Wikimedia-l February 2016

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

246 participants
178 discussions

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] The Signpost -- Volume 12, Issue 07 -- 17 February 2016
by Trillium Corsage 19 Feb '16

19 Feb '16

Hang tough, Lila Tretikov. This will all pass. These people leaving blaming you, bah! You are cleaning the WMF cupboard, and that's overdue. Don't let anybody or anything psyche you out. Trillium Corsage 19.02.2016, 21:31, "Wikipedia Signpost" <email clipped>: > Special report: Search and destroy: the Knowledge Engine and the undoing of Lila Tretikov > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-17/Specia…

1 0

Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT
by Michal Lester 19 Feb '16

19 Feb '16

Thank you Delphine for a fascinating analysis of of the recent history and current state of the situation. *Michal Lester,* *Executive DirectorWikimedia Israel* *http://www.wikimedia.org.il <http://www.wikimedia.org.il/> * *972-50-8996046 ; 972-77-751-6032 *

7 6

Particular interests and common ground (was: An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT)
by Milos Rancic 19 Feb '16

19 Feb '16

I woke up this morning, read emails and felt quite frustrated. I wanted to write something on Delphine's line, but that Ark B distracted me enough to make myself content with one more satirical allegory. So, thank you very much, Delphine, for writing this and opening much more important discussion! Much more than the Knight grant is or even the issues of Lila, James and Arnnon. For the last 8 years, just two things have been working without problems in WMF: Money and tech infrastructure (servers, "plain" MediaWiki, optimizations etc.). Everything else is in the range between "regular problem we use to deal with" and quite serious problem. Unlike Delphine and the most people from chapters, I want to see our movement as federation, not as confederation. I don't think we are ready to have loosely connected network of chapters and user groups. And that's not because of us as Wikimedians but because of us as humans. It's not reasonable to expect functional decentralized global movement without more common values than just those based on licenses. (No, we don't have any other.) However, it doesn't work if there is no hard democratic influence over the decision-making process. And everything I heard about increasing community participation in decision-making processes for the last ~10 years was demagogy and doublespeak. And, unlike dominant echoing here, I want to say that significant portion of staff is at least the passive part of that problem. (Keep in mind that Wikimedia staff are usually not just ordinary employees, but people with high level of political influence inside of the movement.) My memory says that I've seen staff talking openly about any problem just in the most visible and problematic cases. If not, of course, it was on the line of the Board and ED. Have you noticed that this is almost exclusively the problem between significant portion of staff and highly involved American Wikimedians on one side and ED and Board on the other one? Community and chapters mostly don't care. Except, of course, that something very wrong is going on. That's the product of previous (non-)actions, cultivation of particular interests, lack of solidarity, lack of articulating common values and building common culture; the product of "implementing goals" no matter of their long term price and total failure of the Board structure. We are in constant crisis and I find a bit cynical the fact that one of the most influential groups inside of the movement is detecting it just when their dream jobs are on stake. Sorry for being harsh, but that's the fact. To overcome this fully dysfunctional situation, we need to create the deal between the major stakeholders of the movement: Community, Board, chapters and staff (including ED). We have to define what are the expectations of every group and how to make those expectations fulfilled in the way that everybody see the value in participating into the movement if not to see everybody content. This is something that had to be done a decade ago, but it's better to be done sooner than later and ever than never. We can't function with implicit expectations forever. For example, If staff expects to be able to veto ED or to participate in selecting her or him -- which I find to be a reasonable expectation, having in mind the nature of our movement -- it should be articulated and, if no other stakeholder have anything strictly against it, we should find the way how to implement that. But that's just about this ongoing issue. The list of expectations from various sides is long and we should talk about them one by one. The process of reaching the common grounds is not easy, not shiny, requires a lot of work and nerves. Saying to each other "yes" or "thank you" is not helping, neither. We need to work hard on that. Useful Strategic Plan for the Board and management is not that, as well. We need reach the deal, not to achieve one more goal. The most important obstacle is prevalent conformism, which destroys any collective ability to talk about anything "too hard", unless you are not pissed off by something. Without our collective willingness to tackle hard and complex problems, I see business as usual, which means that Board will keep reacting just with crisis PR, without too much need to address the real issues and problems. Wikipedia will exist, chapters and others will be doing their projects. The only large victim of that approach would be the movement itself. But, it would be the movement itself who made the suicide. On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 5:17 PM, 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> -- Milos

1 0

Improving transparency and communication
by Lodewijk 19 Feb '16

19 Feb '16

Hi Lila, Thank you for the update and the pointer. As you probably noted, there have been several 'incidents' quickly following each other, which worry me, and probably you too. You're saying that you welcome feedback and discussion, and that you're having internal conversations on how to improve communication. When problems continue like this in governments, you often see (well, this probably depends on the country) that a committee is appointed to investigate what is really the problem, and to come with some general recommendations for structural improvements. I'm not sure if this is the most effective method, but it might be an effective way to gain back a bit of trust. Why not appoint a small committee of a few trusted community members, that can get a bit more information (also when that has to remain confidential) and make some structural recommendations with regards to communicating with the community? Normally I'd expect the Board to take such role, but given recent events, I don't have the feeling the Board is best placed to do so. Just thinking out loud, maybe there are better ideas to approach this in a way that builds trust again. Lodewijk On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:28 PM, Lila Tretikov <lila(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > As promised, here is the blog post we published earlier today: > http://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/02/16/wikimedia-search-future/ . We are > also > having internal conversations on how we can improve communication and > transparency to increase collaboration on ideation with all of you going > forward. > > I hope this helps contextualize the grant agreement and our broader efforts > while addressing some of the confusion around this topic. As always, I > welcome your feedback and discussion and look forward to our ongoing > discussion. > > Lila > >

4 3

Call for Candidates - Affiliate Selected members of the WMF Board
by Chris Keating 19 Feb '16

19 Feb '16

Dear Wikimedia friends, **Call for Nominations - Affiliate Selected Board Seats** This year the Wikimedia chapters and Thematic Organisations will select two members of the Wikimedia Foundation Board. We would like to invite nominations for candidates to be elected to the WMF board in this process. Please help us by distributing this call for candidates as widely as possible through such forums as mailing lists, village pumps, and blogs. *Role of WMF Board members* The Wikimedia Foundation board provide governance and strategic oversight of the WMF. The role of Wikimedia Foundation board members is set out in detail here: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_member Successful candidates will bring expertise and understanding to help the Board further its goals and ability to work effectively at a strategic and governance level. The work of the Board is conducted in English (though fluency in additional languages is an advantage) and the role involves a significant commitment, including travel to several in-person meetings in California or worldwide. *Nominations and selection process* Nominations should be posted using this form on Meta-Wiki: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016/Nominat… If you need assistance completing the wiki-template, please contact one of the election facilitators who will be happy to assist. Nominations are open until the end of 8 March 2016 (midnight UTC). To be entered into the ballot, a candidate's nomination must be accompanied by a statement of support from a Chapter or Thematic Organisation, which may accompany the nomination or be received no later than 22 March 2016. The timeline for the selection process can be seen here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016 There is also a selection FAQ here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats_election_FAQ Many thanks, Chris Keating Lorenzo Losa Lane Rasberry - Election Facilitators

7 9

What is the Board's HR Committee doing to stem the tide of staff resignations?
by Brion Vibber 19 Feb '16

19 Feb '16

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 12:26 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj(a)alk.edu.pl> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Brion Vibber <bvibber(a)wikimedia.org> > wrote: > >> What is the board doing, going forward, to stem the tide of staff >> resignations? >> > > We have started with an engagement survey, and organizational facilitator > analysis. More and more current input can be provided by Patricio or others > from the Board's HR Committee, but there is also a lot of work done by the > HR department, under its new leadership. > Patricio, can you add more details here please? The engagement survey in November showed very, very low support for the Executive Director. I'm not sure what "organizational facilitator analysis" is, but if it's related to the management coaching for Lila, there are some unanswered emails on the staff list which are very discouraging. I can forward them to you if you are unaware. As a longtime part of Wikimedia's community and staff, I would really appreciate some clear answers on what's going on and why we're losing more and more longtime community and staff members while an ED who needs management coaching is still in place. -- brion

5 4

(no subject)
by attolippip 19 Feb '16

19 Feb '16

Thank you Ido and +1 to your message. I would also +1 to Yaroslav's message, but I want to note, that though most volunteers would not care about smth (seemingly) far away like WMF and its troubles, they WOULD care about backlogs of bugs that are piling up, lack of strategic approach to high-priority things like the Education extension etc. And some volunteers (no doubt) are really upset by repeated cycles of bad press we are getting. Unnecessarily... Best regards, antanana Board Member of WMUA 2016-02-18 23:52 GMT+02:00 Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod(a)mccme.ru>: > On 2016-02-18 21:20, Leila Zia wrote: > >> Hi Dariusz, >> >> I want to share with you the following relatively scattered thoughts and >> leave it to you to decide how to continue engaging with us. :-) I hope you >> find them helpful: >> >> * BoT has been too silent, given the state of matters. I'm much more >> worried about our volunteers when I say this, than the WMF's staff (which >> I'm one of). >> > > To be honest, most volunteers do not care. We understand of course that if > things would go really wrong, for example, servers stop running, or money > runs out and ads are introduced, or English Wikipedia admins continue > resigning/being desysopped without proper replacement, so that we have ten > active admins, then we are in serious trouble. But as far as things are > running quasi-normal, we just continue. I was making 50 to 100 edits per > day five years ago, I am making 50 to 100 edits per day now, I will > probably still be making 50 to 100 edits per day in five years, unless I > die or leave because of a serious demotivation - and this demotivation is > unlikely to be related to WMF. I think staff are way more vulnerable to all > kinds of events. > > > * Because of the lack of clear communications by the BoT, I'm uncertain >> whether there is an acknowledgement by the BoT about the issues we are >> facing. What can assure me at the moment is to see a list of items the BoT >> sees as problematic, and a plan for addressing them, and a schedule for >> when we should expect seeing them addressed. (Half-jokingly: maybe we need >> a phabrictor board for the BoT to track specific tasks that can be shared >> publicly and their prioritization). >> >> > This is a cool idea. It is a pity it has zero chances to be realized. > > Cheers > Yaroslav > > > _______________________________________________ > 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> >

1 0

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Outcomes from the Consultation on Wikimedia movement conferences/Wikimania
by James Heilman 19 Feb '16

19 Feb '16

Yes I am also not a big fan of moving Wikimania to every two years. Meeting once a year on a global scale is important. I could see possibly keeping it smaller / capping funding. -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine www.opentextbookofmedicine.com

10 12

USA elections in real time - as viewed by Wikipedia users
by Yuri Astrakhan 19 Feb '16

19 Feb '16

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Yurik/US_Politics_Real_Time Thanks Dario Taraborelli for the idea.

4 5

Elsevier?
by Milos Rancic 18 Feb '16

18 Feb '16

Is WMF or any other Wikimedia organization still engaged with them? If so, what's the plan to drop that toxic connection and support Sci-Hub, LibGen and similar projects? EFF did that two months ago [1]. [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/12/what-if-elsevier-and-researchers-quit… -- Milos

17 30

← Newer
1
...
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
...
18
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Wikimedia-l February 2016