Hoi,
It is always sad to learn that someone who is appreciated as much as Mike
is, is leaving. I hope he will be happy in his future activities.
I want to thank Mike for the work that he has done. My contacts with Mike
have always been positive so I feel it as a loss.
Thanks,
Gerard
On 19 October 2010 19:45, Sue Gardner <sgardner(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I want to let you know that as of this Friday, October 22, 2010, Mike
> Godwin will be leaving his role as General Counsel for the Wikimedia
> Foundation. Mike’s transition out of the role will be a fairly lengthy
> one: he will continue to be available to the Wikimedia Foundation to
> provide information and advice for several months to come.
>
> The search for his successor will begin immediately. It's being
> conducted by the recruiting firm m|Oppenheim.
>
> There's a detailed Q and A below that I hope will answer any questions
> you've got.
>
> Thanks,
> Sue
>
>
> Why is Mike leaving the Wikimedia Foundation?
>
> Mike leaving the Wikimedia Foundation is a confidential personnel
> issue, and the Wikimedia Foundation doesn’t talk about confidential
> personnel issues with anyone except the people directly involved. We
> want to handle this kind of thing with respect for people’s privacy
> and dignity, and we are hopeful we can do that in this instance. That
> means, we’re not going to answer this question, and we hope you will
> understand why.
>
>
> Is Mike leaving the Wikimedia Foundation because of a change in
> direction or policy, related to our legal context?
>
> No.
>
>
> Is Mike leaving the Wikimedia Foundation over a point of principle?
> For example, because the Wikimedia Foundation wants to do something
> that he disagrees with, or because it doesn’t want to do something
> that he thinks it should do?
>
> No. We’re not aware of any significant differences of opinion between
> Mike and the Wikimedia Foundation, in terms of values, principles,
> ethics, future plans, or anything like that.
>
>
> Is Mike leaving the Wikimedia Foundation because he did something
> egregious?
>
> Not at all. The Wikimedia Foundation believes Mike has always acted in
> what he believes to be the Wikimedia Foundation’s best interests.
>
>
> What is Mike going to do next?
>
> We don’t know what he’ll end up doing next, but we wish him all the
> best, and we hope that he will continue to do the same kind of work
> he’s always done -- helping to advance people’s online freedoms. We
> think he’s really good at that work, and we hope it’s what he
> continues to do.
>
>
> I like Mike, and I know that it’s a tough economy. Can I ask what the
> Wikimedia Foundation is doing to ensure that Mike is okay while he
> figures out his next steps?
>
> Yes. The Wikimedia Foundation and Mike have figured out severance that
> we all hope will protect Mike and give him time to think about what he
> wants to do next. The terms of the severance are confidential: we
> won’t talk about them now, or in the future. But you can rest assured
> that the Wikimedia Foundation wants to see Mike continue working to
> advance people’s online freedoms: everybody would like to see him
> continue making an important contribution.
>
>
> How will a new General Counsel be recruited?
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation has hired m|Oppenheim to help us recruit a
> new General Counsel. m|Oppenheim has done great work for us in the
> past: they helped us recruit Zack Exley, Barry Newstead and Cyn
> Skyberg, and they are currently helping us find a Director of
> Technical Operations. We’ve been happy with them, and we’re confident
> they’ll be able to help us successfully recruit a new General Counsel.
>
>
> Who will be involved in the hiring process and how will it work?
>
> Currently, m|Oppenheim is developing a job description for the role.
> To that end, they’ve spoken with a number of board members, the
> Executive Director, and some of the senior staff. At the same time,
> m|Oppenheim is also developing a list of people to contact who might
> be interested in the role, or who might know people who would be.
> (This list includes people at all kinds of ideologically-like-minded
> organizations, such as the EFF, Berkman, our Advisory Board, and so
> forth, as well as people at large internet companies such as Google,
> eBay, etc.) That “connector” list is being developed in consultation
> with several board members, the ED and senior staff. By October 22nd,
> m|Oppenheim expects to have the job description posted publicly, and
> will begin generating a list of potential candidates.
>
> Once a candidate pool is developed, interviews will be held. The
> interviewing process will likely include at a minimum Sue Gardner,
> Erik Moeller, Cyn Skyberg, Kat Walsh, Arne Klempert, and Barry
> Newstead. There will probably also be others involved (e.g., possibly
> additional board members, and possibly additional members of the
> senior staff), but that’s the skeleton plan we have right now. We will
> also aim to get a sampling of the legal needs of various stakeholder
> parties such as chapters, probably by asking m|Oppenheim to interview
> two or three chapters representatives and other relevant stakeholders.
>
>
> If I am interested in the role, or know someone who might be, what should I
> do?
>
> We welcome applications, and we also welcome ideas about where we
> might find good candidates. Feel free to get in touch with Lisa
> Grossman at m|Oppenheim, at lisag(a)moppenheim.com. She’d be glad to
> hear from you.
>
>
> Will the new General Counsel job description be significantly
> different from Mike’s?
>
> No. m|Oppenheim is having conversations with stakeholders about the
> General Counsel role, and will update the job description based on
> those conversations. But we don’t expect the resultant job description
> to be substantially different from the existing one.
>
>
> What is the gist of the General Counsel job?
>
> Our General Counsel role is slightly unusual, in that it has a bit of
> a double focus. First, the Wikimedia Foundation (and the Wikimedia
> movement) are ideologically-motivated -- or if you prefer,
> values-driven/agenda-driven. That means we need a lawyer who shares
> Wikimedia’s ideological agenda: who, for example, supports people’s
> right to access information online unimpeded by censorship, and who
> supports a legal context that enables people to work collaboratively
> online to develop educational and informational materials for other
> people to read. And second, the Wikimedia Foundation is a 501(c)3
> non-profit organization based in the United States that operates
> international web properties, and interacts with non-American chapter
> organizations. To that end, we need a lawyer who can be responsible
> for all the legal terrain implied by that: somebody who understands
> the legal issues relevant to the operation of a big website, to the
> operation of a US-based non-profit organization, to the legal transfer
> of funds among various international entities, and so forth. Clearly
> no single person can be an expert in all of that. Which tells us that
> we need a General Counsel who is 1) ideologically-aligned with our
> work, and 2) capable of effectively outsourcing specialized legal work
> to others, and ensuring it gets done well, consistent with our vision,
> values and goals.
>
>
> How long will it take before there is a new General Counsel in place?
>
> We’re expecting a new General Counsel would likely start work sometime
> in January. It’s possible the search would take longer, and we won’t
> hire anyone until we have a candidate we’re happy with. But past
> searches suggest to us that we can likely expect the search to wrap up
> in January, or shortly afterward.
>
>
> Who will look after the Wikimedia Foundation’s legal interests in the
> interim?
>
> We’re currently talking with outside counsel that we’ve worked with in
> the past to establish an interim presence to help us during the
> General Counsel search time frame. We should have that in place by the
> end of this week.
>
>
> If I get a legal complaint or have a question that in the past I would
> have forwarded to Mike, where should I now be sending it?
>
> All legal information should be submitted in the same way that you are
> doing so now: any changes to the process will be handled further
> downstream.
>
>
> Is it dangerous, for the Wikimedia Foundation to be legally exposed
> during this period?
>
> Obviously it would be ideal for us to have a General Counsel in place
> consistently, with no interruption, and we wish that Mike had been
> able to agree to stay on with us during the recruitment process.
> Having said that, we’ve taken steps to protect Wikimedia, and we
> believe we will be well-protected in the interim period. We believe
> that because 1) the Wikimedia movement in general has developed some
> pretty solid legal understanding over the years, which includes robust
> processes for handling legal threats and problems of various kinds.
> There is a good infrastructure for handling certain types of legal
> risks, that’s not entirely dependent on a General Counsel for
> day-to-day operations. 2) Over the past several years, we’ve developed
> good relationships with a number of lawyers with specific
> subject-matter expertise that we need. Those relationships will be
> helpful for us in the interim period until a new GC arrives. 3) For
> the transition period, we are lining up a good generalist lawyer, who
> we’ve worked with in the past, and who has agreed to be the Wikimedia
> Foundation’s single-point-of-contact for support until there’s a new
> General Counsel in place. And 4) Mike has agreed to be available to
> the Wikimedia Foundation for advice and support, for many months to
> come. So all in all, we think the risk has been acceptably mitigated.
>
>
> How was this Q and A document developed?
>
> This document was written mostly by Sue Gardner, with some help from
> Cyn Skyberg. It was reviewed in detail by Mike, and he's agreed to
> have it published.
>
>
> Why was this Q and A document developed?
>
> We know that whenever someone leaves the Wikimedia Foundation, there
> are always lots of questions. And we know that people have sometimes
> been dissatisfied with how short and uninformative our answers are. We
> sympathize with people who want to know what’s going on. This Q and A
> is an attempt to balance Mike’s right to privacy, against people’s
> desire to understand what’s going on, particularly because Mike is in
> a high-profile role, and is well-known inside the Wikimedia community.
> We wouldn’t have published it without Mike’s permission.
>
> In general, when people leave the Wikimedia Foundation, they make the
> decision about how much to say, when and to whom. So you should
> assume, whenever anyone leaves, that what’s being said is what they’re
> comfortable with: no more, no less.
>
>
> If I have additional questions that aren’t answered here, where should
> I take them?
>
> If you have questions about the General Counsel role, please feel free
> to ask them in any regular forum (e.g., foundation-l, internal-l) and
> Sue or someone else will get them answered.
>
>
>
> --
> Sue Gardner
> Executive Director
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> 415 839 6885 office
> 415 816 9967 cell
>
> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
> the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
>
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
>
> _______________________________________________
> Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately
> directed to Foundation-L, the public mailing list about the Wikimedia
> Foundation and its projects. For more information about Foundation-L:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> _______________________________________________
> WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
> WikimediaAnnounce-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiFix
WikiFix is aimed at explaining *HOW TO* repair different ítems such as
telephones, microwaves, autos, tables, furnitures, walls, decorations,
wears, etc.
We should have in mind that each model of a product is specific when
repairing it since its failure is different, and that is why each page of
the site will deal with one trouble of a specific model and item.
Articles listed in the site will be grouped in categories such as:
Electrodomestics, Autos, Houses, Clothes and Shoes, Kitchen accesories, etc.
You can Add your signature to cooperate whith the proyect.
Best regards.
Leonardo Oña.
In the five or so years that i spent on Wikipedia it never bothered me
and i never heard complaints about it until today, but come to think
of it, there is something odd in the way users are notified about new
messages on their user talk pages.
The famous orange message in English says: "You have new messages
(last change)."
"New messages" links to the talk page and "last change" links to the
diff of the last change of the talk. Nowhere is the user clearly
notified about the fact that the message is actually public.
Today one user complained about this: He said that he didn't know that
the message is seen by everyone and divulged there some personal
information that he wished to keep secret. Of course, there's a notice
saying "When you click Save, your changes will immediately become
visible to everyone" somewhere under the message editing screen, but
it's lost in the sea of notices about copyright, licenses, terms of
use, encyclopedicity etc. and it's not as visible as the big orange
"You have new messages".
This is obvious to someone who has been using Wikipedia for some time,
but not so for newbies. I propose changing the "new messages" notice
to something like: "You have new messages on your public talk page
(last change)."
If this change is accepted, it will probably affect both the old-style
talk pages and the LiquidThreads ones.
I am raising this issue here because it should probably affect all languages.
P.S. For a second i considered rephrasing it as "You have new messages
on your wall", but gave up on this idea :)
--
אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
Amir Elisha Aharoni
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
"We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace." - T. Moore
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:52:11 +0200
> From: Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 79, Issue 65
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTiksvkMvG302TrRa8HQX6=6PEvxcFWRgytfk1=x=(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Hoi,
> The fact that nobody informed the "losers" that they had lost wins
> definitely not the price for best practices. I know for a fact that the
> person involved in the election process has been suggested to do so. People
> do appreciate a word of thanks for being a candidate and a good loser.
>
We can improve and we have a good example to copy from. I was a candidate
for Chapters committee and Lodewijk sent me a mail telling I had failed that
made me feel very comfortable. (Thanks again Lodewijk). Then I sent personal
mails to each one of the winners congratulating them.
>
> As far as I know only winners have been announced. It is not clear even to
> participants in the election how many votes they got. A thick veil of
> secrecy hung over this election. I was warned that by posting my candidacy
> I
> might no longer be eligible ...
>
> So yes, there is room for improvement in the procedure. In the end good
> people were elected. People with a long track record in our movement. As
> far
> as I am concerned all is well that ends well. <grin> it could have been
> better </grin>
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
>
I only can agree with you partially. I think we are not in the end. We are
still on time to publish the candidates and the related information not only
for the board candidates but also for the Chapters Committee candidates.
You, me, and many people can believe that the outcome has been good. But
there is no need to ask anybody to believe if they can see.
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam(a)fct.unl.pt> wrote:
> Three days after the announcement made by Austin Hair on behalf of
> this list administrators, which also includes Ral315 and
> AlexandrDmitri, that Greg Kohs was banned and Peter Damian moderated,
> this much has been accomplished by about 41 posts on that subject:
>
> 1) Austin Hair, Ral315, and AlexandrDmitri continue to be the list
> administrators;
> ...snip....
> Virgilio A. P. Machado
> (Vapmachado)
I don't remember seeing any comments or discussion on that matter,
care to point them out?
-Peachey
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 6:23 PM, Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam(a)fct.unl.pt> wrote:
> Three days after the announcement made by Austin Hair on behalf of
> this list administrators, which also includes Ral315 and
> AlexandrDmitri, that Greg Kohs was banned and Peter Damian moderated,
> this much has been accomplished by about 41 posts on that subject:
Wow! I see a fantastic candidate to revive the List Summary Service
here :) Applied to every topic, this would be a very useful service.
-- phoebe
Three days after the announcement made by Austin Hair on behalf of
this list administrators, which also includes Ral315 and
AlexandrDmitri, that Greg Kohs was banned and Peter Damian moderated,
this much has been accomplished by about 41 posts on that subject:
1) Austin Hair, Ral315, and AlexandrDmitri continue to be the list
administrators;
2) Greg Kohs is still banned and Peter Damian moderated;
3) Five members posted supporting the list administrators decision;
4) Nine members posted against or questioning the list administrators decision;
5) Greg Kohs has been accused of and/or called (after being banned =
unable to self defense)
5.1) brinkmanship, boasting, troll, by Gerard Meijssen
5.2) actively opposing [the project], criticizing in public forums in
exaggerated ways, not adding anything constructive or helpeful,
trollish and disruptive behavior, bad faith, malice, engaged in a
campaign intending to harm, have and use substantive issues [to
harm], by Fred Bauder
5.3) completely unable to keep his contributions civil, causing more
flamewars than constructive discussion, by Austin Hair, list
administrators reasons to ban
5.4) having a long, unmitigated and unambiguous record of trolling,
spamming, harassment, and abuse, openly soliciting bids from "web
manipulators" whom he intends to pay to post pre-written negative
comments to news stories about Wikipedia, with a very clearly stated
motive to drive traffic to his revenue-generating sites, clearly
unethical and profit-driven behavior and trolling, wasting much time
and energy, throwing much shit [of and at others], returning here
frequently with throwaway email accounts, by Erik Moeller, Deputy
Director, Wikimedia Foundation
5.5) being abusive, somewhat sensationalistic, unwilling to abide by
reasonable internal behavior standards, that behavior being a
defining factor of his interaction with the list, rarely being able
to suppress it for long, by George Herbert
5.6) and associated with troublesome, trolls, and harassment, by phoebe ayers
6) Peter Damian has been accused of and/or called (after being
moderated = self defense not guaranteed)
6.1) making you believe there is nothing good to be found in
Wikipedia, posturing as a superior mind, boring, not toning down his
retoric, not relevant, by Gerard Meijssen
6.2) actively opposing [the project], criticizing in public forums in
exaggerated ways, not always contributing something constructive and
helpeful, trollish and disruptive behavior, bad faith, malice,
engaged in a campaign intending to harm, have and use substantive
issues [to harm], by Fred Bauder
6.3) not always posting something that is even marginally acceptable,
by Austin Hair, list administrators reasons to moderate
6.4) and associated with troublesome, and trolls, by phoebe ayers
Sixteen hours after the ban and moderation, the 19th post was
off-topic. Three and a half hours later, by the 25th post the
discussion got off-topic for good staying that way, until someone
change the topic title. Of 41 posts, 18 (including the last 17) were off-topic.
Half an hour after the 19th post that would eventually send the
discussion off-topic for good, another topic was open. It added a
total of 19 posts, six of them by the list member that started it. It
generated one post questioning the list administrators decision to
moderate Peter Damian, and three supporting the list administrators
decision to ban Greg Kohs. Furthermore,
7) Greg Kohs (after being banned = unable to self defense) was
accused of campaigning against Wikipedia, having a big anti campaign
in progress, being disingenuous and having bad faith, by Fred Bauder
8) Greg Kohs and his publications off-list were accused of
being/having (after Greg Kohs being banned = unable to self defense)
8.1) sheer number of inaccuracies and misportrayals, by Michael Peel
8.2) full of misinformation, erroneously blaming the WMF for content
issues, simultaneously arguing two sides of an issue, flat out false
or outdated, troll, by Ryan Kaldari
8.3) continual attacks on the content don't appear to consistent and
give the appearance (to me based on my view) of attacking the WMF
because he has a personal axe to grind, Posting long screeds
attacking the content providing nature while ignoring the fact that
WMF is legally a host, not using a productive method for encouraging
positive change, Continually railing on and on about these cases of
pornography, plagiarism and libel just are ignoring, He doesn't feel
like he's addressing systematic problems with the user created
culture but attacking to attack, faulting the community (which it
feels like) for not dealing with these problems on specific pages,
attacking your average contributor, It feels like he's not attacking
.the WMF but the base of people like you and me, can't try to make
positive change, won't fork, gives the appearance of trying to take
down a project, by Laura Hale
9) Peter Damian (after being moderated = self defense not guaranteed)
was accused of bad talk, by Fred Bauder
10) Peter Damian and his publications off-list were accused of
being/having (after Peter Damian being moderated = self defense not
guaranteed)
10.1) exaggerating, going beyhond negative comments, by Fred Bauder
10.2) blog complaining about moderation being itself moderated by
him, by Ryan Kaldari
There seems to be nothing unusual or particularly remarkable in this
case when compared with what can be seen on this list or in many
Wikimedia projects. Hopefully this may be useful to others, helping
them understand what to expect and how things work and are done and
dealt with here.
Sincerely,
Virgilio A. P. Machado
(Vapmachado)
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 20 October 2010 16:47, Muhammad Yahia <shipmaster(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > The board defines both "community" and "chapter". I'm not sure that the
>> > board does ultimately answer to the community; there's nothing in the
>> > bylaws
>> > to indicate that.
>> >
>> >
>> Section (G) states: Board Majority. A majority of the Board Trustee
>> positions, other than the Community Founder Trustee position, shall be
>> selected or appointed from the community and the chapters.
>>
>> I think this directly says that the board ultimately answers to the
>> community. Now you may say that the definition of community is not as broad
>> as you may like given that some seats go to the chapters , but that still
>> means that our community -as organized in a certain form given the chapters
>> are all community controlled AFAIK- holds power to elect the board
>> majority.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Three board positions (30% of the board) are elected by the community at
> large. They are the only members of the board who have a direct
> responsibility to the community, and there is no method for the community to
> revoke their representation.
>
> Two board members (20% of the board) are elected by a tiny number of
> representatives of chapters (the chapter representative election process is
> very opaque). I can't find any numbers that confirm exactly how many people
> belong to chapters, and whether or not all of their members would otherwise
> meet the definition of "community member", but it is widely acknowledged
> that only a small percentage of Wikimedians (i.e., those who would meet the
> definition of "community member") are members of chapters. I have a hard
> time understanding why people think chapters are representative of the
> community. They're representative of people who like to join chapters.
>
> Risker/Anne
changing the subject line because I think we've ranged pretty far away
from the original subject of moderation....
As the person who was selected via this process I feel the need to jump in :)
I agree that the chapter selection process is not very transparent, or
very clear (to the people inside as well as the people outside!) and
could have been improved. However, this time around was also only the
second time chapters have selected seats (by contrast, last year was
our 6th community election) ... so I hope that we will continue to
improve on that front and the next selection process, year after next,
will be better. That's something we all want to see.
Others can speak to this better than I can, but part of the rationale
behind chapter-selected seats was to help even out representation --
to make sure that the elected seats on the board were not entirely
dominated by candidates from those communities that have lots of
voting editors, like the English Wikipedia. If you are from a smaller
language project, or a smaller chapter, the chances of getting name
recognition and a seat in the community elections is much harder.
Additionally, the chapters *are* a part of the greater Wikimedia
movement, and selecting seats via chapters helps ensure that those
chapters get a place at the table. In the U.S. there has not been a
chapter presence until WM-NYC was founded, but that's not true in
other places -- Wikimedia Deutschland was of course founded before the
WMF itself was founded, and many of the other chapters are well
established too.
Now, you could certainly ask, given all that, why in the world the
chapters would have selected me -- yet another American English
Wikipedian -- to be on the board. And that's a perfectly valid
question! It's important to realize however that I am not a
"representative" of the chapters. On the board itself, I am identified
as a board member or sometimes as a community board member, but not as
someone who is there specifically to advance chapter interests or be
more involved with chapters than anyone else (there are currently
three board members on the chapcom, for instance: one is
chapter-selected, one is community-elected, and one is appointed). I
am honored that the chapters thought that I would be a good board
member *in general*, to work on all of the issues that the WMF faces
-- and hopefully that is why they selected me :)
As for community accountability, I certainly feel accountable to the
community. I also feel accountable to the long-term survival and
health of the Wikimedia projects, and will do my utmost to help make
decisions that will both help ensure this survival and that also
represent community interests and needs. I have been around for long
enough, and thought hard enough about the community, to realize the
obvious -- that there is no single "community" for a trustee to
represent. There are editors of all different types and interests,
there are chapter members, there are even readers... but I do think
that we have some important shared values, of openness and freedom and
knowledge-sharing, and those values underpin my decisions.
As for knowing what it is the board does -- yes by all means if you
care about this topic go to the movement roles meeting (I have a work
conflict, sadly). I also hope to start having more open IRC community
meetings, as I mentioned a month or so ago at the IRC meeting with
Bishakha -- I just haven't had time to schedule them yet is all. Soon
:) And please ask questions anytime.
-- phoebe
--
* I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers
<at> gmail.com *
The videos Wikimedia recently produced are available on Youtube,
Facebook and several other sites. Can somebody from the Foundation who
has access to the videos update them and include the subtitles in
several different languages that were provided by Wikimedians on Commons
(see the file description pages of the four videos in
<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:September_2010_Wikipedia_Videos>)?
The default video player on Commons does ot support subtitles. They are
only available through the mwEmbed extension. But Videos on Youtube,
Facebook etc. support subtitles natively.
That would make it much easier for non-English Wikimedians to direct the
interested public to the subtitled video in the respective language.
Thanks.
Marcus Buck
User:Slomox