The discussion about post-mortems arose rather organically, not as a result
of a decision to use a certain medium. The participants were: Jonathan
Cardy, Erik Möller, Dariusz Jemielniak, myself, Ben Creasy, Asaf Bartov,
Jon Beasley-Murray, Bence Damakos, Luis Villa, Eddie Erhart, Liam Wyatt,
and Tisza Gergő. I think it is fair to say that we had a general consensus
that:
When something does not go well (for instance, various software releases),
it would be highly valuable for the Wikimedia Foundation's senior
leadership to prioritize creating a thoughtful and official post-mortem
document and discussion. Post-mortems can support learning by the
organization, and also by other people and organizations who might take on
similar projects, and can make it possible for those who feel unheard to
"move on" (as is so frequently requested), with the knowledge that their
opinions have been heard and may be incorporated into future efforts. The
one time the organization had such an executive-led post-mortem was about
the Belfer Center Wikipedian in Residence; I think we all agreed the
outcomes of this post-mortem were valuable:[1] In addition, Gergő mentioned
his post-mortem on the Media Viewer, which I (and perhaps some others) had
not been previously aware of.[2]
The discussion concluded with the idea that perhaps the present crisis
offers a good opportunity to instill a culture of reflecting on mistakes
into the organization's ethos. Since Dariusz was involved in the
discussion, I'm confident that idea will be brought back to the Board, and
I view this as a positive outcome.
Below, I'll paste Erik's initial comment, which began with the words "For
the record..." (which I take as an indication he is willing to have the
words republished), and which generated 29 "Likes" (far more than I'm used
to seeing for any comment at Wikipedia Weekly).
Erik Möller:
For the record, the desire to "hit the deadline" for the VisualEditor
release extended beyond any grant agreement. (If that had been all there
was to it, I would have pushed back.) The Board independently had
repeatedly pushed to meet the arbitrary schedule, and even the team itself
was motivated at the time to finally go in front of a larger audience, as I
think James would attest. The project had already been delayed repeatedly;
there was even impatience in parts of the community and the press.
So there was a general, shared feeling that we needed to do better. I take
responsibility for not putting on the brakes; it was due to my own lack of
experience and focus at the time.
My takeaway is that we simply didn't yet have mature processes in place for
a release of this scope and complexity. For instance, even the community
liaison support was conceived at the last minute. We made a lot of changes
in the years that followed, some under Sue (e.g., addition of a "Beta
Features" program, improved testing infrastructure, QA support), some under
Lila (focus on performance & analytics), some after I left. I'm sure in
some respects there's still lots of room for improvement in engineering
processes.
I agree with Ori's point on the list, however, that most of this continuous
improvement has been going on in spite of, not because of, what's been
happening at the top. That's in many ways how it should be -- WMF's
engineering organization has the capacity for independent self-improvement
in all areas. But of course the drama that's going on right now is entirely
avoidable and depressing, and if it continues, will damage existing
capabilities and lead to regressions in important areas as key people leave.
I don't have regrets about leaving -- I was going to stick around for
another 1-2 years at most; I was never cut out to be a lifer, and I left
voluntarily because it was clear things were going to just continue to
deteriorate at the top. But if some of the key folks in engineering left,
that would really really suck. You don't want that to happen, trust me.
These are good, super-talented people, and the institutional/technical
memory that would leave with them would set the org back severely.
(end of Erik's comment)
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
[1]
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Assessment_of_Belfer_Center_Wikipedian_…
[2] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Multimedia/Media_Viewer/Retrospective
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Anthony Cole <ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> For those not following, I recommend the discussion in response to Jonathan
> Cardy's comment here:
>
> https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediaweekly/permalink/960989863948845/
>
> Anthony Cole
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
I agree having all board members engage with the community in their own
voice is likely the best way forwards. All of us will take your statements
as representing whatever fraction of the board you are unless you state
otherwise. There is nothing wrong with a board that disagrees with each
other, all I request is that you do not pretend their is "consensus" were
their isn't one. We as a community disagree all the time. We however are
still able to work together transparently and get a lot done.
One of the roles of the board is to determine "WMF's long term strategy"
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_Handbook#Effecti…
I tried to get a discussion going on our internal board wiki. I also hoped
to bring the wider community and staff into that discussion so that we
could have some shared decision making around where we want to go. This is
how one gets buy in and is key in a volunteer movement. We have some
amazingly smart people both as staff and as community members. Long term
strategy should not be determined by the ED and a couple of board members.
Would be good to see the board leading a collaborative discussion of
strategy.
--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
Dear members of the WMF Board of Trustees,
I’ve been following the recent events silently - from the voting out of
James Heilman, to the unfortunate timing of recruiting Arnnon Geshuri and
the lack of clear, timely communication around WMF strategy in in general
and specifically around the so-called “Knowledge Engine” grant, received by
the Knight Foundation.
Even more alarming to me, is the slew of exceptional community-facing
employees who left (or are leaving) the Foundation, accompanied by muffled
sounds of discontent from staying Foundation employees.
I’m breaking my silence because I’m very concerned. My concerns stem from
my past experiences with facilitating strategic changes and my experience
in grantmaking - both in and outside of the Movement.
I’m concerned because it’s evident that the Foundation is undergoing a
deep, strategic change. But this change is not accompanied by the required
transparency, honesty and accountability required by the Foundation in
order to truly transform in a way that's beneficial for the organization
and its community.
I’m concerned, because while the “Knowledge Engine” grant provides only a
specific example, it underlines a larger picture that is disturbing:
concealment (rather than openness) as a default, lack of consultation with
the community and weak, general communication around important matters only
after bad press. I also suspect that the vocal members of the community are
right, and that a $250K grant is not the issue, but it part of a bigger
move that will require significantly more resources for the Foundation to
implement.
Lastly, I’m concerned because all this stirs no clear communication from
the Board of Trustees. A Board of Trustees implies there should be trust
between the Board and its constituents. I suspect this isn’t the case
anymore.
If any APG-receiving affiliate conducted itself in such a non transparent,
dishonest manner and with lack of clear, timely communication with its
community and stakeholders, it would get seriously reprimanded by the
Foundation: its board audited, its budget cut, etc. Expecting the
Foundation to be held to a lower standard than any of its worldwide
affiliates is just hypocritical.
I urge the Board of Trustees - Don’t forget that the community of
volunteers and affiliates is a major stakeholder of the Wikimedia
Foundation - and many of us are concerned. I think the community deserves
to better understand where the Wikimedia Foundation is going, and get
honest answers about the changes in the organization, for us to be trusting
again. Please start communicating clearly about those topics.
With utmost respect,
Ido (AKA AlleyCat80)
Board Member, WMIL
Member, Simple APG & GAC.
Hey Milos,
You talked about things that I'm in no place to comment but I want to
emphasize on this part of your email:
"For the last 8 years, just two things have been working without
problems in WMF: Money and tech infrastructure (servers, "plain"
MediaWiki, optimizations etc.)."
We hear about technical issues of Wikipedia a lot. We hear Wikipedia is
behind in technology, that it's underperforming. etc. etc. It's not just
you. It's a lot of people in the community of editors too. I highly doubt
that I can comment on this matter, there are definitely better people but I
can't keep it anymore. Maybe my perspective as a non-WMF employee who works
in technical issues would be worth publishing.
The process of getting something technical done is as the same as editing
in wiki. It needs a certain amount of expertise like editing most of the
articles as well. Anyone can make a patch for every part of Wikipedia and
after some code review. it's there. IMO saying "technical parts of
Wikipedia sucks" is as the same as "Wikipedia sucks". Technical space of
Wikimedia is filled with volunteers. I saw unimaginable times that people
work over the weekend, take a day off and then work again because unlike
most companies people care about their job in a good way. Helping in
technical issues just need passion and caring. Let me tell you a story. I
didn't know how to write a line of code in my first three years of editing
Wikipedia. I was just a teenage boy who was making articles about movies he
watched, songs he liked, etc. and then I cared about Wikipedia so much that
I wanted to help more and I heard about cool things called robots (and
believe me, for a very long time I thought bots are physical things that
edit Wikipedia) so I tried to read about it, there was virtually no help in
Persian and my English was so bad that I needed dictionary for everything I
read (google translate was a sci-fi idea back then) but I learned and
learned and I'm still learning just to make Wikipedia a better place, I
hate programming as a goal, it's just a mean.
I just want to remind you people done a hell out of job in technical
aspects. It wasn't just in their working time. It was also a huge volunteer
time too, either by staff or non-WMF employees. Feeling this advantages is
not hard. Just take a look at Google's Knol. It was done by *the* Google
and it's this. We, as a movement, are competing with companies like Google,
Facebook or twitter the same way we are competing with Britannica.
Honestly, I think if someone just published a statement saying "There is a
cool project called Knowledge Engine but we don't have money for it, We can
just give you a space to put your source code and test it, and running it."
We would be knocking over google by 2020, as what we did with Britannica.
I think, maybe I'm wrong please correct me if I am, the biggest problem is
the user interface design of Wikipedia. It looks boring. I know there were,
and there are great designers who also love Wikipedia the same way you do.
I saw what they are capable of. Look at Winter or preferences redesign [1].
They are capable of making Wikipedia ten times more user-friendly and
beautiful. I don't know why it hasn't happened, maybe the community is too
conservative, maybe it's some kind of branding. I asked my life partner and
he said Wikipedia looks beautiful to the most of its readers, the same way
a fresh cupcake smells good, because Wikipedia is awesome. I guess people
who work in bakeries doesn't like the smell of cupcakes as much as other
people.
My last words: If you encounter any technical issues, please report and if
you think it's important to solve technical problems you are more than
welcome to join the club. Just check out the developer hub [2] and
there are tons of manuals in the internet, also there are people in IRC
channels willing to help.
[1]: It aches my heart every time I see it:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Redesign_user_preferenc…
[2]: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Developer_hub
I hope more people chime in and comment to fix this misconception or
correct me.
Best
Dear all,
It is my pleasure to announce, on behalf of the Affiliations Committee,
the recognition of a new Wikimedia User Group: Wikimedia Community User
Group Sri Lanka [1].
Among the goals are increasing the awareness of the different Wikimedia
Projects in Sri Lanka and empowering people to contribute in English,
Sinhala and Tamil, especially in those topics related to Sri Lanka.
Additionally, they plan on collaborating with GLAM institutions and
hopefully participating soon in inter-affiliate events like Wiki Loves
Monuments, for instance.
Welcome, colleagues from Sri Lanka!!!
1: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_User_Group_Sri_Lanka
--
"*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua
junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."
Carlos M. Colina
Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 |
www.wikimedia.org.ve <http://wikimedia.org.ve>
Member, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
Phone: +972-52-4869915
Twitter: @maor_x
Hello, everyone.
There are a lot of questions still floating around around the Knowledge
Engine, in a lot of different places. I want to answer them fully, directly
and in one central place. To that end, I’m going to be putting together an FAQ
page <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Engine/FAQ> on Meta to ask
and answer questions and - with the help of our staff -- to address them.
We will release answers as we are able to collect and address them, so
depending on the number of questions we get it may take a while, but we
will begin responding during Pacific working hours today.
If you have questions, please send them or leave them there. We may
aggregate similar questions, but we will do our best to answer all of them
to your satisfaction.
Thank you for sharing,
Lila
Hello fellows!
Since the end of the last year some contributors from pt.wikipedia are discussing regarding the idea of including the promotion of our Facebook Page on site Notice [1]
That proposal was started by Teles, a Brazilian steward. He received a lot of local support.
The general idea is to bring more people from Facebook to access Wikipedia through our Facebook page, but what we are doing is redirecting users from pt.wikipedia to Facebook and including a free Facebook ads on pt.wikipedia.
I would like to know if it is ok for the Wikimedia Movement and if this kind of Facebook promotional campaign was proposed and published in other wikipedias/wikimedia projects.
[1] https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Esplanada/propostas/Inserir_p%…
Best regards
Rodrigo Padula
Coordenador de Projetos
Grupo Wikimedia Brasileiro de Educação e Pesquisa
http://www.wikimedia.org.br
+55 21 99326-0558
The BoT have made some mistakes in the past few days, in the ways they've handled information, silent on critical situation that requires urgent clarification, and how they kept the community in the dark about certain decision. This is painful and that was a poor decision on their part. We have every right to be disappointed in them but that doesn't mean we should give up on them. The WMF's mission is not about us, it's not about them but about millions of people across the world that find the Wikimedia projects useful and helpful. It is easy to believe in people when they are succeeding and it's easy to be disappointed in them when they are failing. The BoT should understand that the Wikimedia projects we have today was built by the community with the efforts of thousands of volunteers across the world and it took many years to build this amazing resources. Patricio Lorente and his team should focus on what is productive and try as much as they can to avoid anything that is counterproductive. They should learn to consult the community and staffs in taking some decision that is likely to generate controversies.
Best,
Olatunde Isaac
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile.
-----Original Message-----
From: wikimedia-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Sender: "Wikimedia-l" <wikimedia-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org>Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 09:25:07
To: <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Reply-To: wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 143, Issue 111
Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
wikimedia-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
wikimedia-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT (Ziko van Dijk)
2. Technical issues of Wikimedia [was: Particular interests and
common ground] (Amir Ladsgroup)
3. Re: Technical issues of Wikimedia [was: Particular interests
and common ground] (Szymon Grabarczuk)
4. Re: Technical issues of Wikimedia [was: Particular interests
and common ground] (Milos Rancic)
5. Re: An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT (Chris Keating)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 01:50:49 +0100
From: Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT
Message-ID:
<CADut_2+aCvreKL=XdcusE6TJOPu8EdmhvAsX-BeRxWG-T4L8nQ(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Dear Ido,
Thank you for your e-mail. I am also grateful to many other people who have
contributed to give us a better understanding of the past and the present
(it is a lot of work).
I would like to read your opinion about two things that I find astonishing
and urging for a remedy:
* How it could come so far that staff members so openly applaud critical
voices about their boss, Lila Tretikov. This is a really terrible signal
about the state of the Foundation. Ido, do you agree with William Beutler
in the Signpost that it is not possible to imagine how the staff and Lila
Tretikov can go on together?
* We have heard from some of the board members. I actually miss the voice
of the chair. It is the task of a chair, certainly in a crisis like this,
to contribute to more clearness, what the Board is thinking, what it
intends to do next. Ido, imagine that the board makes a new start possible,
which would include a new community election. Would you regard that to be
helpful?
Kind regards
Ziko
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 02:02:57 +0000
From: Amir Ladsgroup <ladsgroup(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Technical issues of Wikimedia [was: Particular
interests and common ground]
Message-ID:
<CA+ttme1o1v+6cC3rxHtr1OrHY=iA-a6k8Qhcb=aW7jrOG4=j3A(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Hey Milos,
You talked about things that I'm in no place to comment but I want to
emphasize on this part of your email:
"For the last 8 years, just two things have been working without
problems in WMF: Money and tech infrastructure (servers, "plain"
MediaWiki, optimizations etc.)."
We hear about technical issues of Wikipedia a lot. We hear Wikipedia is
behind in technology, that it's underperforming. etc. etc. It's not just
you. It's a lot of people in the community of editors too. I highly doubt
that I can comment on this matter, there are definitely better people but I
can't keep it anymore. Maybe my perspective as a non-WMF employee who works
in technical issues would be worth publishing.
The process of getting something technical done is as the same as editing
in wiki. It needs a certain amount of expertise like editing most of the
articles as well. Anyone can make a patch for every part of Wikipedia and
after some code review. it's there. IMO saying "technical parts of
Wikipedia sucks" is as the same as "Wikipedia sucks". Technical space of
Wikimedia is filled with volunteers. I saw unimaginable times that people
work over the weekend, take a day off and then work again because unlike
most companies people care about their job in a good way. Helping in
technical issues just need passion and caring. Let me tell you a story. I
didn't know how to write a line of code in my first three years of editing
Wikipedia. I was just a teenage boy who was making articles about movies he
watched, songs he liked, etc. and then I cared about Wikipedia so much that
I wanted to help more and I heard about cool things called robots (and
believe me, for a very long time I thought bots are physical things that
edit Wikipedia) so I tried to read about it, there was virtually no help in
Persian and my English was so bad that I needed dictionary for everything I
read (google translate was a sci-fi idea back then) but I learned and
learned and I'm still learning just to make Wikipedia a better place, I
hate programming as a goal, it's just a mean.
I just want to remind you people done a hell out of job in technical
aspects. It wasn't just in their working time. It was also a huge volunteer
time too, either by staff or non-WMF employees. Feeling this advantages is
not hard. Just take a look at Google's Knol. It was done by *the* Google
and it's this. We, as a movement, are competing with companies like Google,
Facebook or twitter the same way we are competing with Britannica.
Honestly, I think if someone just published a statement saying "There is a
cool project called Knowledge Engine but we don't have money for it, We can
just give you a space to put your source code and test it, and running it."
We would be knocking over google by 2020, as what we did with Britannica.
I think, maybe I'm wrong please correct me if I am, the biggest problem is
the user interface design of Wikipedia. It looks boring. I know there were,
and there are great designers who also love Wikipedia the same way you do.
I saw what they are capable of. Look at Winter or preferences redesign [1].
They are capable of making Wikipedia ten times more user-friendly and
beautiful. I don't know why it hasn't happened, maybe the community is too
conservative, maybe it's some kind of branding. I asked my life partner and
he said Wikipedia looks beautiful to the most of its readers, the same way
a fresh cupcake smells good, because Wikipedia is awesome. I guess people
who work in bakeries doesn't like the smell of cupcakes as much as other
people.
My last words: If you encounter any technical issues, please report and if
you think it's important to solve technical problems you are more than
welcome to join the club. Just check out the developer hub [2] and
there are tons of manuals in the internet, also there are people in IRC
channels willing to help.
[1]: It aches my heart every time I see it:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Redesign_user_preferenc…
[2]: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Developer_hub
I hope more people chime in and comment to fix this misconception or
correct me.
Best
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 04:01:38 +0100
From: Szymon Grabarczuk <tar.locesilion(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Technical issues of Wikimedia [was:
Particular interests and common ground]
Message-ID:
<CAPv2NmcCGf9fVeDRhK_S6FhpPh81=-dxj_sduqTVXX+2NnQA8g(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
+1 for "saying 'technical parts of Wikipedia sucks' is as the same as
'Wikipedia sucks' ".
+1 for "the biggest problem is the user interface design of Wikipedia" and
your Winter-related thoughts (I may be also wrong).
Thanks for all the message.
On 20 February 2016 at 03:02, Amir Ladsgroup <ladsgroup(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey Milos,
> You talked about things that I'm in no place to comment but I want to
> emphasize on this part of your email:
> "For the last 8 years, just two things have been working without
> problems in WMF: Money and tech infrastructure (servers, "plain"
> MediaWiki, optimizations etc.)."
> We hear about technical issues of Wikipedia a lot. We hear Wikipedia is
> behind in technology, that it's underperforming. etc. etc. It's not just
> you. It's a lot of people in the community of editors too. I highly doubt
> that I can comment on this matter, there are definitely better people but I
> can't keep it anymore. Maybe my perspective as a non-WMF employee who works
> in technical issues would be worth publishing.
>
> The process of getting something technical done is as the same as editing
> in wiki. It needs a certain amount of expertise like editing most of the
> articles as well. Anyone can make a patch for every part of Wikipedia and
> after some code review. it's there. IMO saying "technical parts of
> Wikipedia sucks" is as the same as "Wikipedia sucks". Technical space of
> Wikimedia is filled with volunteers. I saw unimaginable times that people
> work over the weekend, take a day off and then work again because unlike
> most companies people care about their job in a good way. Helping in
> technical issues just need passion and caring. Let me tell you a story. I
> didn't know how to write a line of code in my first three years of editing
> Wikipedia. I was just a teenage boy who was making articles about movies he
> watched, songs he liked, etc. and then I cared about Wikipedia so much that
> I wanted to help more and I heard about cool things called robots (and
> believe me, for a very long time I thought bots are physical things that
> edit Wikipedia) so I tried to read about it, there was virtually no help in
> Persian and my English was so bad that I needed dictionary for everything I
> read (google translate was a sci-fi idea back then) but I learned and
> learned and I'm still learning just to make Wikipedia a better place, I
> hate programming as a goal, it's just a mean.
>
> I just want to remind you people done a hell out of job in technical
> aspects. It wasn't just in their working time. It was also a huge volunteer
> time too, either by staff or non-WMF employees. Feeling this advantages is
> not hard. Just take a look at Google's Knol. It was done by *the* Google
> and it's this. We, as a movement, are competing with companies like Google,
> Facebook or twitter the same way we are competing with Britannica.
> Honestly, I think if someone just published a statement saying "There is a
> cool project called Knowledge Engine but we don't have money for it, We can
> just give you a space to put your source code and test it, and running it."
> We would be knocking over google by 2020, as what we did with Britannica.
>
> I think, maybe I'm wrong please correct me if I am, the biggest problem is
> the user interface design of Wikipedia. It looks boring. I know there were,
> and there are great designers who also love Wikipedia the same way you do.
> I saw what they are capable of. Look at Winter or preferences redesign [1].
> They are capable of making Wikipedia ten times more user-friendly and
> beautiful. I don't know why it hasn't happened, maybe the community is too
> conservative, maybe it's some kind of branding. I asked my life partner and
> he said Wikipedia looks beautiful to the most of its readers, the same way
> a fresh cupcake smells good, because Wikipedia is awesome. I guess people
> who work in bakeries doesn't like the smell of cupcakes as much as other
> people.
>
> My last words: If you encounter any technical issues, please report and if
> you think it's important to solve technical problems you are more than
> welcome to join the club. Just check out the developer hub [2] and
> there are tons of manuals in the internet, also there are people in IRC
> channels willing to help.
>
> [1]: It aches my heart every time I see it:
>
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Redesign_user_preferenc…
>
> [2]: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Developer_hub
>
> I hope more people chime in and comment to fix this misconception or
> correct me.
> Best
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
--
*Szymon Grabarczuk*
Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU
Head of Research & Development Group, Wikimedia Polska
pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_Lócesilion
<http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_L%C3%B3cesilion>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 09:29:15 +0100
From: Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Technical issues of Wikimedia [was:
Particular interests and common ground]
Message-ID:
<CAHPiQ2ELrAP49GjFuU381twCgBk8Lx_rO-A+hfExnK4CqMA46A(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 3:02 AM, Amir Ladsgroup <ladsgroup(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> You talked about things that I'm in no place to comment but I want to
> emphasize on this part of your email:
> "For the last 8 years, just two things have been working without
> problems in WMF: Money and tech infrastructure (servers, "plain"
> MediaWiki, optimizations etc.)."
> We hear about technical issues of Wikipedia a lot. We hear Wikipedia is
> behind in technology, that it's underperforming. etc. etc. It's not just
> you. It's a lot of people in the community of editors too. I highly doubt
> that I can comment on this matter, there are definitely better people but I
> can't keep it anymore. Maybe my perspective as a non-WMF employee who works
> in technical issues would be worth publishing.
> ...
Just to be clear, as mails like my previous one could be wrongly
understood, obviously.
I said "without problems" vs. "with problems", not "competent" vs.
"incompetent" or "good" vs. "bad" etc. Both money and infrastructure
have been no issues for almost a decade (servers longer than money). I
am not waking up with the thought that Wikimedia won't have enough
money or that servers wouldn't work. (OK, there are some invisible
things, like accounting, which obviously haven't been a problem at any
point of time.)
Everything else has been a kind of problem, but I wasn't going into
details. If we are talking about MediaWiki itself, the core is going
with infrastructure and it's no issue. In relation to the features,
which are the problem, it's related to the articulation of the needed
features and allocating resources to create them. Thus, it's the
problem of upper management. I know we have a lot of quite competent
developers.
But I didn't want to go into this kind of analysis. In some cases the
causes are obvious, in some other they are not. I just wanted to
detect that, besides very limited number of no issues, we have tons of
problems, the most of them being the same as a decade ago.
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 09:25:03 +0000
From: Chris Keating <chriskeatingwiki(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT
Message-ID:
<CAFche1qiBsPNFmvHrJLU_k69LD0tHCzFGDeUeSAGMDsgPHXPxg(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On 19 Feb 2016 23:49, "Denny Vrandecic" wrote
> # The alternative is to allow every member of the Board to engage
> individually as they like. This will mean that there are much more
> individual conversations going on, things can be better explained. But
this
> also means that the individual Trustee's statement must not be taken as
> golden representations of the Board's thinking. If ten Board members
engage
> with the community (which won't happen anyway, but even if it's five), do
> expect five different voices and opinions, and don't expect that
everything
> said will actually become a resolution (which, in the end, is the only way
> the Board as a Board can communicate anyway). This obviously can lead to
> plenty of "that Trustee said that" or "no, I talked with Trustee X, and
she
> said that this change is a bad idea", etc. - never mind possible legal
> implications.
Hi Denny (and the rest of the Board),
>From my experience of Wikimedia movement conversations (and other
conversations from similar organisations) it is usually better to have
Board members contributing to debates with their own voices. It's really
reassuring to know that someone is saying something. Silence, by contrast,
results in a lot of doubts. Thinking back to the Haifa letter and the
discussion around fundraising and so on in 2011-2 - it was really helpful
in that discussion when WMF board members started sharing their
(conflicting) views rather than communicating through agreed statements (
which took hours to write and then ended up being really unclear anyway ).
It meant that the Board started to look like a bunch of people trying to do
the best job given conflicting perspectives, and stopped looking like an
uncontrollable monolith.
Of course it doesn't help that there are some people on this list who will
leap at every statement to find fault with it - but usually those people
are fed more by silence than by engagement.
And of course it is not always possible to talk publically about
differences of approach or upcoming issues - particularly where staff are
concerned - but it is best to talk as far as you can, in my view.
Chris
>
> Since I have been on the Board there was never even really a discussion
> which of these options we should take. And I am not surprised by it -
> considering how creative and dissective some community members can be with
> the statements from Board members. Seriously, I am not feeling comfortable
> with sharing any of my thoughts here, and even this mail I hope I will
> press send before I just delete it.
>
> This mail, please, do not read it as an excuse for the Board. I am not
> trying to downplay the current situation nor to take responsibility away
> from the Board. I am not trying to blame anyone at all, but merely trying
> to explain why the heck we act so fucking dumb sometimes.
>
> Again, thanks,
> Denny
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 8:17 AM, Delphine Ménard <notafishz(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I believe that Dariusz' comment was somewhat blown out of proportions
> > (due in part to difficulties in communication inherent to our
> > multicultural movement). I also think that some of the statements he
> > made were too "blanket" to let go, so I understand the frustration.
> >
> > This said, Ori, I want to thank you for what I believe is the most
> > daring, heartfelt and bold emails ever written to this list.
> >
> > And I use the word bold very specifically because I believe that this
> > is what is missing today. Boldness. Boldness does not only translate
> > in taking (un)calculated risks, it also comes in the capacity of
> > admitting failure.
> >
> > I'll tell you where I think we, as an organisation, have failed. It
> > was already a long time ago, when we started to talk about efficiency.
> > When the Foundation started working and acting like an American Global
> > Corporation, and stopped cherishing our diversity and leverage it to
> > do that thing we once all dreamed of "taking over the world". I will
> > give you a few examples which I think illustrate the failure to be
> > bold in organisational ways. They might shed a light on today's
> > governance chaos.
> >
> > Fundraising & Trademark: For the longest time, we've been analyzing
> > what risks there were if Chapter/Entity XYZ fundraised, or used the
> > trademark. What are the terrible things that would happen if someone
> > got in trouble at the other end of the world and they had anything to
> > do with Wikimedia or Wikimedia money. No-one ever said: "let us find a
> > solution to leverage our diversity and fundraise all over the world,
> > and make sure that we get all there is to get, together". Or: "Let us
> > recognize how every single person using the trademark is an asset to
> > that trademark". No one said, let us work together to make sure that
> > our organisational network represents our diversity, our collective
> > core. We're only afraid of what may happen if. We are afraid, or cosy.
> > After 10 years, Wikimedia Germany and Wikimedia Switzerland are the
> > only parts of the world where fundraising is happening locally. And
> > it's not because anyone ever thought that they did it better (well, I
> > do ;)), but because of technicalities. We have never thanked the
> > thousands of volunteers handing out flyers for their part in making
> > our trademark an amazing thing. instead, we're calculating all the
> > risks, the "what happens if". The "product" by definition is owned by
> > all of us, and more. While protecting it is a good thing, keeping it
> > behind bars isn't. We are diverse, we will make mistakes and learn
> > from them. We freaking built an encyclopedia, of course we can take
> > care of it without having to fear everyone and their brother! And
> > while an organisation is not a wiki, and revert not always an option,
> > I'm pretty sure that
> >
> > Governance: No members at the Foundation. OK, I am not for or against
> > it, but the whole speech "we answer to 80000 volunteers" which has
> > been served to me over the years (as opposed to a mere 300 members in
> > that chapter or that other) is a load of BS. Because what I have
> > observed in the past few years, the Board only serves itself or the ED
> > (your pick), or "the Foundation" (the word "fiduciary responsibility"
> > still makes me cringe today). I am questioning who feels "served"
> > today. Doesn't seem like a lot of people. But you know, nobody
> > represents anyone, they're only "selected"...
> >
> > Governance again: 10 board members. No clear cut majority, ever.
> > Impossible. No-one can take charge and make things change drastically.
> > Not the community and "chapter" seats, not the appointed people. An
> > inertia of the likes I have *never* seen. I have been very close to
> > the board in extremely different contexts, extremely different
> > constellations and I have come to the conclusion that however smart
> > the people on it were, the sum of their intelligence as a collective
> > body amounted to less than their average intelligence when taken as
> > individuals. Insane. You cannot "govern" when the gap in opinions is
> > so huge that you can only always go for the "middle", which makes
> > nobody happy. I have seen people on the board get lashed at because
> > their vote on the outside looked like they were betraying the people
> > they were close to. But we don't know what the options on the table
> > were, and who knows, how they might have been so much worse. So middle
> > it is. Bold is but a faint memory (and the bold ones still get lashed
> > at, look at Dariusz being the only one talking here, and the one who
> > takes the blows).
> >
> > Loyalty: We never really prodded for loyalty. Chapters were left to
> > develop in their own chaotic ways, pushed away because they were a
> > risk, and when they strayed they were put back under the iron hand of
> > the Foundation and handled like kids. We never said: "gals and guys,
> > we're all in this together, let us work together to be better,
> > together". I know I am not doing justice to all the amazing work that
> > has been done in the grants department, among others, but hear me out.
> > I want chapters and affiliates and communities and staff to feel they
> > owe and own the Foundation at the same time. Back to "governance
> > again", no representation, a self-serving body. There are still (too
> > many) people out there who feel "the Foundation" does not represent
> > them. How do we change that? How do we make sure that people feel they
> > have a voice, and give them the will to give back to the whole?
> >
> > Impact: Wow, that one is a big one. We don't know the impact we have
> > because we never really asked ourselves what impact in our context
> > really means. Oh, we do have data, tons of it. But what does it mean
> > to have impact when you're Wikimedia? page views? Number of mobile
> > devices in the Global South (sorry kittens) accessing the content for
> > free? Number of mentions of Wikipedia at dinner parties to check who's
> > right or who's wrong on who last won the Superbowl? We're trying hard,
> > but not finding a common definition. Or even agreeing on the fact that
> > there might not be one. Again, how do we find a common direction? It
> > takes leadership in thinking out difficult questions and strength in
> > making them heard and embraced. One thing is sure, there are many
> > people asking others to show impact, but no-one within our governance
> > ranks making a real and beneficial one in giving a strong sense of
> > direction.
> >
> > So yes, I think I understand your frustration. And I wish that someone
> > had the boldness to take their fingers out of their... ears, and make
> > things change. Too many people in too little time have been "moving
> > on" or "exploring other opportunities". And this is indeed a strong
> > sign that something must be done. You pointed out in a direction, I am
> > of a mind that it is not the only direction, even if it might be the
> > most acute and the (relatively) easiest to address.
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Delphine
> >
> >
> > PS. For history's sake, I have worked for the Foundation, I have left
> > it too, I know the feeling, to my bones. It was not an easy decision
> > and today, 8 years later, there are times where I regret it, and
> > others when I think to myself "good riddance". I also had quite a few
> > other volunteer roles in chapters, committees and whatnots.
> >
> > PPS. I say *we* and take my part of responsibility, as I have been in
> > positions where I should have worked harder at changing things.
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 7:33 PM, Ori Livneh <ori(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 4:47 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj(a)alk.edu.pl
>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> There is way too much blaming/bashing/sour expectations
> > >> working both ways - we almost forget how unique we are, irrespective
of
> > >> many slips and avoidable failures we make (and WMF is definitely
> > leading
> > >> here, too! ;)
> > >>
> > >
> > > No, we're not. My peers in the Technology department work incredibly
hard
> > > to provide value for readers and editors, and we have very good
results
> > to
> > > show for it. Less than two years ago it took an average of six
seconds to
> > > save an edit to an article; it is about one second now. (MediaWiki
> > > deployments are currently halted over a 200-300ms regression!). Page
load
> > > times improved by 30-40% in the past year, which earned us plaudits in
> > the
> > > press and in professional circles. The analytics team figured out how
to
> > > count unique devices without compromising user anonimity and privacy
and
> > > rolled out a robust public API for page view data. The research team
is
> > in
> > > the process of collecting feedback from readers and compiling the
first
> > > comprehensive picture of what brings readers to the projects. The
TechOps
> > > team made Wikipedia one of the first major internet properties to go
> > > HTTPS-only, slashed latency for users in many parts of the world by
> > > provisioning a cache pop on the Pacific Coast of the United States,
and
> > is
> > > currently gearing up for a comprehensive test of our failover
> > capabilities,
> > > which is to happen this Spring.
> > >
> > > That's just the activity happening immediately around me in the org,
and
> > > says nothing of engineering accomplishments like the Android app being
> > > featured on the Play store in 93 countries and having a higher user
> > rating
> > > than Facebook Messenger, Twitter, Netflix, Snapchat, Google Photos,
etc.
> > Or
> > > the 56,669 articles that have been created using the Content
Translation
> > > tool.
> > >
> > > This is happening in spite of -- not thanks to -- dysfunction at the
top.
> > > If you don't believe me, all you have to do is wait: an exodus of
people
> > > from Engineering won't be long now. Our initial astonishment at the
> > Board's
> > > unwillingness to acknowledge and address this dysfunction is wearing
off.
> > > The slips and failures are not generalized and diffuse. They are local
> > and
> > > specific, and their location has been indicated to you repeatedly.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > @notafish
> >
> > NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will
get
> > lost.
> > Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive -
> > http://blog.notanendive.org
> > Photos with simple eyes: notaphoto - http://photo.notafish.org
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
------------------------------
End of Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 143, Issue 111
*********************************************
Anyone have any suggestions to this issue raised on the Wikisource-L
mailing list?
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Bodhisattwa Mandal
Date: Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 4:02 AM
Subject: Re: [Wikisource-l] Vote for Google OCR-Wikisource integration
in 2015 community wishlist
To: "discussion list for Wikisource, the free library"
<wikisource-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Hi,
The OCR4Wikisource script is evolving heavily. Already more than
1,50,000 pages have been OCRed in both Tamil and Bengali Wikisource
using the OCR4Wikisource script. The idea and the tool proved to be a
game-changer for Indic Wikisource projects.
And when we were getting some hope, Google announced that they will
charge for doing OCR using their drive.
https://cloud.google.com/vision/
Is there any chance that WMF will go for negotiation with Google so
that we can do the mass OCR free of charge? I remember Asaf once told
that this possibility can be pursued. I think, now is the time to do
that.
Regards,
Yeah!
I'm really happy that the BUB tool is resurrecting, and for the new
OCR script. Thanks everyone!
Aubrey
On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 9:53 PM, Asaf Bartov <abartov(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Bodhisattwa Mandal <bodhisattwa.rgkmc(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am happy to inform, that Shrinivasan has created a python script to automate the process in Linux system. This scripts upload the PDF files to Google Drive, download the OCRed text and split, merge the text files properly to fit as the PDF file. We have just tested the script for small files in Kannad and Bengali Wikisource and it was successful. We are going to test the script for using different types and sizes of files and in other Indic languages in next few days.
>>
>> The script is in https://github.com/tshrinivasan/OCR4wikisource
>
>
> Fantastic news!
>
> A.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikisource-l mailing list
> Wikisource-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
_______________________________________________
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l