gormon & Corbett "Cuntgate"? Dont think I ever read an explanation of what actually happened, other than Kevin tried to get someone to address Corbett's behaviour.

The only thing I could find on this site about a Big Dramatic Moment at that conference was this, which doesn't appear to have anything to do with Mr Corbett or his behaviour.

yep, that's it. He clearly knew he had fucked up.

[Vigilant]

-I was, however, in the room when the Big Dramatic Moment of that conference happened. It was the only time I recall people really being upset. (I believe it has been discussed here before but I wasn't active here back then) Suffice it to say it was a tense couple of minutes, but came right at the end of that particular presentation, which by and large was pretty good except for one shortsighted mistake that kicked off the drama.

Gormon & Corbett "Cuntgate"? Dont think I ever read an explanation of what actually happened, other than Kevin tried to get someone to address Corbett's behaviour.

Tried and failed!

Not at all what I'm talking about. This was something that happened in real time with real people during one of the larger presentations in a small theatre-type room that sat maybe 100 people.

The presentation was about the role of Jimbo, and dude was doing a powerpoint style presentation about the increasingly rare instances of Jimbo using his founder status. When it came time to talk about the jihad against porn on Commons, he, without warning, put up a slide of one of the rather graphic images that had been deleted.

When the Q&A session started at the end, Mindspillage, who had only just been named chair of the board, called him out on putting graphic content in a Wikimania presentation and not letting anybody know it was coming. There was some talk of NOTCENSORED, but when it was pointed out that nobody but him made the choice, the rest of us were subjected to it rather than seeking it out, that was the end of that. Q&A was ended, next presentation started, for some reason dude chose to stay up in the front of the room looking all dejected. WMF took down videos of his presentation so it's not findable online anymore as far as I know.

Once again, a gathering of wikipeople will make any Star Trek cosplay convention look vanilla plain by comparison.

[Kumioko]

-I was, however, in the room when the Big Dramatic Moment of that conference happened. It was the only time I recall people really being upset. (I believe it has been discussed here before but I wasn't active here back then) Suffice it to say it was a tense couple of minutes, but came right at the end of that particular presentation, which by and large was pretty good except for one shortsighted mistake that kicked off the drama.

Gormon & Corbett "Cuntgate"? Dont think I ever read an explanation of what actually happened, other than Kevin tried to get someone to address Corbett's behaviour.

Tried and failed!

Not at all what I'm talking about. This was something that happened in real time with real people during one of the larger presentations in a small theatre-type room that sat maybe 100 people.

The presentation was about the role of Jimbo, and dude was doing a powerpoint style presentation about the increasingly rare instances of Jimbo using his founder status. When it came time to talk about the jihad against porn on Commons, he, without warning, put up a slide of one of the rather graphic images that had been deleted.

When the Q&A session started at the end, Mindspillage, who had only just been named chair of the board, called him out on putting graphic content in a Wikimania presentation and not letting anybody know it was coming. There was some talk of NOTCENSORED, but when it was pointed out that nobody but him made the choice, the rest of us were subjected to it rather than seeking it out, that was the end of that. Q&A was ended, next presentation started, for some reason dude chose to stay up in the front of the room looking all dejected. WMF took down videos of his presentation so it's not findable online anymore as far as I know.

I had totally forgotten about that (I wasn't present as you were) but I do vaguely remember that being discussed a bit later on.

It's really rather surprising there isn't more shocking presentations that there have been.

[Poetlister]

I don't know why the "awards" portion of the Wikimania is delegated to Mr. Wales.

THat's the ceremonial part, and Jimbo is still, or at least wishes to be, the ceremonial leader. In constitutional theory, you need government to be split between the ceremonial part and the "efficient" part. Here, "efficient" means "doing the actual work". Obviously, the WMF is not efficient in the normal sense.

[Poetlister]

We are shutting down the beer keg and VPN at the WO safehouse. Many thanks to our many members who went to Stockholm to photograph the many participants who were wearing the "do not photograph" lanyards. And thanks to the T&S Staff with their red bandanas, who kept the spaces safe.

Obviously, it is essential for Commons to have loads of pics of people wearing the "do not photograph" lanyards. Information must be free! No censorship!

[Anroth]

-I was, however, in the room when the Big Dramatic Moment of that conference happened. It was the only time I recall people really being upset. (I believe it has been discussed here before but I wasn't active here back then) Suffice it to say it was a tense couple of minutes, but came right at the end of that particular presentation, which by and large was pretty good except for one shortsighted mistake that kicked off the drama.

Gormon & Corbett "Cuntgate"? Dont think I ever read an explanation of what actually happened, other than Kevin tried to get someone to address Corbett's behaviour.

Tried and failed!

Not at all what I'm talking about. This was something that happened in real time with real people during one of the larger presentations in a small theatre-type room that sat maybe 100 people.

The presentation was about the role of Jimbo, and dude was doing a powerpoint style presentation about the increasingly rare instances of Jimbo using his founder status. When it came time to talk about the jihad against porn on Commons, he, without warning, put up a slide of one of the rather graphic images that had been deleted.

When the Q&A session started at the end, Mindspillage, who had only just been named chair of the board, called him out on putting graphic content in a Wikimania presentation and not letting anybody know it was coming. There was some talk of NOTCENSORED, but when it was pointed out that nobody but him made the choice, the rest of us were subjected to it rather than seeking it out, that was the end of that. Q&A was ended, next presentation started, for some reason dude chose to stay up in the front of the room looking all dejected. WMF took down videos of his presentation so it's not findable online anymore as far as I know.

Ah, Pundit then. Didnt seem to do him any harm...

[mendaliv]

So here's something fun. We can't even curate content on human rights. So much for this partnership with UNHCR!