Sorry, let me back peddle on that sentence, Todd is correct. Dropping that
paragraph from my email does not stop the issue of perceived conflict of
interest and Wikia from being a valid concern worth open discussion.
On 28 Feb 2016 20:23, "Fæ" <faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Todd, putting the caveats before the main thrust of
email, is a strange way of reading it. I read the email the obvious
way, and I encourage others to read the original for themselves,
rather than relying on cherry-picked quotes towards the end.
On 28 February 2016 at 20:17, Todd Allen <toddmallen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Your second citation didn't at all match what I recall Jimmy saying on
subject, so I went and read it. Even the specific
email you cite is not,
any way, "...arguing the case against
introducing charges for commercial reusers of WMF services...". Some
from the email you cited:
"...my general view is 100% in agreement with him on the core issue -
commercial re-users are getting enormous value
from our work, they should
be paying for the engineering resources required for their support."
"...I come down firmly on the side of being careful about falling into a
trap of doing lots of expensive work for commercial re-users without
He does say that there would be some caveats and it would be something to
step lightly on, but I don't think it could be any clearer that he does
want commercial reusers to pay for WMF services in at least some cases.
I'm all for discussion and identification of potential conflicts of
interest. But if you're going to accuse someone of that, you really do
to make sure you've got your facts straight.
Misrepresenting someone, or
some things they said, will not get anyone to take you seriously.
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Jimmy Wales has never declared a conflict of interest or loyalty when
> acting as a WMF trustee. He is co-founder of Wikia Inc, set up in
> 2004, a commercial company that often benefits from new MediaWiki
> developments, and clearly he benefits financially from resulting
> profitability of Wikia. The original vision for Wikia was as a
> "Google-killer" open search engine, so it would seem highly prudent
> for Jimmy to have declared a conflict of interest and avoided WMF
> board discussions and votes in relation to new development projects
> around open Knowledge Engines / Search Engines.
> I welcome some feedback as to whether the general perception of
> Wikimedians is that WMF trustees should be seen to do more to declare
> and manage their potential conflicts of interest, and whether Jimmy
> Wales is perceived to have a conflict of loyalties when steering the
> WMF board member in areas which overlap with Wikia Inc.'s marketing
> strategy, and that they might otherwise fund commercially.
> With regard to his potential conflict of loyalties when serving as a
> voting unelected trustee on the WMF board, Jimmy Wales has stated:
> "I did not have any conflict of loyalties during that process.
> Spending a reasonable portion of our IT budget on an ambitious project
> to improve search and discovery, and to conduct research and community
> consultation on that, is a great idea for Wikipedia and for the
> broader Wikimedia movement and I strongly support it."
> Most recently Jimmy Wales has been arguing the case against
> introducing charges for commercial reusers of WMF services, with an
> obvious reuser of MediaWiki code improvements and WMF supported open
> project data being Wikia Inc.
> There is no record in the WMF board minutes for 2015 of Jimmy Wales
> having ever declared a conflict of interest or loyalty for Wikia Inc
> or for any other reason, nor of any other trustee doing so. In order
> to comply with standard company law, these are expected on the
> standing agenda for board meetings, and it is worrying for a
> Foundation with control of $100m assets to never have a trustee or
> director ever declare an interest as a reason to abstain from a vote
> or discussion.
> Jimmy does not appear to see there may be a public perception of
> conflict of interest or loyalties when he is involved in steering
> the WMF strategy for prioritizing new developments that are likely to
> benefit Wikia Inc. The Knowledge Engine / Search Engine project was
> discussed by the board during 2015 and Jimmy has been a public
> advocate of the project since it was publicly leaked. The overlap of
> what is thought to have been the original proposal to the Knight
> Foundation with Jimmy Wales' original vision for wikia.com
> "Search Wikia", described as a "Google-killer search engine", is
> obvious concern. Jimmy Wales: "Obsession: Currently, it’s wikia.com
> It is meant to take on Google by creating a search engine where all
> the editorial decisions are made by the general public and all the
> software is open."
> Nine years later Jimmy is promoting the same ideas but with the WMF
> investing charitable donated funds to support a development that will
> benefit Wikia, rather than it being commercially funded while using
> much of the same rhetoric, such as the importance of transparency.
> 4. Search Wikia interview
> 5. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/magazine/18wwln-domains-t.html
> 6. Company directors and trustees are expected to declare both
> "conflicts of interest", normally interpreted as having a direct or
> indirect financial interest, and "conflicts of loyalty" where their
> non-financial interests may be seen to potentially influence their
> judgement as a board member. There may be no demonstrable conflict for
> this to be an issue, it only needs to be potentially be seen to be an
> issue by others, in order to require a declaration.
> 7. "Take advantage of Wikia's custom research solutions to achieve
> campaign objectives, including brand lift studies, target audience
> insights, and more!", "Reach the right audience with the right message
> using Wikia's multitude of targeting opportunities, including
> demographic, psychographic, geographic, contextual, genre, devices,
> conquesting, and more!" http://www.wikia.com/mediakit