"Wikia has been doing intensive work on the usability front and making the code available to public, so I look forward to collaborating with the Wikia technical and product teams to exchange ideas and learn from their work."
There is a certain amount of logic in working with one of the biggest non-WMF MediaWiki users on this project.
Bingo.
-- brion
++++++++++++
It would appear that nobody is concerned about giving the landlord a leg up on ITS for-profit competitors by supplying them in particular with a ready feed of intellectual capital in the form of the friendly Stanton-funded developers? Lucky for Wikia, Inc.! I mean, assume good faith all you want, but if I were a biotech firm trying to develop a synthetic blood plasma, boy would I love to have the Red Cross' top research scientists parked in my meeting rooms every day. And PAYING me for the privilege, to boot? That's just gravy.
It sounds to me that the (reasonable) criteria that ranked proximity to WMF and cognate activities as high as, or higher than, monthly rental rate rather "wired" this contract to Wikia, Inc. from the get-go. Kudos for putting on the dutiful show of obtaining 12 separate bids, but the outside world is seeing this for what it is -- a show of equanimity to gloss over a pre-determined outcome.
As for Master Bimmler's concerns about the "fear" imposed by mention of the media watching, it's only natural for someone who has recently and historically been censored for asking pertinent questions, to want some sort of "back up" to assure him he is not living in a digital version of a Kafkaesque nightmare. If your team would stop censoring "WP:BADTHOUGHTS", maybe there wouldn't be such a rush to the media?
Gregory Kohs
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Gregory Kohs thekohser@gmail.com wrote:
It would appear that nobody is concerned about giving the landlord a leg up on ITS for-profit competitors by supplying them in particular with a ready feed of intellectual capital in the form of the friendly Stanton-funded developers?
All the changes are going to be open-source, and the development process will be open. I can't see why you would object to Wikimedia collaborating with one of the largest end-users of MediaWiki on improving the software.
I can't see what the claimed conflict of interest is, either. Did anyone involved in the decision, from Wikimedia's side, have any connections to Wikia? So far both Brion Vibber and Ting Chen have said that it was the best offer, and neither of them is or ever has been affiliated with Wikia in any way to my knowledge.
If there's no conflict of interest, then what grounds are there for suggesting any wrongdoing? If the deal is good for Wikia, why should Wikimedia care one way or the other, if it was the best offer from their perspective? So good for Wikia, they offered the best terms and might get better access because of it.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Gregory Kohs thekohser@gmail.com wrote:
It would appear that nobody is concerned about giving the landlord a leg up on ITS for-profit competitors by supplying them in particular with a ready feed of intellectual capital in the form of the friendly Stanton-funded developers? Lucky for Wikia, Inc.! I mean, assume good faith all you want, but if I were a biotech firm trying to develop a synthetic blood plasma, boy would I love to have the Red Cross' top research scientists parked in my meeting rooms every day. And PAYING me for the privilege, to boot? That's just gravy.
Wikia didn't make the decision, the WMF did. The WMF decided to accept Wikia's bid because of the benefits that the deal brought to the WMF. The fact that Wikia also happens to benefit from the arrangement (while, at the same time, receiving the lowest financial compensation of any of the bidders), is just a nice coincidence for them.
You're ignoring the fact that this arrangement is the best deal for the WMF, and is the most efficient and most responsible use of it's funds. Of course, If the WMF instead used their money in a less responsible manner by going with a higher bidding landlord, you'd find fault with that too, wouldn't you Greg?
It sounds to me that the (reasonable) criteria that ranked proximity to WMF and cognate activities as high as, or higher than, monthly rental rate rather "wired" this contract to Wikia, Inc. from the get-go. Kudos for putting on the dutiful show of obtaining 12 separate bids, but the outside world is seeing this for what it is -- a show of equanimity to gloss over a pre-determined outcome.
Let's recap: Wikia submitted the LOWEST bid. The deal with Wikia is saving the WMF money, and bringing the WMF additional benefits as well. I don't mind people crying wolf when a real misdeed has been committed, but no such misdeed has occured here. The WMF solicited bids, there were two bids that tied for lowest price, and the WMF selected the option that brought the most value with it. This is good business and responsible use of tax-advantaged dollars.
As for Master Bimmler's concerns about the "fear" imposed by mention of the media watching, it's only natural for someone who has recently and historically been censored for asking pertinent questions, to want some sort of "back up" to assure him he is not living in a digital version of a Kafkaesque nightmare. If your team would stop censoring "WP:BADTHOUGHTS", maybe there wouldn't be such a rush to the media?
So all this time it's been our fault that we get trolled? Shame on the victim!
--Andrew Whitworth
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 10:14 PM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
As for Master Bimmler's concerns about the "fear" imposed by mention of the media watching, it's only natural for someone who has recently and historically been censored for asking pertinent questions, to want some sort of "back up" to assure him he is not living in a digital version of a Kafkaesque nightmare. If your team would stop censoring "WP:BADTHOUGHTS", maybe there wouldn't be such a rush to the media?
So all this time it's been our fault that we get trolled? Shame on the victim!
Oh, that's fine. I mean, the journalists flooding me with requests to give a statement about the censorship on Wikimedia lists are a somewhat annoying pack, but then I knew this when I signed up for the job. I'll pass on the compliments to "my team" (blimey, I forgot the end-of-year-performance-assessments).
About Kafka, I can assure you that we will give you notice of the hearing a bit earlier than they did there. And I'm more into stately court rooms, I am not so fond of suburbian blocks.
Thanks, Michael
Mr Kohs;
You are beating on a dead horse. Mr. Vibber has brought forth a list of perfectly valid reasons why this space was taken. LET ME REITERATE THE COST OF REWIRING/RECONFIGURING SPACE IN CALIFORNIA. Why should a taco stand use a dry cleaning shop when it can get another taco shop?
________________________________ From: Gregory Kohs thekohser@gmail.com To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 12:31:33 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikia leasing office space to WMF
"Wikia has been doing intensive work on the usability front and making the code available to public, so I look forward to collaborating with the Wikia technical and product teams to exchange ideas and learn from their work."
There is a certain amount of logic in working with one of the biggest non-WMF MediaWiki users on this project.
Bingo.
-- brion
++++++++++++
It would appear that nobody is concerned about giving the landlord a leg up on ITS for-profit competitors by supplying them in particular with a ready feed of intellectual capital in the form of the friendly Stanton-funded developers? Lucky for Wikia, Inc.! I mean, assume good faith all you want, but if I were a biotech firm trying to develop a synthetic blood plasma, boy would I love to have the Red Cross' top research scientists parked in my meeting rooms every day. And PAYING me for the privilege, to boot? That's just gravy.
It sounds to me that the (reasonable) criteria that ranked proximity to WMF and cognate activities as high as, or higher than, monthly rental rate rather "wired" this contract to Wikia, Inc. from the get-go. Kudos for putting on the dutiful show of obtaining 12 separate bids, but the outside world is seeing this for what it is -- a show of equanimity to gloss over a pre-determined outcome.
As for Master Bimmler's concerns about the "fear" imposed by mention of the media watching, it's only natural for someone who has recently and historically been censored for asking pertinent questions, to want some sort of "back up" to assure him he is not living in a digital version of a Kafkaesque nightmare. If your team would stop censoring "WP:BADTHOUGHTS", maybe there wouldn't be such a rush to the media?
Gregory Kohs
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
You are beating on a dead horse. Mr. Vibber has brought forth a list of perfectly valid reasons why this space was taken. LET ME REITERATE THE COST OF REWIRING/RECONFIGURING SPACE IN CALIFORNIA. Why should a taco stand use a dry cleaning shop when it can get another taco shop?
What would people say if Coke and Pepsi had an agreement to share bottling plants? That might make perfect business sense, but rumours of a merger would be rampant. The food court area of a shopping mall would not have two taco stands because each would see the other as unfair competition. Given the kinds of chemicals used in dry cleaning, I'm sure that health authorities would have some say if someone tried to mix those two kinds of establishments.
Conflict of interest and the appearance of conflict of interest are very different beasts. The former is easily overcome by objective criteria and standards, as has been done in the present case. The latter is what sets tongues to wagging, most often the tongues of the usual suspects. Those of us who have a passing familiarity with the persons involved soon recognize when Chicken Little is crying "wolf" again. Once the alarm is raised merely being alone in the same room with the door closed is enough to condemn Bill and Monica; all the protestations of innocence will not overcome the closed door.
When the alarm is raised by the usual suspects there are as many opposing suspects prone to unflattering comments about those who raised the alarm. The danger is that when there is a real beast at the door it will be too late when it is finally seen for what it is. That's what makes appearances so insidious.
Ec
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org