To those who have fallen out of the habit of signing your posts,
please fall back into the habit of good netiquette. For those of us
who read the digest mode it is troublesome to have unsigned posts, and
then need to flick back to the digest ToC to find the poster. Thanks.
Regards, Billinghurst
Let me provide a somewhat dissenting opinion.
I'm not sure that Arnnon Geshuri's sins were all that bad. Remember that
where's there's big money, there will be predatory lawyers looking for
trouble.
Is it bad corporate policy, wrong, or even illegal for a company to make a
decision not to actively recruit from certain other companies in the same
industry? Companies legitimately have widespread discretion in what their
employees are directed to do, particularly when representing the company.
These were not even competitors mind you but companies whose strength and
existence benefited the others. There is no suggestion that any of the
normal activities such as accepting resumes from candidates who contact the
employer or informal employment networking were prohibited.
I don't see a problem with Google people serving on the WMF board either.
The importance of the relationship between these two organizations cannot be
emphasized enough. Wikipedia might not have even taken off if it didn't
start appearing at the top of every Google search. Same with Google. Their
audience might have been only a fraction of what it is today but for
Wikipedia. Is there a bias built into Google searches that favors Wikipedia?
Could a serious falling out between the two result in far fewer Wikipedia
links in Google searches? At various Wikipedia conventions over the years,
I've run this by some of those who might know and they seemed quite closed
mouthed about the subject.
As for the subject of elected v. appointed trustees, the WMF should
carefully examine the role of university boards. The events at Dartmouth College
are particularly interesting -- and quite accurately described in
Wikipedia BTW. Starting about a decade ago four "opposition trustees" were elected
against the will of the larger board. The ensuing soap opera was
interesting to say the least.
Another important point to understand about university boards is that seats
ARE for sale. Large donors are frequently appointed to university boards.
It sounds really corrupt but the fact is that the institutions have been
well served by the policy. Wikpedia's circumstances are different and they
should not get mixed up in this.
My last point is that the technical performance of the WMF has been both
outstanding and cost effective. As I understand it Google and Microsoft
regularly spend billions on large server centers. Wikipedia online queries
throughout the world are fast and efficient. There are plenty of issues
relating to content and poor treatment of controversial editors but on the
technical side maybe it's best not to mess with something that works.
Joe Bishop
PhanuelB
In a message dated 1/8/2016 3:17:06 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
wiki.pine(a)gmail.com writes:
Upon hearing of Arnnon's history at Google, I confess to being surprised to
the point of a long silence.
If these news reports are true, this is disturbing to say the least.
Whether he was happy about it or not, it appears that he chose to
participate in illegal activity in a prominent role as a "Senior Staffing
Strategist", and described a Google employee's noncompliance with the
illegal scheme as "an error in judgment". I cannot think of an excuse from
an HR professional that I would accept for this.
Dariusz, you said in your statement that was published in the Wikimedia
Blog that WMF "considered dozens of candidates from all over the world,
with not-for-profit and technology experience, and the highest professional
standards.” I would be interested to hear how you reconcile "highest
professional standards" with the prior actions of Arnnon,
Lila, you said that "Kelly and Arnnon bring a special combination of
expertise, integrity, and love for our mission." I am interested in hearing
how you reconcile this assessment with the reports about Arnnon's role in
this illegal scheme at Google.
Looking at the WMF situation more broadly in light of the Board's removal
of James and its surrounding circumstances, I am very disappointed with
what we are learning and I am losing confidence in the governance of WMF. I
am considering strategic options for the community.
Pine
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cullen328/Arnnon_Geshuri
>...
> Arnnon Geshuri schould be removed from the board ASAP
As someone who was personally affected by Google's and Apple's
anticompetitive employment practices, I strongly agree that all those who
were responsible for this appointment should also resign immediately. There
is absolutely no reason that the Foundation should even present the
appearance of endorsing such attacks on technology workers.
Sincerely,
James Salsman
We should start talking about Something.
Something is the raising issue of our movement. Its properties are not
yet known, but all of us feel the consequences of Something.
To tackle the problem, we should define it, first. Yes, we know it's
called Something, but besides the name, we know just a little bit
more. So, I ask you to help me define Something. Crowdsourcing is the
term defined thanks to our movement and I am sure we are capable to do
so. All of us have a little piece of knowledge about Something and we
could compile those pieces to create a clear picture.
My knowledge about Something is very obscure. From occasional
discussions with some of WMF employees, I know that "Something is
wrong". I am quite serious about that. I got impression that employees
are not content with the Board decisions during the recent years.
However, I couldn't define quite well the matter of that discontent.
I am not able to understand what's the difference between the Time of
Something (ToS, not to be confused with TOS, Star Trek, The Original
Series) and the Time before Something (TbS, not to be confused with
tbs, ISO 639-3 code for Tanguat language).
I don't see any particular difference, except I think Board is not
making mistakes it made previously. (To be fair, it's not that big
achievement, as "mistakes" are not a final set.)
What I do see are the consequences of Something: Something creates
particular dynamics inside of the core of our movement and we feel the
consequences of that dynamics.
However, I am living in a countryside of Wikimedia movement, far away
from our capital, Bay Area. Thus, I admit I am not just not that well
informed, but I am also probably not that capable to understand the
basic concepts of Something.
But I am sure there are some of you capable to fathom the deep mystery
of Something.
Dear all,
As Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board Governance Committee, I am happy
to introduce the two newest members of our Board of Trustees: Kelly Battles
and Arnnon Geshuri.
Kelly and Arnnon bring deep expertise in strategy and financial oversight,
and diversity and organizational development, and a passionate commitment
to advancing Wikimedia’s vision for the world. You can learn more about
them in the blog post here:
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/01/05/new-wikimedia-foundation-trustees/,
and their biographies have been added to the Board of Trustees page, here
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_of_Trustees.
Over the past several weeks, the Board considered many qualified candidates
from around the globe. We were looking for people with experience in
strategic and organizational development to help guide the Wikimedia
Foundation’s future. We were also looking for people with a sense of
empathy and cultural awareness, who would value and strengthen the unique
culture of our diverse, global movement.
We are excited to announce that with Kelly and Arnnon, we have found
exceptional new Trustees who have these qualities, as well as many more.
They were approved unanimously by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
Trustees. Both terms are effective Jan 1, 2016 and will last for two years.
We look forward to working with them on the Board and toward our mission.
Please join me in welcoming them.
Dariusz
Hello folks,
I was adding citations to an internal WMF page, and I went down a wiki-
archaeology rabbit hole trying to find the origin of the WMF's Values and
Guiding principles documents.
I'd like to reach out to the collective accumulated experience of this list to
sort out a few questions and disambiguate the two concepts.
I realize a lot is happening in the movement (and on this list) these days,
and this isn't an urgent, important or groundbreaking discussion. This message
is more like a message in a bottle, hoping to find knowledgeable people that can
help me clear up the ambiguity :)
This is what I've got so far (with some help from Tilman Bayer for a few bits):
-o-o-o-o-
* Florence Devouard (then-Chair of the WMF's Board of Trustees) started a
discussion about the Foundation's values on the foundation-l list in 2007:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.foundation/19502
* The list of values was first drafted by the Board and the Advisory Board, and
then discussed on Meta-Wiki with the larger communities:
https://advisory.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meeting_August_2007/Notes#Valueshttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Values
* The discussion was restarted by Florence in early 2008 on foundation-l. She
presented a new, longer draft of six core values with explanations, and
proposed "to the board to finalize (-> approve) the values of Wikimedia
Foundation.":
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.foundation/25147/
* After some feedback from list members, she posted a modified version on the
Meta-Wiki page, which is largely identical to today's text:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=858927&oldid=856985
* It is unclear whether those Values were officially approved by the Board. I
couldn't find a resolution or meeting minutes indicating official approval.
* In 2013, then-Executive Director Sue Gardner drafted a list of Guiding
principles for the WMF, which were presented to, and approved by, the Board in
May of that year.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principleshttps://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2013-04-18#Guiding_Principleshttps://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Wikimedia_Foundation_Guidin…
* That resolution indicates that the guiding principles "may come to replace
the previous list of values", but I couldn't find any confirmation that they did
replace them.
* A conflicting statement from Sue on Meta-Wiki indicates that "This document
isn't intended to supersede the Values document. It's actually intended to
flesh out the values a little bit further, so it's more explicit how we live
them on a day-to-day basis at the staff level.":
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=5375389&oldid=5367067
-o-o-o-o-
We're linking to the WMF's Values in a lot of prominent places, and they've
also been brought up many times in recent strategy discussions. There seems to
be an underlying assumption, in those discussions, that the Values are a
document with the same origin and status as the Vision & Mission statements.
My impression (and I'd like to hear thoughts from this list about this) is
that the Values document was never "officially" approved by the Board, and
instead is more the result of a soft consensus.
This isn't to say that those Values wouldn't have as much weight, importance or
authority as voted-on documents like the Mission & Vision statements, or the
WMF Guiding principles. An unchallenged consensus seems like a valid way of
validating rules and principles, especially in the context of our movement.
I'm trying to get confirmation about whether this is the case, so as to remove
the ambiguity and acknowledge the origin story.
As I mentioned, this isn't the most important topic of discussion right now.
I'll still be grateful if someone can help me understand the backstories :)
--
Guillaume Paumier
Great news
And...
Just pointing out to the Privacy Policy in case, for memory.
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy
This is the list of WMF engagement with regards to the collection and
use of our data. It should be printed and be the book next to the bed
for the team in charge of this project. Just saying.
Anthere
Le 06/01/16 15:37, Juliet Barbara a écrit :
> This press release is also available online here:
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Wikimedia_Foundation_to…
>
> And as a blog post here:
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/01/06/explore-new-ways-to-search-and-discov…
>
>
>
> Wikimedia Foundation to explore new ways to search and discover
> reliable, relevant, free information with $250,000 from Knight Foundation
>
>
> /Funds support research and testing to improve how people find
> information on Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects/
>
>
> SAN FRANCISCO—Jan. 6, 2015— The Wikimedia Foundation will launch a new
> project to explore ways to make the search and discovery of high
> quality, trustworthy information on Wikipedia more accessible and open
> with $250,000 from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. Funding
> will support an investigation of search and browsing on Wikipedia and
> other Wikimedia projects, with the goal of improving how people explore
> and acquire information.
>
> Wikipedia includes more than 35 million articles across hundreds of
> languages. Its standards for neutral, fact-based and relevant
> information have made it a reliable resource for nearly half a billion
> people every month. With more than 7,000 articles created every day and
> 250 edits made per minute, Wikipedia is constantly growing and
> improving. Its open, nonprofit model, allows anyone to participate and
> contribute. This project will help improve discoverability of this vast
> resource of community-created content.
>
> Over the last decade, the world has seen a surge in digital information.
> People today can access vast amounts of information online, mostly
> through a small number of closed technologies. Through this project, the
> Wikimedia Foundation will test ways to make relevant information more
> accessible and investigate transparent methods for collecting,
> connecting, and retrieving this information consistent with the values
> of Wikipedia and the open web.
>
> With Knight support, the Wikimedia Foundation has begun six months of
> deep research, testing, and prototyping on user search habits and
> practices on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. Using these
> platforms as testing grounds, the organization will examine questions
> around content preferences, queries, the quality and relevance of
> results, and what information people consume and why. It will conduct
> open discussions with the Wikimedia community to help inform the
> project. A public-facing dashboard will display results and metrics from
> this discovery and lessons will be shared widely.
>
>
> “Finding an article on Wikipedia is like opening the first page in the
> book of knowledge. We have an obligation to our communities to make this
> first experience captivating for every user. We share Knight
> Foundation’s belief in the power of open information in building
> engaged, strong communities. We are excited for the potential of this
> project to bring free, relevant, trustworthy knowledge to every person,”
> said Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Lila Tretikov.
>
> “As the amount of digital content continues to grow, helping people
> search for and discover relevant information so they can make decisions
> important to their lives is becoming increasingly essential,” said John
> Bracken, Knight Foundation vice president for media innovation. “This
> project will help uncover more effective, transparent ways to do just
> that, drawing on the Wikimedia Foundation’s commitment to an open and
> free Internet.”
>
> For more information visit:
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Discovery/KnightFAQ.
>
> About the Wikimedia Foundation
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation is the non-profit organization that supports
> and operates Wikipedia. Wikipedia attracts more than 15 billion page
> views each month. Every month roughly 75,000 people edit Wikipedia,
> collectively creating, improving, and maintaining its more than 35
> million articlesacross hundreds of languages-- this all makes Wikipedia
> one of the most popular web properties in the world. Based in San
> Francisco, California, the Wikimedia Foundation is a 501(c)(3) charity
> that is funded primarily through donations and grants.
>
> About the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation
>
> Knight Foundation supports transformational ideas that promote quality
> journalism, advance media innovation, engage communities and foster the
> arts. We believe that democracy thrives when people and communities are
> informed and engaged. www.knightfoundation.org
> <http://www.knightfoundation.org/>
>
>
> Wikimedia Foundation Press Contact
>
> Katherine Maher
>
> +1 415-839-6885 ext 6633 <tel:%2B1%20415-839-6885%20ext%206633>
>
> press(a)wikimedia.org
> <mailto:press@wikimedia.org>
>
> John S. and James L. Knight Foundation Press Contact
>
> Anusha Alikhan
>
> 305-908-2646 <tel:305-908-2646>
>
> media(a)knightfoundation.org
> <mailto:media@knightfoundation.org>
>
>
> --
> *Juliet Barbara*
> Senior Communications Manager I Wikimedia Foundation
> 149 New Montgomery Street I San Francisco, CA 94105
> jbarbara(a)wikimedia.org
> <mailto:jbarbara@wikimedia.org> I +1 (512)
> 750-5677
>
>
>
> (To be unsubscribed from this press release distribution list, please reply to communications(a)wikimedia.org with 'UNSUBSCRIBE' in the subject line)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> _______________________________________________
> WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
> WikimediaAnnounce-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
>
I think this is a question for Patricio or Lila:
At the November 2015 Metrics & Activities meeting, Lila presented[1] a
slide outlining the new Strategic Planning process.[2]
Amid general comments about how inclusive the process would be, that slide
indicates that the draft briefly introduced at that meeting was to be
finalized in December 2015, approved by the Board in January 2016, and
presented publicly in May 2016.
Can you confirm if that is actually the process underway? Are you on
schedule?
Can you address (in this venue) whether a plan that is developed in
November and December by (at least some) staff, and presented publicly the
following May, can truly be more inclusive than the 2010 plan -- which
engaged 1,000 people, and took a year to complete, on an open wiki?
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
[1] At about 20 minutes in:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Foundation_Metrics_-_Nove…
[2]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:WMF_Metrics_%26_Activi…
Greetings Wikimedians,
I wanted to quickly draw your attention to a new temporary contractor
position [1] open in the Community Engagement Department of the Wikimedia
Foundation which may be especially relevant to experienced Wikimedians.
The Programs Capacity & Learning team [2] is currently seeking a qualified
candidate for a paid intern/fellowship to assist with our upcoming
conference and workshops communications.
The position will be be supported for up to 40 hours a week over a
six-month period beginning late January. Wikimedians with communications or
related backgrounds and experience are especially encouraged to apply.
For more information on qualifications, duties, or to apply, please see the
job details at:
https://boards.greenhouse.io/wikimedia/jobs/142252#.VoxJJsArIvo
Thank you for your time and attention with regard to this opportunity.
Best regards,
Jaime
Links:
[1] https://boards.greenhouse.io/wikimedia/jobs/142252#.VoxJJsArIvo
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Programs:Capacity_%26_Learning
--
Jaime Anstee, Ph.D
Senior Strategist
Wikimedia Foundation
+1.415.839.6885 ext 6869
www.wikimediafoundation.org
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
*https://donate.wikimedia.org <https://donate.wikimedia.org/>*