I see that the discussion on this list exploded and I am very happy to
see that. Now we need to capitalize on this enormous engagement by all
of us and make the real changes.
We need the leadership. WMF staff proved to be much more potent than
dysfunctional Board.
So, please, talk to each other, structure this discussion on Meta --
idea by idea, counter-idea by counter-idea --, and call us to
participate there. If you need our help to do this, you have private
and public means to ask for help.
It's your responsibility to yourself and to the rest of us. This is
the right time and you need to do that now!
--
Milos
Dear Wikimedians,
TL;DR: share your thougths on the future direction, plans and goals
In the past weeks dozens of people have shared their analysis and
unsolicited advice on many aspects. I really appreciate all of your
thorough thinking and careful wording in many long posts. While the HR
committee of the BoT and the BoT as a whole are busy contemplating who to
appoint as (interim) and would like to ask you to use your thoughtpower on
some specific forward looking items.
The strategy consultation for the Wikimedia Foundation 2016/2017 Annual
Plan attracted over 500 comments, most of them in rather short posts.[1] A
report with findings from the community consultation has been published.[2]
There is a new call for a movement wide strategy. Please add your name and
share your thoughts and analysis.[3]
After 'narrowing focus' the two main 'programs' of the Wikimedia Foundation
are "tech" and "grant making". After the last reorganization "grant making"
program has been renamed to "community". The breakdown in the latest
financial reports[4] preceded by the terms in the CtA and current AP[5] is:
(1) Improve Technology & Execution: building the technological and
operating platform that enables the Foundation to function sustainably as a
top global Internet organization,
(2) Focus on Knowledge & Community: strengthening, growing, and increasing
diversity of the editing community, and
(3) Support Innovation & New Knowledge: accelerating impact by investing in
key geographic areas, mobile application development, and bottom-up
innovation,
all of which, to support Wikipedia and eight other wiki-based projects.
(Correct me when I made a mismatch between report and plan. Jaime
Villagomez, the new CFO can probably reflect on that, reaching out to Amy
to contact him. Amy can you ask Jaime to briefly introduce himself to this
list. His predecessor had a pivotal role in financial oversight of
affiliates.)
The current strategy consultation makes a breakdown into three areas:
(1) Reach
(2) Communities
(3) Knowlegde
Please share your thoughts and analysis and join the conversation. Who can
see a shift in strategy from the first to the second breakdown, and why?
What are the implications for staff, affiliates, the movement and
communities?
Do affiliates, especially funded chapters, have a breakdown in these three
categories reach, communities and knowledge? How relevant is this breakdown
for affiliates? Do you use these names for these programs, or other names?
What kind of programs have affiliates that fall not in one of these three
areas reach, communities or knowledge? APG funded affiliates are evaluated
based on the strategic priorities:[6]
* Stabilize infrastructure
* Increase participation
* Improve quality
* Increase reach
* Encourage innovation
Reaching out to Liam Wyat and Anne/Risker from the FDC. Can you reflect on
shift in strategic priorities? How will APG funded affliliates be evaluated
regarding their programs? Will that continue to be on the list of strategic
priorities or might that be on the list of topic areas mentioned in the
strategy consultation, or something else?
Reaching out to Brion Vibber explicitly. Brion shared some long and
interesting posts last week and started a thread about what it means to be
a high tech organization. My question for Brion is to share his case why
the WMF should be a high tech organization. In the first breakdown above
tech(nology) is explicitly mentioned. Is the second breakdown as 'developer
inclusive' as the first breakdown? Or would technology assume a supportive
role to the leading programs reach, communities and knowledge?
When I read the current statements of mission, vision, values and guiding
principles I hardly get the impression the Wikimedia Foundation is a high
tech organization, or an organization which employs a lot of engineers and
developers. How should the mission, vision, values or guiding principles of
the Wikimedia Foundation be amended to give due weight to engineers and
developers? Could you elaborate on that Brion. Wes you are one of the
C-level staff. On this list people have suggested to appoint one of the
current C-level staff to (interim) ED. I have directed question about tech
to Brion and not you. Could you please introduce yourself?
Another C-level is more well known on this list and is currently CCO. We
know her qualities in communication. Dear Katherine, can you share with the
list your experience with, prior to Wikimedia, with not-for profit
management, building relationships with communities, and your experience
with innovation, ICT and fundraising? Anything missing on the wishlist for
an ED? Katherine, please share your thoughts on the strategic direction of
the Wikimedia Foundation and the Wikimedia movement in general.
Anyone who would rather see me, or him or herself, than Katherine as
(interim) ED? I don't belief so. Correct me if I'm wrong. Someone called
for open hr recruiting on wikimedia-l. For some specific roles at the WMF
one of the requirements is to be able to join the conversation on
wikimedia-l. I'm with Jimmy that the Wikimedia Foundation is a great place
to work. And I'm with current staff who feel the place felt more like hell
hole. I'm considering myself to apply for a job. I have been at a 200 plus
employee institution that had the courage to battle a full board out,
including experience with a follow up healing process and reorganization.
Regards,
Ad Huikeshoven
[1]: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2016_Strategy/Community_consultation
[2]:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2016_Strategic_Approaches_Report.pdf
[3]: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Future#Interested_people
[4]:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/0/0b/Audit_Report_-_FY_14…
[5]: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2015-2016_Annual_Plan
[6]:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Movement_Strategic_Plan_Summ…
On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 10:41 PM, SarahSV <sarahsv.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:49 PM, Florence Devouard <fdevouard(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> Removing a COI is not the only issue at stake Sarah.
>>
>> Would WMF get involved into such a process, it would also possibly change
>> its legal reponsibility. Right now, WMF does not get involved in the
>> editorial process, which allows to claim WMF is only hosting the content.
>> If WMF is somewhat involved in an editorial process which results in
>> paying the authors, then WMF might lose the "host" status.
>>
>> Flo
>>
>>
>> Hi Flo, I've heard so many contradictory positions about that over the
> years that I have no idea what the implications would be.
>
> Moving away from the very complex issue of paid editing, Brion opened the
> thread with different views of what a high-tech organization is, one of
> which involves lack of diversity, overemphasis on engineering, and
> exploitation of staff and users at the cost of their physical and emotional
> health. He argued that the WMF should instead cultivate and support staff
> and volunteers.
>
> So what can we do to move the WMF away from the bad aspects of high-tech
> organizations and toward a position where the health of the paid and unpaid
> workforces is actively nurtured?
>
> I've made a small start by suggesting software [1] that asks editors how
> long they want to spend on the site when they log in, along with options to
> be logged out automatically and not logged in again for a set time
> (following a suggestion from a former Google engineer in the *New York
> Review of Books*). [2]
>
> I would love to see the WMF agree never again to discuss trapping editors
> in feedback loops intended to keep them editing, but instead to help them
> plan and monitor their interactions with Wikimedia sites. Another idea is
> for opt-in software that asks how you're feeling every few hours – "Are you
> feeling angry? Is it time for a break?" – or when you log out: "How did
> your interactions today make you feel?" Questions could be asked that would
> be useful to the WMF in its gender-gap, anti-harassment and other
> initiatives (once the data is anonymized).
many thanks sarah for making a suggestion i like the restrict yourself
and see how you do compared to others, so i created
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T128320
best,
rupert
> On 28 Feb 2016, at 2:25 PM, Chris Sherlock <chris.sherlock79(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On 28 Feb 2016, at 1:16 PM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Anna Stillwell <astillwell(a)wikimedia.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Jimmy,
>>>
>>> I have a ridiculous amount of respect for you and what you have
>>> accomplished. I have watched from afar (I was living a lot in other
>>> countries) as this radical experiment in trust *exploded* on to the world.
>>> It blew my mind. And some of the early rules that were set were nothing
>>> short of genius (e.g. NPOV, AGF and due weight come to mind). It was an
>>> ideal experiment: an open frontier with simple, limited rule sets. And the
>>> icing on the cake is that "citation needed" ended up not just influencing
>>> how I thought about an encyclopedic text, but how I thought about
>>> discussing ideas.
>>>
>>
>> Anna,
>>
>> Hold on just a moment. :)
>>
>> It's important to understand that Jimmy Wales didn't accomplish the things
>> you speak of alone.
>>
Funny you should say this :-) I’m the “inventor” of [citation needed].
You know why I created [citation needed] on Wikipedia? Because the amount of ill-informed, badly thought out, ridiculous claims on Wikipedia articles were getting out hand. I started removing them to the talk page, but then that same person not only refused to explain where they got their information from, but would put the "fact" back into the article. This would then perpetuate incorrect information.
One day I had an epiphany. I realised that you can't just argue with these people, you need to have a reverse citation system - you need to clearly mark out information that is dubious, ill-informed, the result of ingrained prejudice (often unconsciously so) and almost always inaccurate.
At the same time, there needed to be a way of allowing controversial views and sometimes accurate but controversial facts be detailed on the encyclopaedia.
There was only one way I could see to do it - use the same citation system that referenced sources but invert it to highlight information that needed a source. Hence I created citation needed (originally without the square brackets, whoever added them was a genius in their own right).
Guess what? It worked. 11 years later, despite the many issues on Wikipedia, finding out the source of assumptions is no longer a problem. People can go to the citations and see where the factoid is documented, or whose opinion is being expressed. It allows ordinary people to judge the view being expressed more accurately, or to look at how the data was extrapolated, to understand how the academic study was conducted, or to verify that what is claimed is actually what the original claimant was indeed claiming.
But I’d like to make the point: I could *never* have created [citation needed] if someone had not created the policy to cite sources, and hundreds and hundreds of other editors didn’t have a commitment to sources. So whilst [citation needed] was probably one of my best ideas (sometimes I wonder if this might not be an indictment to my creativitity!) I have to say that it was only possible because of the commitment by my peers on Wikipedia to making the project great, and because of those who came before me.
And I’m happy to know that my good idea has literally influences and improved the critical faculties of so many people who use our encyclopedia today!
Chris
(changing the topic, to avoid doing myself what I criticise)
I would suggest you discuss what kind of qualities you seek in an ED, what
kind of person you would be looking for - rather than specific people. That
would actually be an interesting and valuable discussion to have in public,
I'd think.
Public discussions are good, but not every topic is best discussed in
public (like specific people: there's a reason votes on people are
generally secret). That doesn't mean that every non-public discussion leads
to good results :) In the wikiworld I know, when people are being
discussed, they often nominated themselves, or agreed to be nominated. I
know this may be different on enwiki to some extent, maybe that's a
cultural trait. I haven't encountered this in any other wiki (but may have
missed a few).
But a good framework that came out of a public discussion, may help the
non-public discussion about the names a lot.
Anyway, just my two cents. I can't stop you from shouting names of course...
Best,
Lodewijk
On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 12:23 AM, Yuri Astrakhan <yastrakhan(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
> Lodewijk, this is a very valid point, thanks. My understanding is that
> this process done in private has lost some of its credibility with the
> staff and the community, and thus I would like to get some understanding on
> how we can do that same process in the open, without offending anyone. In
> the wiki world, I think most of the time people
> have publicly nominated candidates for various roles, and that has not been
> a concern. Of course the nick names provide some degree of anonymity, so
> this might not be exactly the same.
>
> On Feb 27, 2016 01:57, "Lodewijk" <lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org> wrote:
>
> > While I love public discussions, I must say I always feel a bit awkward
> to
> > discuss people in public, unless there is no other choice.
> >
> > To discuss people without them agreeing to it, may even be considered
> rude
> > by some. You're throwing up names, which can realistically only lead to
> > people supporting it, because if you would be against it, it would
> possibly
> > be a slap in the face of someone you like.
> >
> > If you really see a serious potential candidate, why not send it to the
> > board? or, once a public call is being made, point those people to it.
> >
> > Lodewijk
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 11:31 PM, Yuri Astrakhan <
> yastrakhan(a)wikimedia.org
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > For the inside, I would think Yana W would be a good candidate, but as
> > Raul
> > > Veede suggested on FB, it would be bad to loose her expertise in her
> > > current role.
> > >
> > > Dan, I think you are right that we are not yet ready to have a drop-in
> > > replacement simply because we should figure out what went wrong first.
> > > Possibly we shouldn't even have an ED, but rather have a flatter
> > > community-driven committee that allocates funds, and projects getting
> > > resources from it. And this committee would, in affect, be the
> > > direction-determining force.
> > >
> > > On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 1:23 AM, Oliver Keyes <ironholds(a)gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm agreed with Dan and Nathan (well, Nathan's implied point) both.
> > > >
> > > > Right now we need stability. I'd much prefer an interim ED appointed
> > > > from inside the organisation or movement, ideally someone who has
> been
> > > > watching what's been going on. And then time for healing and
> > > > reflection in that space of stability that lets us make a better
> > > > decision.
> > > >
> > > > I have no particular opinions on Lessig - or on Creative Commons -
> > > > except to note that the organisational leaders are the people whose
> > > > opinions on trauma around reorganisations least matter, insofar as,
> > > > structurally, they are both the people least likely to be messed over
> > > > by them and the people most detached from any swirling mass of
> feeling
> > > > that exists in the employee base. I'd be interested instead in
> hearing
> > > > from current or former employees (I know a couple and they are not as
> > > > positive, but it's a small sample size) to make any evaluation more
> > > > informed.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Dan Andreescu <
> > dandreescu(a)wikimedia.org
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > I met him, he's amazingly focused and radical, I appreciate his
> brand
> > > of
> > > > intellect very much. But I think suggesting candidates for the ED
> > > position
> > > > at this time is jumping two steps ahead of where we are.
> > > > >
> > > > > We just screwed up. We were all dragged through months of an
> awkward
> > > > collapse of our leadership and organizational structure. Before we
> > start
> > > > piling the rubble of this collapse back up into the same exact shape
> > > with a
> > > > different keystone, let's take a breath and think.
> > > > >
> > > > > First we should make sure we understand what, more or less, failed.
> > It
> > > > was not just Lila. Second, we should talk about what options we have
> > and
> > > > what criteria we should use to evaluate those options.
> > > > >
> > > > > We can be patient. We have reaffirmed our respect for each other
> and
> > we
> > > > trust each other enough to share ideas, emotions, and proposals. This
> > is
> > > > our foundation, and it hasn't collapsed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Original Message
> > > > > From: Yuri Astrakhan
> > > > > Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 16:47
> > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > > > Reply To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > > > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Lawrence Lessig for ... WMF
> > > > >
> > > > > I would like to continue the discussion of who, in an ideal case,
> > would
> > > > be
> > > > > a good fit for the ED position. This person has to fit culturally,
> > > share
> > > > > movement's values, and be a trusted figure in the time of
> rebuilding.
> > > > >
> > > > > Lawrence Lessig seems to have a very strong support in the
> community,
> > > and
> > > > > even attempted to run (unsuccessfully) a large organization called
> > > United
> > > > > States.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > 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>
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
>
Jimmy to clarify some of facts. It was I who reached out to Patricio to put
together a joint statement.
We worked on it in a Google document that I started and as such I am the
own. We were unable to come to an agreement.
--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
I am willing to return to my seat on the board and continue to push for
greater transparency and improved WMF / community relations. Otherwise I
plan to run in the next community (s)election.
Lila's stepping down is an important first step towards putting the WMF
back together again and I would like to thank the current board for taking
that step. We have a number of C-levels who are able to do an excellent job
as interim ED. I will post more about this soon but am just heading out to
ski.
--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
All:
Now that Wikimedia's Executive Director is leaving, a central point of
contention has been resolved. But as many have said, the "real work" of
getting back on track comes next. I have been thinking about what the next
specific steps should be, and I have some suggestions here. I present these
points very directly, in order to be concise and in the hopes of hearing
the perspectives of others. In other words -- I think this is a good list,
but I'm open to persuasion -- as I think we all are in this community. I
look forward to hearing from others who take a broad view of where this
movement and organization are, and where we need to go. And of course, much
of what I say below is inspired by previous messages from people like
Brion, Delphine, Asaf, Milos, etc. Anyhow, on to some specifics suggestions:
1. The Board of Trustees should clearly establish that the interim
Executive Director position is NOT a fast-track to the long-term position.
While it may be tempting to ease the search for a long-term ED, I think the
greatest need from an interim is that they will bring some stability and
order back to the organization. An interim shouldn't be introducing big new
ideas, and shouldn't be distracted that they might need to introduce big
new ideas once the position becomes permanent; they will have enough work
to do just getting things back on track. This point should be made clear to
interim candidates, and also to the staff and volunteer communities at
large.
2. The Board should rethink the job listing of the long-term ED. As I
argued in an op-ed in 2014,[2] the single most important quality in an ED
for our movement is an ability to deal with broad and diverse groups of
stakeholders. This is a skill that exists in the world, it is not unique to
Wikimedia; many people who have been successful in roles like running a
university, a hospital system, working for change in a broad social
movement, etc. will have developed this kind of skill. Technical
proficiency would be valuable if a good candidate happens to have it; same
with an existing familiarity with Wikimedia. But neither technical
proficiency nor Wikimedia experience should be regarded as requirements.
The former can be delegated, and the latter can be learned (by a person
with the right kind of background).
3. The Board should set up the next long-term ED for success. Any good
candidate for the ED position will research what happened the last time
around, and will have pointed questions about how they are being set up for
success. It might be tempting for some to place the entire blame for where
we are with the departing ED; but that would be neither fair nor accurate,
and any smart candidate will be able to see that from the news coverage and
other public records and any private discussions they may have. So,
specifically:
3a. Changes to Board composition: Are there remaining members of the Board
whose approach to the last job search, and/or whose engagement with the
departing ED, pointed things in the wrong direction? If so, it might be
best for them to step aside and make room for other Trustees to try a
different direction. I make this suggestion mainly because of the tiny
number of individuals who populate the Board -- not as a personal criticism
of individuals. Stepping aside need not be equated with "guilt" or other
negative judgments; but since there are very few Board seats, it might be
more important for it to forge ahead with different membership, than to
attempt to adjust its internal relationships and deliberative dynamics AND
to adjust the external perceptions (whether accurate or not) of who is
driving the train.
3b. The Board should consider changes to its hiring process. How are
candidates moved through the process? How are they evaluated? Are these
processes respectful of their time and efforts? Good candidates can be
lost, or the evaluation of them can be flawed, if (for instance) the
process is not respectful of their time and effort; if there are changes
during the process in the expectations, or in who will be making decisions
to narrow the field or making the final choice.
3c. The Board should thoroughly and publicly debrief the problems of the
last year or so. I believe this will only be possible if the Board -- which
clearly made some errors in judgment -- is not driving the process. Many
questions remain, not least of which is why Dr. James Heilman was ousted
shortly after being elected with strong community support. I believe an
external entity should be engaged, in a way that makes it clear that their
purpose is to support healing and learning generally, not to appease the
current Board. We have some experience in the movement around this; the
Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia UK, for instance, commissioned a report
by an external entity a few years ago.[3c] Some were happier than others
with that outcome, but if nothing else it establishes a precedent to
consider, and perhaps improve upon. Also, the FDC's strong critiques of the
WMF in November 15 provide a good example of what a somewhat external
entity can do; I think it is a good thing that its critiques have been
heard by WMF, and it seems there is progress on addressing the issues. So
this, too, might provide some good food for thought about how to debrief
the present collection of issues.
3d. The Board should consider changes to its structure. This has been under
much discussion elsewhere; I think these discussions are important, so I
include it here, but I don't think it's *as* important as what I've
mentioned above. Trustees, regardless of how they get to the Board, are
obligated to work in the best interests of the organization (and therefore,
as many of us believe, in the interests of the volunteer community, without
whom the organization could not survive in anything like its current form).
The problems that have gotten us to where we are result from poor
decisions, not from the wrong structure. So, while this may be a good
opportunity to make some structural changes, we should not allow that
project to distract from careful evaluation of the specific decisions. The
one change that I most hope for is that we can eliminate the Founder's Seat
in favor of another community-(s)elected seat. I think the idea of a
permanent seat, with reappointment that looks (at least from the outside)
like a mere formality, is not consistent with our movement's values. This
point is not about who occupies the seat -- if Jimmy Wales were to run for
a Community seat I think it is very likely he would win. But it would be
worthwhile for everybody involved to have a reminder that his ongoing
service to the movement is the basis of his position, rather than something
he did in the past.
4. The Wikimedia Foundation should continue its efforts to build a
strategic plan and annual plans, and should pay particular attention to the
dynamics that caused so much strife in recent months -- and whether there
are adjustments to these documents that can help avoid similar problems in
the future.
5. Those of use who care about the future direction of the Wikimedia
movement should build a long-term strategic vision *for the movement*, now
that the one produced in 2010 has expired. This process should be
independent of the organizational strategy, though strong overlap will be a
good indicator that we are moving in the right direction. As a movement, we
gained some skills in thinking about long-term strategy back in 2010, and
we should continue to exercise those muscles, and deliberate what are the
most important issues we face, and how we want to think about them. SJ
recently created a page on Meta Wiki to support these efforts.[5]
As stressful as the last few months have been, it seems clear that there is
a silver lining: we are in a good position to make positive changes. I have
been impressed -- and I have heard the same from others -- with the ability
of our community (staff members, volunteers, etc.) to keep their focus on
moving forward, in spite of the obvious stress of recent events. Most of
the communication on this list and elsewhere has been thoughtful,
diplomatic, and (even when critical) focused not on insults and derision,
but on what should happen to improve things in the future. I am very
hopeful that this ethos can survive, so that we can make some changes that
will support the continued health of the projects that bring us together. I
look forward to hearing more about the next steps from others.
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
[2]
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/03/31/wikipedia-google-internet-…
[3c] https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Review_of_Governance_of_Wikimedia_UK
[5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Future
I've put some of my thoughts about the dynamics of the WMF-Community
relationship into an essay on Meta, entitled "Why do They always get It
wrong?"
I thought I'd share it here. Hope it's useful!
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:The_Land/Why_do_They_always_do_It_wrong
(It's not specifically addressed at any of the current challenges the
movement faces, though as it happens I first started thinking about writing
this when I was making notes for conversations with various people
explaining why I thought Arnnon Geshuri would need to resign).
Regards,
Chris
Hello everyone,
Cross-posting User:Odder's message from Commons VP: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Crowdfunding_campai…
<quote>
Hi everyone, just as I did with the crowdfunding campaign for Jee,
I think it important to let you know that a crowdfunding campaign is
currently running to support one of our contributors, photographers and
administrators, Rehman; Azeez is the organiser and author of a truly fabulous video presenting Rehman's work on energy-related subjects in Sri Lanka. The campaign is being run on Indiegogo's Generosity site, and was co-ordinated at User talk:Rehman/Campaign
(in case anyone wants to comment). I'm sure that Rehman will deeply
appreciate even the tiniest of donations, if anyone is willing to
support his campaign. odder (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
<unquote>
Thank you,
User:Azeez