On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 at 13:41, Dariusz Jemielniak
<darekj(a)kozminski.edu.pl> wrote:
One of the problems we identified was that the Wikimedia Foundation CTOs (Chief
Technology Officer) are usually not staying for a long period of time
Does anyone know why this is? This sounds like a pretty critical
buried lead if the very top level of leadership isn't invested enough
to stick around. Sure they might be excellent technically, but if they
dip after a year or so, they're not really going to drive long-term
technical progress for the projects. Even if you miss out on having a
year of Captain Awesome before s/he leaves for SpaceX or whatever,
would it be better to have 5 years or more of someone who can
completely immerse themselves in the technology involved and
understand the issues end-to-end and inside-out (or perhaps better
still: someone who _already_ knows it)?
Wikimedia is different to other tech darlings, because it is,
hopefully, not trying to drum up valuations for a quick and lucrative
exit, so I'm not sure why cycling C-level executives like there's an
IPO around the corner and you need to look dynamic and profitable is
helpful.
It was also important that the new CEO (Chief
Executive Officer) would like to have a trustee with relevant experience and leadership in
the tech world (as would the Board itself), but also with the understanding and experience
of how technology and communities can work together, so, as you said, Reddit experience is
very relevant.
I'd be interested to know the perspective coming from Reddit, as it
seems there have been some serious issues there over the years. Since
I generally avoid Reddit, I'm not aware of them in excruciating
detail, other than that being partly why I do avoid Reddit in the
first place. Perhaps an (ex-)insider will be well placed to help avoid
things like:
* Some Reddit communities being famously toxic, and even bordering on
illegal[1]]
* Reddit communities being siloed from each other, leading to "echo
chambers" and general animosity
* Misinformation of various sorts is rife (Covid threw this into sharp
relief with specific demonstrable cases, but it's not new), not to
mention the crypto-scams
* Conflict between "the mods" and "the users" (and infighting between
mods), not to mention secretive modding and practises like
auto-shadowbanning
* Distrust between "the community/ies" and the company itself
* The Reddit "product" has come out with some very hostile un-features:
** Forcing login to read most of it in the first place on a mobile
** Top-down redesign which was impressively unpopular, even for a
website redesign[2], especially because they then crippled the mobile
site anyway with app-nags and full-on browser-blocks
** Advertising is pervasive and dishonestly disguised as content (if
you use the app, so I suppose that's why they force you into it when
they can)
** Scads of other dark patterns[3][4]
Not all will translate to Wikimedia projects, due to the open nature
and different goals. Nevertheless, I think there are some parallels to
be drawn. Hopefully Luis will be well positioned to have insight on
how to avoid such issues.
Cheers,
--IL
[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversial_Reddit_communities
[2] This guarantees drama, as everyone knows, no matter how amazing
the new thing is
[3]
https://ognjen.io/reddits-disrespectful-design/
[4] Interestingly, Reddit does actually manage to have a correct
cookies dialog, unlike
novi.com which would probably be outright
illegal in the EU since you can't decline ad/tracking cookies