Just copying part of Andreas's comment from another thread:
"...can the board now please come to a decision on whether the Knight Foundation grant letter and grant application documents will be posted on Meta, and if not, provide an explanation to the community why they cannot be made public?
"To recap, Jimmy Wales said over two weeks ago on his talk page[1] that in his opinion the documentation should be posted on Meta, to clear the air around this issue. However, nothing appears to have happened since then."
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&diff=...
Anthony Cole
Thanks, Anthony. As can be seen from the diff, the discussion at the time went like this:
---o0o---
Given the history, but also the absolute bungling mess and total lack of professionalism that the board has shown since these events, you will find, Jimbo, that there is a significant proportion of the people who voted for James who are unwilling to believe a single word of what the board continues to try not to say. This comes on top of a long list of disasters that others have summarized above. As for your claim to be a bigger champion for transparency, please back it up with the details on the restricted grant from the Knight foundation immediately. *Talk is cheap, actions speak volumes.* MLauba (Talk) 18:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
What sort of details do you want? I'll have to talk to others to make sure there are no contractural reasons not to do so, but in my opinion the grant letter should be published on meta. *The Knight Grant is a red herring here, so it would be best to clear the air around that completely as soon as possible*.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
---o0o---
I have seen Jimmy Wales make statements like this many times, as a sort of exercise in crowd control. It calms frayed tempers.
It introduces some reasonable-sounding explanation why people can't have what they demand right now, along with a strongly worded, almost over-the-top assurance that not only are they right to demand it, but that Jimmy Wales actually wants the very same thing himself.
And then everybody goes away, and nothing happens.
So, what does it actually mean when Jimmy Wales says something like this to the community in response to criticism?
Do people think this is good governance, secretly admire the Machiavellian chutzpah, or what?
Andreas
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 9:53 PM, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com wrote:
Just copying part of Andreas's comment from another thread:
"...can the board now please come to a decision on whether the Knight Foundation grant letter and grant application documents will be posted on Meta, and if not, provide an explanation to the community why they cannot be made public?
"To recap, Jimmy Wales said over two weeks ago on his talk page[1] that in his opinion the documentation should be posted on Meta, to clear the air around this issue. However, nothing appears to have happened since then."
[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&diff=...
Anthony Cole _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 28 January 2016 at 16:12, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote: ...
So, what does it actually mean when Jimmy Wales says something like this to the community in response to criticism?
Do people think this is good governance, secretly admire the Machiavellian chutzpah, or what?
Jimmy Wales has defended his use of *"Utter fucking bullshit"* when abusing James Heilman.[1][2] In a hostile environment where "founders rights" appear to mean that Wales can push his colleagues around like a childish bully, in a way that anyone else would have their account blocked from Wikimedia projects, we cannot expect to hold this WMF trustee to account for their actions as we cannot even properly hold him to account against the WMF terms of use.
In other charitable organisations, abusing volunteers or employees with variations of "fuck" and being incapable of recognising that is a problem, would make you entirely unsuitable to be a trustee. It's a shame that the WMF board have no higher standards for civility or leadership than this. It's an all time low.
Links: 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=70... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=70...
Fae
Since Jimmy is now also on the board for 'The Guardian', maybe its about time he stepped down from the WMF board? And regarding James, it honestly no longer matters why he was 'fired', its obvious the board is filling up its stocks in google employees (lol) and it won't likely change even after the VoNC on Geshuri and I think we all can expect more 'ridiculous' hirings in the future as well..
Regarding the Knight grant application/letter, the question isn't why the community needs a reason to see the application/letter, the question is why the community cannot....it again goes back to the old question..who is serving who?
On 1/29/16, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 January 2016 at 16:12, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote: ...
So, what does it actually mean when Jimmy Wales says something like this to the community in response to criticism?
Do people think this is good governance, secretly admire the Machiavellian chutzpah, or what?
Jimmy Wales has defended his use of *"Utter fucking bullshit"* when abusing James Heilman.[1][2] In a hostile environment where "founders rights" appear to mean that Wales can push his colleagues around like a childish bully, in a way that anyone else would have their account blocked from Wikimedia projects, we cannot expect to hold this WMF trustee to account for their actions as we cannot even properly hold him to account against the WMF terms of use.
In other charitable organisations, abusing volunteers or employees with variations of "fuck" and being incapable of recognising that is a problem, would make you entirely unsuitable to be a trustee. It's a shame that the WMF board have no higher standards for civility or leadership than this. It's an all time low.
Links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=70... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=70...
Fae
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
My guess is that the first step here is to identify who would have access to the Knight Foundation grant application and grant offer paperwork. It's not immediately clear to me who to even ask about this.
I'm copying Wes Moran and Katherine Maher of the Wikimedia Foundation on this reply, as he sent the initial wikimedia-l announcement e-mail about this grant and she is listed as the contact in the press release: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:Permalink/104437.
Wes and Katherine: do you know what steps need to be taken in order to release the documents surrounding this Knight Foundation grant? Or do you know who at the Wikimedia Foundation would be the best/most appropriate contact to figure this out? Geoff and the legal team? One of the grants-related staff such as Janice? Any help would be appreciated!
MZMcBride
MZMcBride wrote:
Wes and Katherine: do you know what steps need to be taken in order to release the documents surrounding this Knight Foundation grant? Or do you know who at the Wikimedia Foundation would be the best/most appropriate contact to figure this out? Geoff and the legal team? One of the grants-related staff such as Janice? Any help would be appreciated!
Remembering that similar questions about grant agreements have come previously, I just dug through my e-mail archives and found a 2011 e-mail from Lisa Gruwell. In the e-mail, she's very supportive of the idea of putting grants documents on Meta-Wiki. Copying her as well on this thread as she's still working with the Wikimedia Foundation, though it's not clear to me whether her role has shifted to other focuses.
In case anyone is curious, here is Sue's response from October 2011: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2011-October/116339.html
MZMcBride
MZMcBride, that is an *excellent* find -- I had forgotten that it was articulated as a formal policy. I have now updated my blog post on the topic with a link to that email: http://wikistrategies.net/grant-transparency/
Perhaps Lisa can tell us whether that policy was ever rescinded?
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 5:24 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
MZMcBride wrote:
Wes and Katherine: do you know what steps need to be taken in order to release the documents surrounding this Knight Foundation grant? Or do you know who at the Wikimedia Foundation would be the best/most appropriate contact to figure this out? Geoff and the legal team? One of the grants-related staff such as Janice? Any help would be appreciated!
Remembering that similar questions about grant agreements have come previously, I just dug through my e-mail archives and found a 2011 e-mail from Lisa Gruwell. In the e-mail, she's very supportive of the idea of putting grants documents on Meta-Wiki. Copying her as well on this thread as she's still working with the Wikimedia Foundation, though it's not clear to me whether her role has shifted to other focuses.
In case anyone is curious, here is Sue's response from October 2011: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2011-October/116339.html
MZMcBride
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi Anthony,
I know this request was for the Board, but I took time to explain as much as I could about the context of this grant and the work it funds as well as to answer as many questions as possible that I have seen. I realize many people a curious about what it actually funds, so you will find the statement of work cut and pasted there.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)#Knowledge_Engin... https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fmeta.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FUser_talk%3ALilaTretikov_%28WMF%29%23Knowledge_Engine_grant&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHbv_CPFd5d3dh7WKET5YlNSZvHdA
Hope this answers some of your questions, Lila
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com wrote:
Just copying part of Andreas's comment from another thread:
"...can the board now please come to a decision on whether the Knight Foundation grant letter and grant application documents will be posted on Meta, and if not, provide an explanation to the community why they cannot be made public?
"To recap, Jimmy Wales said over two weeks ago on his talk page[1] that in his opinion the documentation should be posted on Meta, to clear the air around this issue. However, nothing appears to have happened since then."
[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&diff=...
Anthony Cole _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Lila, thank you for posting this. I have no technical background, so I only have a limited understanding of how the Discovery project works. But as an editor and reader I've been frustrated by the limitations of Wikipedia search. Even things that I know are there, because I added them myself, are regularly not returned. Sometimes for reasons I can't fathom; sometimes because I've mistyped something.
It's the same with Siri on iPhone. I ask it something that I know is on Wikipedia and it can't seem to find it. Or it will return a link to articles in which certain terms appear. But people don't want to have to look at whole articles.
We have this enormous and wonderful amount of knowledge to some extent trapped inside Wikipedia. How do we unlock it? How do we teach computers how to find and deliver it? In future, could Wikipedia reply to questions on people's phones, instead of Siri?
This kind of research sounds very exciting, and the Foundation is well-placed to do it.
Sarah
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Lila Tretikov lila@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Anthony,
I know this request was for the Board, but I took time to explain as much as I could about the context of this grant and the work it funds as well as to answer as many questions as possible that I have seen. I realize many people a curious about what it actually funds, so you will find the statement of work cut and pasted there.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)#Knowledge_Engin... < https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fmeta.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FUser_...
Hope this answers some of your questions, Lila
Thank you, Sarah for an excellent question. Sometimes I compare Wikimedia with an iceberg, only a small portion is visible.
When we started investigating this problem we found out that nearly 30% of searches on Wikipedia return no results at all. That motivated us to dig deeper.
Since then we've made our first improvements (by about 1 million searches a day) , but we have a very long way to go...especially searching across sites. Commons for example is a very tough one that we will need to help one day.
I encourage you to read through, I tried to explain our thinking the best I could, but I can always use help :)
Lila
sent from mobile. please excuse typos. On Jan 29, 2016 3:50 PM, "SarahSV" sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Lila, thank you for posting this. I have no technical background, so I only have a limited understanding of how the Discovery project works. But as an editor and reader I've been frustrated by the limitations of Wikipedia search. Even things that I know are there, because I added them myself, are regularly not returned. Sometimes for reasons I can't fathom; sometimes because I've mistyped something.
It's the same with Siri on iPhone. I ask it something that I know is on Wikipedia and it can't seem to find it. Or it will return a link to articles in which certain terms appear. But people don't want to have to look at whole articles.
We have this enormous and wonderful amount of knowledge to some extent trapped inside Wikipedia. How do we unlock it? How do we teach computers how to find and deliver it? In future, could Wikipedia reply to questions on people's phones, instead of Siri?
This kind of research sounds very exciting, and the Foundation is well-placed to do it.
Sarah
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Lila Tretikov lila@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Anthony,
I know this request was for the Board, but I took time to explain as much as I could about the context of this grant and the work it funds as well
as
to answer as many questions as possible that I have seen. I realize many people a curious about what it actually funds, so you will find the statement of work cut and pasted there.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)#Knowledge_Engin...
<
https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fmeta.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FUser_...
Hope this answers some of your questions, Lila
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Thank you Lila. That's very clear, and I think it's a worthwhile project, exactly in line with our shared vision.
Anthony Cole
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 8:05 AM, Lila Tretikov lila@wikimedia.org wrote:
Thank you, Sarah for an excellent question. Sometimes I compare Wikimedia with an iceberg, only a small portion is visible.
When we started investigating this problem we found out that nearly 30% of searches on Wikipedia return no results at all. That motivated us to dig deeper.
Since then we've made our first improvements (by about 1 million searches a day) , but we have a very long way to go...especially searching across sites. Commons for example is a very tough one that we will need to help one day.
I encourage you to read through, I tried to explain our thinking the best I could, but I can always use help :)
Lila
sent from mobile. please excuse typos. On Jan 29, 2016 3:50 PM, "SarahSV" sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Lila, thank you for posting this. I have no technical background, so I
only
have a limited understanding of how the Discovery project works. But as
an
editor and reader I've been frustrated by the limitations of Wikipedia search. Even things that I know are there, because I added them myself,
are
regularly not returned. Sometimes for reasons I can't fathom; sometimes because I've mistyped something.
It's the same with Siri on iPhone. I ask it something that I know is on Wikipedia and it can't seem to find it. Or it will return a link to articles in which certain terms appear. But people don't want to have to look at whole articles.
We have this enormous and wonderful amount of knowledge to some extent trapped inside Wikipedia. How do we unlock it? How do we teach computers how to find and deliver it? In future, could Wikipedia reply to questions on people's phones, instead of Siri?
This kind of research sounds very exciting, and the Foundation is well-placed to do it.
Sarah
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Lila Tretikov lila@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hi Anthony,
I know this request was for the Board, but I took time to explain as
much
as I could about the context of this grant and the work it funds as
well
as
to answer as many questions as possible that I have seen. I realize
many
people a curious about what it actually funds, so you will find the statement of work cut and pasted there.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)#Knowledge_Engin...
<
https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fmeta.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FUser_...
Hope this answers some of your questions, Lila
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi Several WIkipedias extended their search with functionality by Magnus that provides them info from Wikidata. It is why you find results from any Wikipedia on the Tamil Wikipedia for one.
There is no reason why we cannot do this everywhere. Thanks, GerardM
On 30 January 2016 at 00:50, SarahSV sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Lila, thank you for posting this. I have no technical background, so I only have a limited understanding of how the Discovery project works. But as an editor and reader I've been frustrated by the limitations of Wikipedia search. Even things that I know are there, because I added them myself, are regularly not returned. Sometimes for reasons I can't fathom; sometimes because I've mistyped something.
It's the same with Siri on iPhone. I ask it something that I know is on Wikipedia and it can't seem to find it. Or it will return a link to articles in which certain terms appear. But people don't want to have to look at whole articles.
We have this enormous and wonderful amount of knowledge to some extent trapped inside Wikipedia. How do we unlock it? How do we teach computers how to find and deliver it? In future, could Wikipedia reply to questions on people's phones, instead of Siri?
This kind of research sounds very exciting, and the Foundation is well-placed to do it.
Sarah
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Lila Tretikov lila@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Anthony,
I know this request was for the Board, but I took time to explain as much as I could about the context of this grant and the work it funds as well
as
to answer as many questions as possible that I have seen. I realize many people a curious about what it actually funds, so you will find the statement of work cut and pasted there.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)#Knowledge_Engin...
<
https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fmeta.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FUser_...
Hope this answers some of your questions, Lila
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Lila Tretikov wrote:
I know this request was for the Board, but I took time to explain as much as I could about the context of this grant and the work it funds as well as to answer as many questions as possible that I have seen. I realize many people a curious about what it actually funds, so you will find the statement of work cut and pasted there.
Thank you for this post, Lila. It provides a lot of helpful context and understanding surrounding the Knight Foundation's recent restricted grant. One part of this arrangement still confuses me. In the linked post, you write, "With this grant we brought the idea to the funder and they supported our work with this grant."
Why ask for and take the money? The Wikimedia Foundation can raise $250,000 in a few days (maybe hours) by placing ads on a few large Wikipedias soliciting donations. Why take on a restricted grant, with its necessary reporting overhead and other administrative costs?
You also write: --- Why should the community and staff support this decision of our board and leadership?
I would hope that for staff, the answer to this question is clear. ---
This is very aggressive. I'm not sure this type of attitude is aligned with an idealistic, non-profit educational organization.
For the general issue, you point out that the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees is required to approve large (over $100,000) restricted grants. I think the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees (copied) should modify its acceptance requirements to mandate that large restricted grants have their grant agreements and other related paperwork publicly published. This would not apply retroactively. Publishing the grant paperwork fits in well well with our transparency principles and values.
For the specific issue, who can be contacted at the Knight Foundation to ask about publishing the grant paperwork? Presumably the Knight Foundation and the Wikimedia Foundation, having just partnered, share values. Is the Knight Foundation okay with the full grant agreement being published?
MZMcBride
Hi Lila, et al
I have some one question for you.
I am having a very hard time wrapping my head around how the grant information you posted lead to WMF BoT voting James Heilman of the board in a vote of no-confidence.
Something just doesn't add up here.
Any chance you can publish the actual grant application from the WMF to the Knight Foundation?
I am guessing that the devil will be in those details; details which thus far the WMF has kept completely under wraps.
I look forward to you releasing the grant application at your earliest convenience.
Warm regards,
Ruslan Takayev
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 7:27 AM, Lila Tretikov lila@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Anthony,
I know this request was for the Board, but I took time to explain as much as I could about the context of this grant and the work it funds as well as to answer as many questions as possible that I have seen. I realize many people a curious about what it actually funds, so you will find the statement of work cut and pasted there.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)#Knowledge_Engin... < https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fmeta.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FUser_...
Hope this answers some of your questions, Lila
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com wrote:
Just copying part of Andreas's comment from another thread:
"...can the board now please come to a decision on whether the Knight Foundation grant letter and grant application documents will be posted on Meta, and if not, provide an explanation to the community why they cannot be made public?
"To recap, Jimmy Wales said over two weeks ago on his talk page[1] that
in
his opinion the documentation should be posted on Meta, to clear the air around this issue. However, nothing appears to have happened since then."
[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&diff=...
Anthony Cole _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Lila Tretikov Wikimedia Foundation
*“Be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid.”* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I have some one question for you.
I am having a very hard time wrapping my head around how the grant information you posted lead to WMF BoT voting James Heilman of the board in a vote of no-confidence.
Ruslan - what makes you think the two issues are connected?
I have heard nothing from the WMF that suggests that they are.
A few other people are trying to draw some link between the two, but the burden of proof is on them not on Lila....
Regards,
Chris
Chris, et al
Ruslan - what makes you think the two issues are connected?
James was pushing for greater transparency on the BoT. This is the one major issue that arose during James on the board that wasn't transparent at the time.
You can put 2 + 2 together from that.
I have heard nothing from the WMF that suggests that they are.
We've heard sound bytes, but we haven't heard anything of substance from the BoT on the issue of why James was ushered off the Board.
A few other people are trying to draw some link between the two, but the burden of proof is on them not on Lila....
Lila could easily shut down these lines of questioning by publishing the grant application, as was originally requested by others.
Warm regards,
Ruslan Takayev
On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 6:41 AM, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
I have some one question for you.
I am having a very hard time wrapping my head around how the grant information you posted lead to WMF BoT voting James Heilman of the board
in
a vote of no-confidence.
Ruslan - what makes you think the two issues are connected?
I have heard nothing from the WMF that suggests that they are.
A few other people are trying to draw some link between the two, but the burden of proof is on them not on Lila....
Regards,
Chris _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 07/02/16 09:41, Chris Keating wrote:
I have some one question for you.
I am having a very hard time wrapping my head around how the grant information you posted lead to WMF BoT voting James Heilman of the board in a vote of no-confidence.
Ruslan - what makes you think the two issues are connected?
I have heard nothing from the WMF that suggests that they are.
A few other people are trying to draw some link between the two, but the burden of proof is on them not on Lila....
Maybe you missed this:
In which James Heilman, by way of explaining why he was removed from the board, complains of a lack of transparency, links to the announcement of the Knight Foundation grant, and comments "many details however are still missing."
-- Tim Starling
More on this from James Heilman and others in the current Signpost issue.
From the editors: Help wanted
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/From_th...
In focus: The Knight Foundation grant: a timeline and an email to the board http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/In_focu...
Op-ed: So, what’s a knowledge engine anyway? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/Op-ed
Special report: Board chair and new trustee speak with the ''Signpost'' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/Special...
Traffic report: Bowled http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/Traffic...
News and notes: Harassment survey 2015; Luis Villa to leave WMF; knowledge engine background http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/News_an...
Featured content: This week's featured content http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/Feature...
Arbitration report: Catching up on arbitration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/Arbitra...
Single page view http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single/2016-02-03
PDF version http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03
https://www.facebook.com/wikisignpost / https://twitter.com/wikisignpost -- Wikipedia Signpost Staff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost
Andreas
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 6:17 AM, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 07/02/16 09:41, Chris Keating wrote:
I have some one question for you.
I am having a very hard time wrapping my head around how the grant information you posted lead to WMF BoT voting James Heilman of the
board in
a vote of no-confidence.
Ruslan - what makes you think the two issues are connected?
I have heard nothing from the WMF that suggests that they are.
A few other people are trying to draw some link between the two, but the burden of proof is on them not on Lila....
Maybe you missed this:
< https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/...
In which James Heilman, by way of explaining why he was removed from the board, complains of a lack of transparency, links to the announcement of the Knight Foundation grant, and comments "many details however are still missing."
-- Tim Starling
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Andreas, et al
James' now-released email is quite damning in many aspects.
I am very concerned that James was essentially bullied by way of threat into voting in the affirmative by other members of the BoT. James, would you care to name those Trustees who did this? Given the recent Harassment Survey results, it should be clear that there is NO room for harassment on WMF projects, and those who threatened/bullied you should stand down immediately.
Lila also has a lot to answer for in not making the BoT aware of what the Knight Foundation grant was all about beforehand. Lila, any chance you can explain why?
I can feel a further rift and a vote of no confidence in both the BoT and WMF management coming on.
Warm regards,
Ruslan Takayev
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 4:47 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
More on this from James Heilman and others in the current Signpost issue.
From the editors: Help wanted
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/From_th...
In focus: The Knight Foundation grant: a timeline and an email to the board
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/In_focu...
Op-ed: So, what’s a knowledge engine anyway? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/Op-ed
Special report: Board chair and new trustee speak with the ''Signpost''
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/Special...
Traffic report: Bowled
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/Traffic...
News and notes: Harassment survey 2015; Luis Villa to leave WMF; knowledge engine background
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/News_an...
Featured content: This week's featured content
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/Feature...
Arbitration report: Catching up on arbitration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/Arbitra...
Single page view http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single/2016-02-03
PDF version http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03
https://www.facebook.com/wikisignpost / https://twitter.com/wikisignpost
Wikipedia Signpost Staff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost
Andreas
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 6:17 AM, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 07/02/16 09:41, Chris Keating wrote:
I have some one question for you.
I am having a very hard time wrapping my head around how the grant information you posted lead to WMF BoT voting James Heilman of the
board in
a vote of no-confidence.
Ruslan - what makes you think the two issues are connected?
I have heard nothing from the WMF that suggests that they are.
A few other people are trying to draw some link between the two, but
the
burden of proof is on them not on Lila....
Maybe you missed this:
<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/...
In which James Heilman, by way of explaining why he was removed from the board, complains of a lack of transparency, links to the announcement of the Knight Foundation grant, and comments "many details however are still missing."
-- Tim Starling
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
My impression of this whole situation with the Knight Foundation is that the WMF's strong tendency toward closed-door and closed-loop processes are hurting WMF more than helping it. If WMF had been transparent with the community about this situation in the first place and a consultation with the community had happened as negotiations were underway with Knight, I am wondering if a mutually agreeable solution could have been created at that time. Now we're in the midst of a lot of skepticism, suspicion, and political difficulties.
Perhaps after the experiences of the past few months WMF governance will re-align itself with the value of openness.
Hope springs eternal,
Pine
Hi All-
The funder has agreed to share the Knowledge Engine grant agreement. Here are the links to that document and other relevant communication about the Discovery team's work:
1) Knowledge Engine Grant Agreement https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:Knowledge_engine_grant_agreement.pdf 2) Statement from Lila on her talk page and discussion https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)#Knowledge_Engine_grant 3) Discovery FAQ https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Discovery/FAQ
Thank you, Lisa Gruwell
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 1:03 AM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
My impression of this whole situation with the Knight Foundation is that the WMF's strong tendency toward closed-door and closed-loop processes are hurting WMF more than helping it. If WMF had been transparent with the community about this situation in the first place and a consultation with the community had happened as negotiations were underway with Knight, I am wondering if a mutually agreeable solution could have been created at that time. Now we're in the midst of a lot of skepticism, suspicion, and political difficulties.
Perhaps after the experiences of the past few months WMF governance will re-align itself with the value of openness.
Hope springs eternal,
Pine _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
hi Pine,
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 4:03 AM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
My impression of this whole situation with the Knight Foundation is that the WMF's strong tendency toward closed-door and closed-loop processes are hurting WMF more than helping it. If WMF had been transparent with the community about this situation in the first place and a consultation with the community had happened as negotiations were underway with Knight, I am wondering if a mutually agreeable solution could have been created at that time. Now we're in the midst of a lot of skepticism, suspicion, and political difficulties.
I am not certain if it would even make sense for the WMF to engage the community every time it applies for an exploratory grant in such amount (roughly 1/300th of its budget). Also, after some consultation internally, my understanding is that in practice it will often not be sensible to insist on publishing grant applications, basically because many donors are just not as progressive as we would like them to be, and we do not want to decrease our chances for a grant in the future (donors may not be comfortable releasing this, and in the same time they will not want to be singled out in public as the only ones who refused).
Having stated that, I am happy to acknowledge that in this particular case (of a great, open-minded donor, with whom we have a good and long relationship) it is reasonable (and possible) to release this info, also to cut the wild speculations.
Lisa - awesome job, many thanks for making this happen!
best,
dj
Lisa, thank you.
I am getting the sense from the available information about this grant that the Knight Foundation is well intentioned. My concerns here, and I think that the concerns from other community members, are primarily related to WMF's handling of this situation. I for one would be happy to see improvements to internal search on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons that would benefit our readers as well as our community members.
On WMF's side, since WMF is exploring the question "Would users go to Wikipedia if it were an open channel beyond an encyclopedia?" (quote from page 2 of the grant document), it seems to me that potential re-scoping of Wikipedia would merit a conversation with the community. Looking at page 10 of the grant, the scope of the Knowledge Engine project appears to be aligned with Wikimedia values, but it looks to me like the scope and methods of implementing the Knowledge Project should have been discussed with the community.
Dariuz, regarding your statement that
after some consultation internally, my understanding is that in practice
it will often
not be sensible to insist on publishing grant applications, basically
because many
donors are just not as progressive as we would like them to be, and we do
not
want to decrease our chances for a grant in the future (donors may not be comfortable releasing this, and in the same time they will not want to be
singled
out in public as the only ones who refused).
I would respond by saying that openness is a value in the Wikimedia movement and that our values should not be for sale at any price. Policy and practice should be that documents for all restricted grants received by WMF will be published on Commons and that the community will be notified of all restricted grants that are being contemplated by WMF. If a potential donor is uncomfortable with that, then they can donate unrestricted funds anonymously, and those funds must be spent only on programs that are explicitly authorized under WMF's published annual plans or sent to the reserve or the endowment. Again I will say that I hope that our value of openness is not for sale at any price.
Pine
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I would respond by saying that openness is a value in the Wikimedia movement and that our values should not be for sale at any price. Policy and practice should be that documents for all restricted grants received by WMF will be published on Commons and that the community will be notified of all restricted grants that are being contemplated by WMF. If a potential donor is uncomfortable with that, then they can donate unrestricted funds anonymously, and those funds must be spent only on programs that are explicitly authorized under WMF's published annual plans or sent to the reserve or the endowment. Again I will say that I hope that our value of openness is not for sale at any price.
You twist my argument as I was proposing to put our values for sale. I don't think it is even borderline close to ASG, or other norms typical for Wikimedia space, and I don't think it is a fair reflection of what I wrote.
I believe that it may be impractical to require all grant applications, especially of smaller amount, to be made public, if it impacts our ability to gather funds. It is a decision that we should make after listening to professionals in this area (who have sat with the big donors on hundreds of occasions, and also know our movement inside-out), not just being driven by a natural tendency that we want to know more.
Transparency is important, but it should not be reduced to the community having access to all documents if it may impair our work. It is also transparency of process (understanding HOW a decision is made, not necessarily seeing all documents), and also the reasoning (explaining WHY either WMF or the Board believe or do something). In both areas there is a scope for improvement and I am a full supporter of such improvements.
And yet, the bigger picture is that we have been literally flooded with information requests and comments over the last two months, and we have spent most of our time on that. I understand the context and I'd say it is understandable in the circumstances and fine. But at some point the Board also needs to focus on what it is for as well: setting the vision, thinking about the wider horizon.
If we are to survive the next 10 years as the top 10 website, we should focus externally more, and start building more stuff that our readers care about. I totally agree that WMF has failed on many occasions here, and we, the community, were right (when I recall the first deployment of the VE I grit my teeth). But ultimately we need to be really able to move on, to be able to move forward.
dj
________________________________________________________________________________ *Please, note, that this email will expire at some point. Bookmark dariusz.jemielniak@fulbrightmail.org dariusz.jemielniak@fulbrightmail.org as a more permanent contact address. *
Dariusz,
Thank you for engaging on this. I believe the important thing now is to understand what happened specifically with the Knowledge Engine grant; but you make a claim about a more general policy that I think should be addressed. (I will address KE issues separately.)
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
I believe that it may be impractical to require all grant applications, especially of smaller amount, to be made public, if it impacts our ability to gather funds.
Did you notice MZMcBride's recent link, demonstrating that then-Executive Director Sue Gardner asserted exactly the opposite, explicitly as policy? To my knowledge, there has not been any new policy articulated to change that; so even though it was 2011, I would understand this to still be WMF policy.[1]
I am also curious about the characterization of a $250k grant as "smaller." While there are certainly much larger grants, it seems to me that it being over the $100k threshold that subjects it to the WMF Gift Policy would naturally classify it as "larger." Certainly, when I worked in grant fund-raising for WMF it was unthinkable that we would ever accept a restricted grant for less than $100k; this was a firmly held principle. But perhaps that is another policy that has been changed (or forgotten?)
It is a decision that we should make after listening to professionals in this area (who have sat with the big donors on hundreds of occasions, and also know our movement inside-out), not just being driven by a natural tendency that we want to know more.
Many professionals who are deeply involved in the Wikimedia and open knowledge movements have already commented on this topic in great detail. There is strong consensus around the value of transparency; while there may be an opposing view (and while there are certainly some pieces of information that should not be published), I have yet to hear a generally anti-transparency view articulated. Have you?
I surveyed the views of the following individuals in my blog post last month: * Former WMF executive director Sue Gardner * Former WMF deputy director Erik Moller * WMF advisory board member (former?) Wayne Mackintosh * Mozilla executive director Mark Surman * Various members of the fund-raising and fund-disseminating departments of WMF, past and present http://wikistrategies.net/grant-transparency/
There is a strong trend toward transparency in the philanthropy world. WMF has long been a guiding light in that trend in its grant-GIVING capacity, and in certain instances has reflected those values around the grant it receives as well.
If there is a new, contrary policy -- or even a contrary predilection, beyond your own opinions as an individual trustee -- I think this is something that should be publicly stated.
Transparency is important, but it should not be reduced to the community
having access to all documents if it may impair our work.
I agree with this, but it is a straw man. Nobody could reasonably expect ALL documents to be shared publicly (and if they have stated otherwise, I'm confident that is merely a kind of shorthand). The important conversation is about default positions; exceptions are always worth considering, and often justified.
It is also transparency of process (understanding HOW a decision is made, not necessarily seeing all documents), and also the reasoning (explaining WHY either WMF or the Board believe or do something). In both areas there is a scope for improvement and I am a full supporter of such improvements.
Strongly agree, and thank you for addressing this.
And yet, the bigger picture is that we have been literally flooded with
information requests and comments over the last two months, and we have spent most of our time on that. I understand the context and I'd say it is understandable in the circumstances and fine.
Again, thank you for acknowledging. When mistakes are made, often a consequence is that more work needs to be done.
But at some point the Board also needs to focus on what it is for as well: setting the vision, thinking about the wider horizon.
I do not believe those activities are opposed to more clearly articulating what has happened around the Knight grant. I believe those things overlap strongly; the board need not turn its attention from one to the other. The very core issue around the Knowledge Engine grant is that it seems to stray widely from the common understanding of the vision and the wider horizon.
If we are to survive the next 10 years as the top 10 website,
Desirable, but not an absolute requirement. Our vision statement doesn't even require us to be a web site. There are many compromises that we should not make in pursuit of this goal.
we should focus externally more,
Citation needed -- it seems there is very strong consensus lately that there are major problems within the Wikimedia Foundation. I hope that Trustees will not ignore these views, coming from a wide variety of respectable sources, with mere counter-assertion.
and start building more stuff that our readers care
about. I totally agree that WMF has failed on many occasions here, and we, the community, were right (when I recall the first deployment of the VE I grit my teeth).
Wonderful to hear you say that. But the beyond individual statements like this, we have not heard from the organization about what kinds of mistakes were made with VE (or with other software deployments). As Asaf recently expressed [2] (earning much praise), it is highly valuable, when a mistake is made, to acknowledge it in some detail, and in a way that respects the depth of the mistake. Without such an expression, it is hard to have shared confidence that lessons have been learned; and without learning, it is indeed hard to move forward.
But ultimately we need to be really able to move on, to be
able to move forward.
Agreed. I remain hopeful that the Wikimedia Board of Trustees and senior management will take steps that will permit us to do so.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
[1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2011-October/116339.html [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/So_you%27ve_made_a_mistake_and_it%27s_public. ..
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 5:42 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Did you notice MZMcBride's recent link, demonstrating that then-Executive
Director Sue Gardner asserted exactly the opposite, explicitly as policy? To my knowledge, there has not been any new policy articulated to change that; so even though it was 2011, I would understand this to still be WMF policy.[1]
My understanding is that it was an expression of Sue's genuine intent, that has not been consistently followed, nor made into a policy.
I am also curious about the characterization of a $250k grant as "smaller." While there are certainly much larger grants, it seems to me that it being over the $100k threshold that subjects it to the WMF Gift Policy would naturally classify it as "larger." Certainly, when I worked in grant fund-raising for WMF it was unthinkable that we would ever accept a restricted grant for less than $100k; this was a firmly held principle. But perhaps that is another policy that has been changed (or forgotten?)
Well, for an organization with our budget, it definitely is not a "big picture" grant. Of course a threshold has to be put somewhere. I'm not aware of actual WMF classifications. I only referred to "large" as "significantly affecting strategy".
Many professionals who are deeply involved in the Wikimedia and open knowledge movements have already commented on this topic in great detail. There is strong consensus around the value of transparency; while there may be an opposing view (and while there are certainly some pieces of information that should not be published), I have yet to hear a generally anti-transparency view articulated. Have you?
I don't think it is transparency vs. non-transparency. Rather, it is operational effectiveness vs. good communication with the community. Both are important and being transparent is definitely something we should do more.
I surveyed the views of the following individuals in my blog post last month:
- Former WMF executive director Sue Gardner
- Former WMF deputy director Erik Moller
- WMF advisory board member (former?) Wayne Mackintosh
- Mozilla executive director Mark Surman
- Various members of the fund-raising and fund-disseminating departments
of WMF, past and present http://wikistrategies.net/grant-transparency/
There is a strong trend toward transparency in the philanthropy world. WMF has long been a guiding light in that trend in its grant-GIVING capacity, and in certain instances has reflected those values around the grant it receives as well.
I think this is very useful as a background, thanks for taking the time to gather this!
If there is a new, contrary policy -- or even a contrary predilection, beyond your own opinions as an individual trustee -- I think this is something that should be publicly stated.
I'm not aware of any policy of this sort, either way.
Transparency is important, but it should not be reduced to the community
having access to all documents if it may impair our work.
I agree with this, but it is a straw man. Nobody could reasonably expect ALL documents to be shared publicly (and if they have stated otherwise, I'm confident that is merely a kind of shorthand). The important conversation is about default positions; exceptions are always worth considering, and often justified.
My only point is that I have a feeling that perhaps there is more to do outside of our microcosm.
I do not believe those activities are opposed to more clearly articulating what has happened around the Knight grant. I believe those things overlap strongly; the board need not turn its attention from one to the other. The very core issue around the Knowledge Engine grant is that it seems to stray widely from the common understanding of the vision and the wider horizon.
I don't refer to Knight grant specifically. I refer to the general approach - we lack the strategic vision and focus on issues that matter for this organization's survival, and we zero in a grant that is worth 1/300 of its budget disproportionately. The misunderstandings should be clarified, of course.
Desirable, but not an absolute requirement. Our vision statement doesn't even require us to be a web site. There are many compromises that we should not make in pursuit of this goal.
sure, but you know what I mean. Surviving is not easy when you're a fat cat used to being fine.
we should focus externally more,
Citation needed -- it seems there is very strong consensus lately that there are major problems within the Wikimedia Foundation. I hope that Trustees will not ignore these views, coming from a wide variety of respectable sources, with mere counter-assertion.
there is no citation needed, this is my opinion that to survive the next 10 years we should focus on what we need to do. Surely, we can improve the foundation and processes. We can improve them a lot. But will this make the difference for this big picture? If you believe so, then of course it is essential to discuss it.
The Board naturally does perform oversight over the organization, too - but what I'm saying is that there is a LOT OF discussion about the foundation (needed) and A LITTLE about our future (desperately needed, though lacking).
Wonderful to hear you say that. But the beyond individual statements like this, we have not heard from the organization about what kinds of mistakes were made with VE (or with other software deployments). As Asaf recently expressed [2] (earning much praise), it is highly valuable, when a mistake is made, to acknowledge it in some detail, and in a way that respects the depth of the mistake. Without such an expression, it is hard to have shared confidence that lessons have been learned; and without learning, it is indeed hard to move forward.
I agree that learning from mistakes and public reflection in such cases is much needed and basically useful - not to apportion the blame, but to understand and avoid in the future.
However, I have a feeling that our culture of discussion now is really pretty much hostile - there is a lot of animosity, bad will assumptions, and us vs. them mentality, every now and then. This is also an INTERNAL problem that should be addressed - but addressing it will not likely change the big picture neither :)
dj
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
If we are to survive the next 10 years as the top 10 website, we should focus externally more, and start building more stuff that our readers care about. I totally agree that WMF has failed on many occasions here, and we, the community, were right (when I recall the first deployment of the VE I grit my teeth). But ultimately we need to be really able to move on, to be able to move forward.
dj
Dariuz, when I first heard about this, I understood it to mean that the Foundation was seeking to fix the Wikimedia search function, which is really very poor. But this seems to be a proposal to create an entirely new search engine to complement Google, which will cost many millions.
Sarah
It was obviously evolving as the project moved from initial conceptualisation to the establishment of the Discovery team but, nevertheless, a clear, meaningful statement of the vision for the project (as it was imagined at the time) would have been appropriate when the team was put together. I think Lila has recently acknowledged this.
The present focus seems to be on improving search within Wikimedia, but the language used by both WMF and Knight leaves them open to later extending Wikipedia's search options to include free knowledge outside our projects. I fully support both improving internal search and later offering the reader the option of including reliable outside sources in their search.
And I support the ED's right - obligation really - to initiate and adequately fund projects like this.
On Friday, 12 February 2016, SarahSV sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
If we are to survive the next 10 years as the top 10 website, we should focus externally more, and start building more stuff that our readers
care
about. I totally agree that WMF has failed on many occasions here, and
we,
the community, were right (when I recall the first deployment of the VE I grit my teeth). But ultimately we need to be really able to move on, to
be
able to move forward.
dj
Dariuz, when I first heard about this, I understood it to mean that the Foundation was seeking to fix the Wikimedia search function, which is really very poor. But this seems to be a proposal to create an entirely new search engine to complement Google, which will cost many millions.
Sarah _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Thanks for sharing, always interesting to see these processes in detail.
On Feb 11, 2016 19:53, "Anthony Cole"
I fully support both improving internal search and later offering the reader the option of including reliable outside sources in their search.
And I support the ED's right - obligation really - to initiate and adequately fund projects like this.
Agreed on all counts.
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 6:11 PM, SarahSV sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Dariuz, when I first heard about this, I understood it to mean that the Foundation was seeking to fix the Wikimedia search function, which is really very poor. But this seems to be a proposal to create an entirely new search engine to complement Google, which will cost many millions.
My understanding is essentially that we want to engage in a search engine that would encompass all Wikimedia projects. I can't imagine us effectively competing Google and I would not consider this to be a sensible direction (not because it is not tempting, but because it is too costly and risky).
dj
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 6:11 PM, SarahSV sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Dariuz, when I first heard about this, I understood it to mean that the Foundation was seeking to fix the Wikimedia search function, which is really very poor. But this seems to be a proposal to create an entirely new search engine to complement Google, which will cost many millions.
My understanding is essentially that we want to engage in a search engine that would encompass all Wikimedia projects. I can't imagine us effectively competing Google and I would not consider this to be a sensible direction (not because it is not tempting, but because it is too costly and risky).
Hi
Dariusz,
T he grant application doesn't restrict the search engine to Wikimedia projects. It says that the "Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia [is a] system for discovering reliable and trustworthy public information on the Internet." And that it will "democratize the discovery of media, news and information – it will make the Internet's most relevant information more accessible and openly curated ... It will be the Internet's first transparent search engine ..."
It also says that one of the challenges that could "disrupt the project" is "Third-party influence or interference. Google, Yahoo or another big commercial search engine could suddenly devote resources to a similar project, which would reduce the success of the project. This is the biggest challenge, and an external one."
It's hard to see how Google developing a new search engine would disrupt the Foundation improving search within Wikimedia projects.
The document says the "Search Engine by Wikipedia" budget for 2015–2016 ($2.4 million) was approved by the board. Can you point us to which board meeting approved it and what was discussed there?
Sarah
11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV" sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com napisał(a):
Hi Dariusz,
T he grant application doesn't restrict the search engine to Wikimedia
projects. It says that the "Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia [is a] system for discovering reliable and trustworthy public information on the Internet.
My understanding is that the top range could potentially be all open/public resources, but this is the far stretched total goal, and still not a general search engine of all content including commercial one.
And a rrasonable realistic outcome can be just improving our searches across projects.
I can't comment on the initial ideas or goals, as I was not on the Board before August 2015, but this is what I understand we build now.
.
The document says the "Search Engine by Wikipedia" budget for 2015–2016
($2.4 million) was approved by the board. Can you point us to which board meeting approved it and what was discussed there?
I dont recall this specifically, and I'm going to elude this question by going to sleep (and hoping someone better informed may pick).
Good night!
Dj
Dariusz, thanks for continuing to engage here. Besides the good questions that others have asked, I'll add a few:
1. If the Knowledge Engine is such an important project, why is it not mentioned in https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16?
2. I realize that as a percentage of the WMF budget, $250k is a relatively small number. As others have said, this is not a reason for opacity about it, nor a reason for not having a conversation with the community about something so strategically important as a decision to explore the question of "Would users go to Wikipedia if it were an open channel beyond an encyclopedia?" It's one thing to have a blue-sky exercise thinking about possibilities, and another thing to take a $250k step in that direction, especially without consulting the community.
3. I am getting tired about seeing bad news in general about WMF governance, planning, and turnover. I am curious how you plan to address those issues. Like you, I would rather that we be talking about our movement plans for the next 10 years. However, it's difficult to have those conversations when WMF is making so many self-inflicted wounds. The recent round of resignations is of respectable people from the WMF staff is making the situation that much more concerning and that much more difficult to recover from. It seems to me that WMF leadership has lost control of this situation, and I'd like to hear what the recovery plan is. Personally, I feel that we need leadership that can build good relationships with the staff and community, is transparent by default, and is capable of restoring the credibility of the organization's planning, execution, and goodwill. I think that we may need new leadership to make that happen. I am interested to hear your thoughts.
Pine
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV" sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com napisał(a):
Hi Dariusz,
T he grant application doesn't restrict the search engine to Wikimedia
projects. It says that the "Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia [is a] system for discovering reliable and trustworthy public information on the Internet.
My understanding is that the top range could potentially be all open/public resources, but this is the far stretched total goal, and still not a general search engine of all content including commercial one.
And a rrasonable realistic outcome can be just improving our searches across projects.
I can't comment on the initial ideas or goals, as I was not on the Board before August 2015, but this is what I understand we build now.
.
The document says the "Search Engine by Wikipedia" budget for 2015–2016
($2.4 million) was approved by the board. Can you point us to which board meeting approved it and what was discussed there?
I dont recall this specifically, and I'm going to elude this question by going to sleep (and hoping someone better informed may pick).
Good night!
Dj _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, Pine as you are talking about "self inflicting wounds" I take it you are not talking in your personal capacity. When is it enough for you? When are you going to talk about positive things, things that will move us forward. Why ask for blood and more blood? What is it that you hope to achieve?
Who do you represent in this unending litany of negativity and what have you achieved in this way? When Lila was engaged in her role, she was to direct in a different direction and she is doing that. You may not like it and that is ok. Thanks, GerardM
On 12 February 2016 at 08:43, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Dariusz, thanks for continuing to engage here. Besides the good questions that others have asked, I'll add a few:
- If the Knowledge Engine is such an important project, why is it not
mentioned in https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16?
- I realize that as a percentage of the WMF budget, $250k is a relatively
small number. As others have said, this is not a reason for opacity about it, nor a reason for not having a conversation with the community about something so strategically important as a decision to explore the question of "Would users go to Wikipedia if it were an open channel beyond an encyclopedia?" It's one thing to have a blue-sky exercise thinking about possibilities, and another thing to take a $250k step in that direction, especially without consulting the community.
- I am getting tired about seeing bad news in general about WMF
governance, planning, and turnover. I am curious how you plan to address those issues. Like you, I would rather that we be talking about our movement plans for the next 10 years. However, it's difficult to have those conversations when WMF is making so many self-inflicted wounds. The recent round of resignations is of respectable people from the WMF staff is making the situation that much more concerning and that much more difficult to recover from. It seems to me that WMF leadership has lost control of this situation, and I'd like to hear what the recovery plan is. Personally, I feel that we need leadership that can build good relationships with the staff and community, is transparent by default, and is capable of restoring the credibility of the organization's planning, execution, and goodwill. I think that we may need new leadership to make that happen. I am interested to hear your thoughts.
Pine
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV" sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com napisał(a):
Hi Dariusz,
T he grant application doesn't restrict the search engine to Wikimedia
projects. It says that the "Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia [is a] system
for
discovering reliable and trustworthy public information on the Internet.
My understanding is that the top range could potentially be all
open/public
resources, but this is the far stretched total goal, and still not a general search engine of all content including commercial one.
And a rrasonable realistic outcome can be just improving our searches across projects.
I can't comment on the initial ideas or goals, as I was not on the Board before August 2015, but this is what I understand we build now.
.
The document says the "Search Engine by Wikipedia" budget for 2015–2016
($2.4 million) was approved by the board. Can you point us to which
board
meeting approved it and what was discussed there?
I dont recall this specifically, and I'm going to elude this question by going to sleep (and hoping someone better informed may pick).
Good night!
Dj _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Gerard,
I was waiting for this mail. For me personally, your complaining is achieving exactly the opposite of what you think.
It sounds as if you'd much rather prefer to stick your head in the sand and hope things will blow over. "Move along, nothing to see here -- oh look! something positive over there!" is not going to solve anything.
Michel
On 12 February 2016 at 09:24, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Pine as you are talking about "self inflicting wounds" I take it you are not talking in your personal capacity. When is it enough for you? When are you going to talk about positive things, things that will move us forward. Why ask for blood and more blood? What is it that you hope to achieve?
Who do you represent in this unending litany of negativity and what have you achieved in this way? When Lila was engaged in her role, she was to direct in a different direction and she is doing that. You may not like it and that is ok. Thanks, GerardM
On 12 February 2016 at 08:43, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Dariusz, thanks for continuing to engage here. Besides the good questions that others have asked, I'll add a few:
- If the Knowledge Engine is such an important project, why is it not
mentioned in https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16
?
- I realize that as a percentage of the WMF budget, $250k is a
relatively
small number. As others have said, this is not a reason for opacity about it, nor a reason for not having a conversation with the community about something so strategically important as a decision to explore the
question
of "Would users go to Wikipedia if it were an open channel beyond an encyclopedia?" It's one thing to have a blue-sky exercise thinking about possibilities, and another thing to take a $250k step in that direction, especially without consulting the community.
- I am getting tired about seeing bad news in general about WMF
governance, planning, and turnover. I am curious how you plan to address those issues. Like you, I would rather that we be talking about our movement plans for the next 10 years. However, it's difficult to have
those
conversations when WMF is making so many self-inflicted wounds. The
recent
round of resignations is of respectable people from the WMF staff is
making
the situation that much more concerning and that much more difficult to recover from. It seems to me that WMF leadership has lost control of this situation, and I'd like to hear what the recovery plan is. Personally, I feel that we need leadership that can build good relationships with the staff and community, is transparent by default, and is capable of
restoring
the credibility of the organization's planning, execution, and goodwill.
I
think that we may need new leadership to make that happen. I am
interested
to hear your thoughts.
Pine
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV" sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com napisał(a):
Hi Dariusz,
T he grant application doesn't restrict the search engine to Wikimedia
projects. It says that the "Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia [is a] system
for
discovering reliable and trustworthy public information on the
Internet.
My understanding is that the top range could potentially be all
open/public
resources, but this is the far stretched total goal, and still not a general search engine of all content including commercial one.
And a rrasonable realistic outcome can be just improving our searches across projects.
I can't comment on the initial ideas or goals, as I was not on the
Board
before August 2015, but this is what I understand we build now.
.
The document says the "Search Engine by Wikipedia" budget for
2015–2016
($2.4 million) was approved by the board. Can you point us to which
board
meeting approved it and what was discussed there?
I dont recall this specifically, and I'm going to elude this question
by
going to sleep (and hoping someone better informed may pick).
Good night!
Dj _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, I am not complaining. I point out that all this huha does not get us anywhere. I am not afraid to give an opinion and I am not afraid to be a contrarian when I think it makes sense. Yes, things happened that were not beautiful. They are not what upset me. What upsets me is that people like Siko and Anna are leaving. Because they are part of "my" Wikimedia Foundation. What upsets me is that I routinely use Magnus's tool and process hundreds of thousands of records and am to understand that official query is stunted and does not allow for this "because it was not in the design" and it is then pointed out that it takes money to solve this...
My point is that baying for blood is not what helps us forward. What I do know is that when sheer negativity is not coupled with an ability to stop and move forward, we will get in a downward spiral. I fault Pine for not being able to stop. What I wish for is for people like Anna and Siko and money for our environment and not for an endowment. Thanks, GerardM
On 12 February 2016 at 09:35, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipedia@zog.org wrote:
Gerard,
I was waiting for this mail. For me personally, your complaining is achieving exactly the opposite of what you think.
It sounds as if you'd much rather prefer to stick your head in the sand and hope things will blow over. "Move along, nothing to see here -- oh look! something positive over there!" is not going to solve anything.
Michel
On 12 February 2016 at 09:24, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Pine as you are talking about "self inflicting wounds" I take it you are not talking in your personal capacity. When is it enough for you? When
are
you going to talk about positive things, things that will move us
forward.
Why ask for blood and more blood? What is it that you hope to achieve?
Who do you represent in this unending litany of negativity and what have you achieved in this way? When Lila was engaged in her role, she was to direct in a different direction and she is doing that. You may not like
it
and that is ok. Thanks, GerardM
On 12 February 2016 at 08:43, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Dariusz, thanks for continuing to engage here. Besides the good
questions
that others have asked, I'll add a few:
- If the Knowledge Engine is such an important project, why is it not
mentioned in
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16
?
- I realize that as a percentage of the WMF budget, $250k is a
relatively
small number. As others have said, this is not a reason for opacity
about
it, nor a reason for not having a conversation with the community about something so strategically important as a decision to explore the
question
of "Would users go to Wikipedia if it were an open channel beyond an encyclopedia?" It's one thing to have a blue-sky exercise thinking
about
possibilities, and another thing to take a $250k step in that
direction,
especially without consulting the community.
- I am getting tired about seeing bad news in general about WMF
governance, planning, and turnover. I am curious how you plan to
address
those issues. Like you, I would rather that we be talking about our movement plans for the next 10 years. However, it's difficult to have
those
conversations when WMF is making so many self-inflicted wounds. The
recent
round of resignations is of respectable people from the WMF staff is
making
the situation that much more concerning and that much more difficult to recover from. It seems to me that WMF leadership has lost control of
this
situation, and I'd like to hear what the recovery plan is. Personally,
I
feel that we need leadership that can build good relationships with the staff and community, is transparent by default, and is capable of
restoring
the credibility of the organization's planning, execution, and
goodwill.
I
think that we may need new leadership to make that happen. I am
interested
to hear your thoughts.
Pine
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj@alk.edu.pl
wrote:
11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV" sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com napisał(a):
Hi Dariusz,
T he grant application doesn't restrict the search engine to
Wikimedia
projects. It says that the "Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia [is a]
system
for
discovering reliable and trustworthy public information on the
Internet.
My understanding is that the top range could potentially be all
open/public
resources, but this is the far stretched total goal, and still not a general search engine of all content including commercial one.
And a rrasonable realistic outcome can be just improving our searches across projects.
I can't comment on the initial ideas or goals, as I was not on the
Board
before August 2015, but this is what I understand we build now.
.
The document says the "Search Engine by Wikipedia" budget for
2015–2016
($2.4 million) was approved by the board. Can you point us to which
board
meeting approved it and what was discussed there?
I dont recall this specifically, and I'm going to elude this question
by
going to sleep (and hoping someone better informed may pick).
Good night!
Dj _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Actually, you are complaining.
I am against relentless negativity of the kind you see from many self-styled and self-important Wikipedia critics. I'd hardly put Pine in that group. The idea that Pine's measured and reasonable post could be described as "baying for blood" is ridiculous.
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 3:54 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, I am not complaining. I point out that all this huha does not get us anywhere. I am not afraid to give an opinion and I am not afraid to be a contrarian when I think it makes sense. Yes, things happened that were not beautiful. They are not what upset me. What upsets me is that people like Siko and Anna are leaving. Because they are part of "my" Wikimedia Foundation. What upsets me is that I routinely use Magnus's tool and process hundreds of thousands of records and am to understand that official query is stunted and does not allow for this "because it was not in the design" and it is then pointed out that it takes money to solve this...
My point is that baying for blood is not what helps us forward. What I do know is that when sheer negativity is not coupled with an ability to stop and move forward, we will get in a downward spiral. I fault Pine for not being able to stop. What I wish for is for people like Anna and Siko and money for our environment and not for an endowment. Thanks, GerardM
On 12 February 2016 at 09:35, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipedia@zog.org wrote:
Gerard,
I was waiting for this mail. For me personally, your complaining is achieving exactly the opposite of what you think.
It sounds as if you'd much rather prefer to stick your head in the sand
and
hope things will blow over. "Move along, nothing to see here -- oh look! something positive over there!" is not going to solve anything.
Michel
On 12 February 2016 at 09:24, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, Pine as you are talking about "self inflicting wounds" I take it you
are
not talking in your personal capacity. When is it enough for you? When
are
you going to talk about positive things, things that will move us
forward.
Why ask for blood and more blood? What is it that you hope to achieve?
Who do you represent in this unending litany of negativity and what
have
you achieved in this way? When Lila was engaged in her role, she was to direct in a different direction and she is doing that. You may not like
it
and that is ok. Thanks, GerardM
On 12 February 2016 at 08:43, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Dariusz, thanks for continuing to engage here. Besides the good
questions
that others have asked, I'll add a few:
- If the Knowledge Engine is such an important project, why is it
not
mentioned in
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16
?
- I realize that as a percentage of the WMF budget, $250k is a
relatively
small number. As others have said, this is not a reason for opacity
about
it, nor a reason for not having a conversation with the community
about
something so strategically important as a decision to explore the
question
of "Would users go to Wikipedia if it were an open channel beyond an encyclopedia?" It's one thing to have a blue-sky exercise thinking
about
possibilities, and another thing to take a $250k step in that
direction,
especially without consulting the community.
- I am getting tired about seeing bad news in general about WMF
governance, planning, and turnover. I am curious how you plan to
address
those issues. Like you, I would rather that we be talking about our movement plans for the next 10 years. However, it's difficult to have
those
conversations when WMF is making so many self-inflicted wounds. The
recent
round of resignations is of respectable people from the WMF staff is
making
the situation that much more concerning and that much more difficult
to
recover from. It seems to me that WMF leadership has lost control of
this
situation, and I'd like to hear what the recovery plan is.
Personally,
I
feel that we need leadership that can build good relationships with
the
staff and community, is transparent by default, and is capable of
restoring
the credibility of the organization's planning, execution, and
goodwill.
I
think that we may need new leadership to make that happen. I am
interested
to hear your thoughts.
Pine
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <
darekj@alk.edu.pl
wrote:
11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV" sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com napisał(a):
> > Hi Dariusz,
T he grant application doesn't restrict the search engine to
Wikimedia
projects. It says that the "Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia [is a]
system
for
discovering reliable and trustworthy public information on the
Internet.
My understanding is that the top range could potentially be all
open/public
resources, but this is the far stretched total goal, and still not
a
general search engine of all content including commercial one.
And a rrasonable realistic outcome can be just improving our
searches
across projects.
I can't comment on the initial ideas or goals, as I was not on the
Board
before August 2015, but this is what I understand we build now.
.
The document says the "Search Engine by Wikipedia" budget for
2015–2016
($2.4 million) was approved by the board. Can you point us to
which
board
meeting approved it and what was discussed there?
I dont recall this specifically, and I'm going to elude this
question
by
going to sleep (and hoping someone better informed may pick).
Good night!
Dj _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way, Gerard. I personally would like to feel more assured that the WMF is looking into the longer future and actively plannning for the day that donations no longer support a large staff doing lots of things.
I am concerned today that the team specifically tasked to work closely with so many elements of the community has lost 7% of its staff, and 30% of its leaders, in a single week. This should be a concern in any organization.
With respect to the Knight grant - I know that many times grant applications are made for considerably more than is given, and I am interested to know how much the WMF requested in the first place. I would also like to know whether or not the Board was formally advised of the request before it was submitted. Since the Board must approve acceptance of any donations over $100,000 USD, it seems to be obvious that they should be consulted and possibly should actively approve any grant applications where the dollar value sought is higher than that amount. I don't believe the current policies require advance approval or even advance notification, though.
Risker/Anne
On 12 February 2016 at 03:54, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, I am not complaining. I point out that all this huha does not get us anywhere. I am not afraid to give an opinion and I am not afraid to be a contrarian when I think it makes sense. Yes, things happened that were not beautiful. They are not what upset me. What upsets me is that people like Siko and Anna are leaving. Because they are part of "my" Wikimedia Foundation. What upsets me is that I routinely use Magnus's tool and process hundreds of thousands of records and am to understand that official query is stunted and does not allow for this "because it was not in the design" and it is then pointed out that it takes money to solve this...
My point is that baying for blood is not what helps us forward. What I do know is that when sheer negativity is not coupled with an ability to stop and move forward, we will get in a downward spiral. I fault Pine for not being able to stop. What I wish for is for people like Anna and Siko and money for our environment and not for an endowment. Thanks, GerardM
On 12 February 2016 at 09:35, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipedia@zog.org wrote:
Gerard,
I was waiting for this mail. For me personally, your complaining is achieving exactly the opposite of what you think.
It sounds as if you'd much rather prefer to stick your head in the sand
and
hope things will blow over. "Move along, nothing to see here -- oh look! something positive over there!" is not going to solve anything.
Michel
On 12 February 2016 at 09:24, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, Pine as you are talking about "self inflicting wounds" I take it you
are
not talking in your personal capacity. When is it enough for you? When
are
you going to talk about positive things, things that will move us
forward.
Why ask for blood and more blood? What is it that you hope to achieve?
Who do you represent in this unending litany of negativity and what
have
you achieved in this way? When Lila was engaged in her role, she was to direct in a different direction and she is doing that. You may not like
it
and that is ok. Thanks, GerardM
On 12 February 2016 at 08:43, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Dariusz, thanks for continuing to engage here. Besides the good
questions
that others have asked, I'll add a few:
- If the Knowledge Engine is such an important project, why is it
not
mentioned in
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16
?
- I realize that as a percentage of the WMF budget, $250k is a
relatively
small number. As others have said, this is not a reason for opacity
about
it, nor a reason for not having a conversation with the community
about
something so strategically important as a decision to explore the
question
of "Would users go to Wikipedia if it were an open channel beyond an encyclopedia?" It's one thing to have a blue-sky exercise thinking
about
possibilities, and another thing to take a $250k step in that
direction,
especially without consulting the community.
- I am getting tired about seeing bad news in general about WMF
governance, planning, and turnover. I am curious how you plan to
address
those issues. Like you, I would rather that we be talking about our movement plans for the next 10 years. However, it's difficult to have
those
conversations when WMF is making so many self-inflicted wounds. The
recent
round of resignations is of respectable people from the WMF staff is
making
the situation that much more concerning and that much more difficult
to
recover from. It seems to me that WMF leadership has lost control of
this
situation, and I'd like to hear what the recovery plan is.
Personally,
I
feel that we need leadership that can build good relationships with
the
staff and community, is transparent by default, and is capable of
restoring
the credibility of the organization's planning, execution, and
goodwill.
I
think that we may need new leadership to make that happen. I am
interested
to hear your thoughts.
Pine
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <
darekj@alk.edu.pl
wrote:
11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV" sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com napisał(a):
> > Hi Dariusz,
T he grant application doesn't restrict the search engine to
Wikimedia
projects. It says that the "Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia [is a]
system
for
discovering reliable and trustworthy public information on the
Internet.
My understanding is that the top range could potentially be all
open/public
resources, but this is the far stretched total goal, and still not
a
general search engine of all content including commercial one.
And a rrasonable realistic outcome can be just improving our
searches
across projects.
I can't comment on the initial ideas or goals, as I was not on the
Board
before August 2015, but this is what I understand we build now.
.
The document says the "Search Engine by Wikipedia" budget for
2015–2016
($2.4 million) was approved by the board. Can you point us to
which
board
meeting approved it and what was discussed there?
I dont recall this specifically, and I'm going to elude this
question
by
going to sleep (and hoping someone better informed may pick).
Good night!
Dj _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Anne, regarding:
"Since the Board must approve acceptance of any donations over $100,000 USD, it seems to be obvious that they should be consulted and possibly should actively approve any grant applications where the dollar value sought is higher than that amount."
I'm not sure that the board should be *consulted* ahead of such applications' or should prior-approve all such applications. That seems a bit like micromanagement. But it makes sense to me for the board to be *advised *of such applications and when they're being actively contemplated or prepared.
Anthony Cole
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way, Gerard. I personally would like to feel more assured that the WMF is looking into the longer future and actively plannning for the day that donations no longer support a large staff doing lots of things.
I am concerned today that the team specifically tasked to work closely with so many elements of the community has lost 7% of its staff, and 30% of its leaders, in a single week. This should be a concern in any organization.
With respect to the Knight grant - I know that many times grant applications are made for considerably more than is given, and I am interested to know how much the WMF requested in the first place. I would also like to know whether or not the Board was formally advised of the request before it was submitted. Since the Board must approve acceptance of any donations over $100,000 USD, it seems to be obvious that they should be consulted and possibly should actively approve any grant applications where the dollar value sought is higher than that amount. I don't believe the current policies require advance approval or even advance notification, though.
Risker/Anne
On 12 February 2016 at 03:54, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, I am not complaining. I point out that all this huha does not get us anywhere. I am not afraid to give an opinion and I am not afraid to be a contrarian when I think it makes sense. Yes, things happened that were
not
beautiful. They are not what upset me. What upsets me is that people like Siko and Anna are leaving. Because they are part of "my" Wikimedia Foundation. What upsets me is that I routinely use Magnus's tool and process hundreds of thousands of records and am to understand that
official
query is stunted and does not allow for this "because it was not in the design" and it is then pointed out that it takes money to solve this...
My point is that baying for blood is not what helps us forward. What I do know is that when sheer negativity is not coupled with an ability to stop and move forward, we will get in a downward spiral. I fault Pine for not being able to stop. What I wish for is for people like Anna and Siko and money for our environment and not for an endowment. Thanks, GerardM
On 12 February 2016 at 09:35, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipedia@zog.org
wrote:
Gerard,
I was waiting for this mail. For me personally, your complaining is achieving exactly the opposite of what you think.
It sounds as if you'd much rather prefer to stick your head in the sand
and
hope things will blow over. "Move along, nothing to see here -- oh
look!
something positive over there!" is not going to solve anything.
Michel
On 12 February 2016 at 09:24, Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, Pine as you are talking about "self inflicting wounds" I take it you
are
not talking in your personal capacity. When is it enough for you?
When
are
you going to talk about positive things, things that will move us
forward.
Why ask for blood and more blood? What is it that you hope to
achieve?
Who do you represent in this unending litany of negativity and what
have
you achieved in this way? When Lila was engaged in her role, she was
to
direct in a different direction and she is doing that. You may not
like
it
and that is ok. Thanks, GerardM
On 12 February 2016 at 08:43, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Dariusz, thanks for continuing to engage here. Besides the good
questions
that others have asked, I'll add a few:
- If the Knowledge Engine is such an important project, why is it
not
mentioned in
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16
?
- I realize that as a percentage of the WMF budget, $250k is a
relatively
small number. As others have said, this is not a reason for opacity
about
it, nor a reason for not having a conversation with the community
about
something so strategically important as a decision to explore the
question
of "Would users go to Wikipedia if it were an open channel beyond
an
encyclopedia?" It's one thing to have a blue-sky exercise thinking
about
possibilities, and another thing to take a $250k step in that
direction,
especially without consulting the community.
- I am getting tired about seeing bad news in general about WMF
governance, planning, and turnover. I am curious how you plan to
address
those issues. Like you, I would rather that we be talking about our movement plans for the next 10 years. However, it's difficult to
have
those
conversations when WMF is making so many self-inflicted wounds. The
recent
round of resignations is of respectable people from the WMF staff
is
making
the situation that much more concerning and that much more
difficult
to
recover from. It seems to me that WMF leadership has lost control
of
this
situation, and I'd like to hear what the recovery plan is.
Personally,
I
feel that we need leadership that can build good relationships with
the
staff and community, is transparent by default, and is capable of
restoring
the credibility of the organization's planning, execution, and
goodwill.
I
think that we may need new leadership to make that happen. I am
interested
to hear your thoughts.
Pine
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <
darekj@alk.edu.pl
wrote:
11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV" sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com
napisał(a):
>
>> >> > Hi > Dariusz, > > T > he grant application doesn't restrict the search engine to
Wikimedia
projects. It says that the "Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia [is a]
system
for
discovering reliable and trustworthy public information on the
Internet.
My understanding is that the top range could potentially be all
open/public
resources, but this is the far stretched total goal, and still
not
a
general search engine of all content including commercial one.
And a rrasonable realistic outcome can be just improving our
searches
across projects.
I can't comment on the initial ideas or goals, as I was not on
the
Board
before August 2015, but this is what I understand we build now.
. > > The document says the "Search Engine by Wikipedia" budget for
2015–2016
($2.4 million) was approved by the board. Can you point us to
which
board
meeting approved it and what was discussed there? >
I dont recall this specifically, and I'm going to elude this
question
by
going to sleep (and hoping someone better informed may pick).
Good night!
Dj _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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@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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
some rules and guidelines are a throw back to earlier years and should be adjusted for rather than given significance over current practices.
where once a donation of 100,00 was considered potentially as content influencing now its appreciated for what it is, the reality is that its not the donations but rather the grants both given directly to a project or those being sort by the WMF for a project that are the concerns. The BoT should review these at some point the volunteer community should also be consulted before acceptance
donation: is something given freely Grant: is something given for a purpose
On 13 February 2016 at 10:23, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com wrote:
Anne, regarding:
"Since the Board must approve acceptance of any donations over $100,000 USD, it seems to be obvious that they should be consulted and possibly should actively approve any grant applications where the dollar value sought is higher than that amount."
I'm not sure that the board should be *consulted* ahead of such applications' or should prior-approve all such applications. That seems a bit like micromanagement. But it makes sense to me for the board to be *advised *of such applications and when they're being actively contemplated or prepared.
Anthony Cole
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way, Gerard. I personally would like to feel more assured that the WMF is looking into the longer future and actively plannning for the day that donations no longer support a large staff doing lots of things.
I am concerned today that the team specifically tasked to work closely
with
so many elements of the community has lost 7% of its staff, and 30% of
its
leaders, in a single week. This should be a concern in any organization.
With respect to the Knight grant - I know that many times grant applications are made for considerably more than is given, and I am interested to know how much the WMF requested in the first place. I
would
also like to know whether or not the Board was formally advised of the request before it was submitted. Since the Board must approve acceptance of any donations over $100,000 USD, it seems to be obvious that they
should
be consulted and possibly should actively approve any grant applications where the dollar value sought is higher than that amount. I don't
believe
the current policies require advance approval or even advance
notification,
though.
Risker/Anne
On 12 February 2016 at 03:54, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, I am not complaining. I point out that all this huha does not get us anywhere. I am not afraid to give an opinion and I am not afraid to be
a
contrarian when I think it makes sense. Yes, things happened that were
not
beautiful. They are not what upset me. What upsets me is that people
like
Siko and Anna are leaving. Because they are part of "my" Wikimedia Foundation. What upsets me is that I routinely use Magnus's tool and process hundreds of thousands of records and am to understand that
official
query is stunted and does not allow for this "because it was not in the design" and it is then pointed out that it takes money to solve this...
My point is that baying for blood is not what helps us forward. What I
do
know is that when sheer negativity is not coupled with an ability to
stop
and move forward, we will get in a downward spiral. I fault Pine for
not
being able to stop. What I wish for is for people like Anna and Siko
and
money for our environment and not for an endowment. Thanks, GerardM
On 12 February 2016 at 09:35, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipedia@zog.org
wrote:
Gerard,
I was waiting for this mail. For me personally, your complaining is achieving exactly the opposite of what you think.
It sounds as if you'd much rather prefer to stick your head in the
sand
and
hope things will blow over. "Move along, nothing to see here -- oh
look!
something positive over there!" is not going to solve anything.
Michel
On 12 February 2016 at 09:24, Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, Pine as you are talking about "self inflicting wounds" I take it
you
are
not talking in your personal capacity. When is it enough for you?
When
are
you going to talk about positive things, things that will move us
forward.
Why ask for blood and more blood? What is it that you hope to
achieve?
Who do you represent in this unending litany of negativity and what
have
you achieved in this way? When Lila was engaged in her role, she
was
to
direct in a different direction and she is doing that. You may not
like
it
and that is ok. Thanks, GerardM
On 12 February 2016 at 08:43, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Dariusz, thanks for continuing to engage here. Besides the good
questions
that others have asked, I'll add a few:
- If the Knowledge Engine is such an important project, why is
it
not
mentioned in
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16
?
- I realize that as a percentage of the WMF budget, $250k is a
relatively
small number. As others have said, this is not a reason for
opacity
about
it, nor a reason for not having a conversation with the community
about
something so strategically important as a decision to explore the
question
of "Would users go to Wikipedia if it were an open channel beyond
an
encyclopedia?" It's one thing to have a blue-sky exercise
thinking
about
possibilities, and another thing to take a $250k step in that
direction,
especially without consulting the community.
- I am getting tired about seeing bad news in general about WMF
governance, planning, and turnover. I am curious how you plan to
address
those issues. Like you, I would rather that we be talking about
our
movement plans for the next 10 years. However, it's difficult to
have
those
conversations when WMF is making so many self-inflicted wounds.
The
recent
round of resignations is of respectable people from the WMF staff
is
making
the situation that much more concerning and that much more
difficult
to
recover from. It seems to me that WMF leadership has lost control
of
this
situation, and I'd like to hear what the recovery plan is.
Personally,
I
feel that we need leadership that can build good relationships
with
the
staff and community, is transparent by default, and is capable of
restoring
the credibility of the organization's planning, execution, and
goodwill.
I
think that we may need new leadership to make that happen. I am
interested
to hear your thoughts.
Pine
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <
darekj@alk.edu.pl
wrote:
> 11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV" sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com
napisał(a):
> > > > >> > >> > > Hi > > Dariusz, > > > > T > > he grant application doesn't restrict the search engine to
Wikimedia
> projects. It says that the "Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia [is
a]
system
for > discovering reliable and trustworthy public information on the
Internet.
> > My understanding is that the top range could potentially be all open/public > resources, but this is the far stretched total goal, and still
not
a
> general search engine of all content including commercial one. > > And a rrasonable realistic outcome can be just improving our
searches
> across projects. > > I can't comment on the initial ideas or goals, as I was not on
the
Board
> before August 2015, but this is what I understand we build now. > > . > > > > The document says the "Search Engine by Wikipedia" budget for
2015–2016
> ($2.4 million) was approved by the board. Can you point us to
which
board > meeting approved it and what was discussed there? > > > > I dont recall this specifically, and I'm going to elude this
question
by
> going to sleep (and hoping someone better informed may pick). > > Good night! > > Dj > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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@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@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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Well, I'm not sure about that, Anthony. By "consulted", I would mean something to the effect of "We're looking at applying to XX for a grant of $YYY to do ZZZ" and asking the Board if they would be likely to agree to accept such a grant if the application is successful. The grant application, evaluation and approval process is costly in both time and resources, and for both the applicant and the grantmaker. Being informed that a grant has been approved sounds more like a fait accompli situation for the Board - they look petty and ungrateful if they say no, even if they don't think it was a reasonable grant application. In this case, we're only dealing with $250,000. What if this was $1 million? $10 million?
I think it is healthier for everyone if the Board is properly consulted before the application is submitted. (And again, I note that we don't know how much was actually requested in this case, only what was granted.)
Risker/Anne
On 12 February 2016 at 21:23, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com wrote:
Anne, regarding:
"Since the Board must approve acceptance of any donations over $100,000 USD, it seems to be obvious that they should be consulted and possibly should actively approve any grant applications where the dollar value sought is higher than that amount."
I'm not sure that the board should be *consulted* ahead of such applications' or should prior-approve all such applications. That seems a bit like micromanagement. But it makes sense to me for the board to be *advised *of such applications and when they're being actively contemplated or prepared.
Anthony Cole
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way, Gerard. I personally would like to feel more assured that the WMF is looking into the longer future and actively plannning for the day that donations no longer support a large staff doing lots of things.
I am concerned today that the team specifically tasked to work closely
with
so many elements of the community has lost 7% of its staff, and 30% of
its
leaders, in a single week. This should be a concern in any organization.
With respect to the Knight grant - I know that many times grant applications are made for considerably more than is given, and I am interested to know how much the WMF requested in the first place. I
would
also like to know whether or not the Board was formally advised of the request before it was submitted. Since the Board must approve acceptance of any donations over $100,000 USD, it seems to be obvious that they
should
be consulted and possibly should actively approve any grant applications where the dollar value sought is higher than that amount. I don't
believe
the current policies require advance approval or even advance
notification,
though.
Risker/Anne
On 12 February 2016 at 03:54, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, I am not complaining. I point out that all this huha does not get us anywhere. I am not afraid to give an opinion and I am not afraid to be
a
contrarian when I think it makes sense. Yes, things happened that were
not
beautiful. They are not what upset me. What upsets me is that people
like
Siko and Anna are leaving. Because they are part of "my" Wikimedia Foundation. What upsets me is that I routinely use Magnus's tool and process hundreds of thousands of records and am to understand that
official
query is stunted and does not allow for this "because it was not in the design" and it is then pointed out that it takes money to solve this...
My point is that baying for blood is not what helps us forward. What I
do
know is that when sheer negativity is not coupled with an ability to
stop
and move forward, we will get in a downward spiral. I fault Pine for
not
being able to stop. What I wish for is for people like Anna and Siko
and
money for our environment and not for an endowment. Thanks, GerardM
On 12 February 2016 at 09:35, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipedia@zog.org
wrote:
Gerard,
I was waiting for this mail. For me personally, your complaining is achieving exactly the opposite of what you think.
It sounds as if you'd much rather prefer to stick your head in the
sand
and
hope things will blow over. "Move along, nothing to see here -- oh
look!
something positive over there!" is not going to solve anything.
Michel
On 12 February 2016 at 09:24, Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, Pine as you are talking about "self inflicting wounds" I take it
you
are
not talking in your personal capacity. When is it enough for you?
When
are
you going to talk about positive things, things that will move us
forward.
Why ask for blood and more blood? What is it that you hope to
achieve?
Who do you represent in this unending litany of negativity and what
have
you achieved in this way? When Lila was engaged in her role, she
was
to
direct in a different direction and she is doing that. You may not
like
it
and that is ok. Thanks, GerardM
On 12 February 2016 at 08:43, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Dariusz, thanks for continuing to engage here. Besides the good
questions
that others have asked, I'll add a few:
- If the Knowledge Engine is such an important project, why is
it
not
mentioned in
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16
?
- I realize that as a percentage of the WMF budget, $250k is a
relatively
small number. As others have said, this is not a reason for
opacity
about
it, nor a reason for not having a conversation with the community
about
something so strategically important as a decision to explore the
question
of "Would users go to Wikipedia if it were an open channel beyond
an
encyclopedia?" It's one thing to have a blue-sky exercise
thinking
about
possibilities, and another thing to take a $250k step in that
direction,
especially without consulting the community.
- I am getting tired about seeing bad news in general about WMF
governance, planning, and turnover. I am curious how you plan to
address
those issues. Like you, I would rather that we be talking about
our
movement plans for the next 10 years. However, it's difficult to
have
those
conversations when WMF is making so many self-inflicted wounds.
The
recent
round of resignations is of respectable people from the WMF staff
is
making
the situation that much more concerning and that much more
difficult
to
recover from. It seems to me that WMF leadership has lost control
of
this
situation, and I'd like to hear what the recovery plan is.
Personally,
I
feel that we need leadership that can build good relationships
with
the
staff and community, is transparent by default, and is capable of
restoring
the credibility of the organization's planning, execution, and
goodwill.
I
think that we may need new leadership to make that happen. I am
interested
to hear your thoughts.
Pine
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <
darekj@alk.edu.pl
wrote:
> 11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV" sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com
napisał(a):
> > > > >> > >> > > Hi > > Dariusz, > > > > T > > he grant application doesn't restrict the search engine to
Wikimedia
> projects. It says that the "Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia [is
a]
system
for > discovering reliable and trustworthy public information on the
Internet.
> > My understanding is that the top range could potentially be all open/public > resources, but this is the far stretched total goal, and still
not
a
> general search engine of all content including commercial one. > > And a rrasonable realistic outcome can be just improving our
searches
> across projects. > > I can't comment on the initial ideas or goals, as I was not on
the
Board
> before August 2015, but this is what I understand we build now. > > . > > > > The document says the "Search Engine by Wikipedia" budget for
2015–2016
> ($2.4 million) was approved by the board. Can you point us to
which
board > meeting approved it and what was discussed there? > > > > I dont recall this specifically, and I'm going to elude this
question
by
> going to sleep (and hoping someone better informed may pick). > > Good night! > > Dj > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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@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@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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Anne, we're talking about almost the same thing, but not exactly. I say "advised" you say "consulted". "Consulted" implies soliciting or expecting some kind of response or engagement - probably approval/disapproval/critique/input. "Advised" means they got the memo. I think "advised" is enough, and if the board wants more engagement, they can initiate it - presuming the notification is clear and comprehensive, of course.
Anthony Cole
On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Well, I'm not sure about that, Anthony. By "consulted", I would mean something to the effect of "We're looking at applying to XX for a grant of $YYY to do ZZZ" and asking the Board if they would be likely to agree to accept such a grant if the application is successful. The grant application, evaluation and approval process is costly in both time and resources, and for both the applicant and the grantmaker. Being informed that a grant has been approved sounds more like a fait accompli situation for the Board - they look petty and ungrateful if they say no, even if they don't think it was a reasonable grant application. In this case, we're only dealing with $250,000. What if this was $1 million? $10 million?
I think it is healthier for everyone if the Board is properly consulted before the application is submitted. (And again, I note that we don't know how much was actually requested in this case, only what was granted.)
Risker/Anne
On 12 February 2016 at 21:23, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com wrote:
Anne, regarding:
"Since the Board must approve acceptance of any donations over $100,000 USD, it seems to be obvious that they should be consulted and possibly should actively approve any grant applications where the dollar value sought is higher than that amount."
I'm not sure that the board should be *consulted* ahead of such applications' or should prior-approve all such applications. That seems a bit like micromanagement. But it makes sense to me for the board to be *advised *of such applications and when they're being actively contemplated or prepared.
Anthony Cole
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way, Gerard. I personally would
like
to feel more assured that the WMF is looking into the longer future and actively plannning for the day that donations no longer support a large staff doing lots of things.
I am concerned today that the team specifically tasked to work closely
with
so many elements of the community has lost 7% of its staff, and 30% of
its
leaders, in a single week. This should be a concern in any
organization.
With respect to the Knight grant - I know that many times grant applications are made for considerably more than is given, and I am interested to know how much the WMF requested in the first place. I
would
also like to know whether or not the Board was formally advised of the request before it was submitted. Since the Board must approve
acceptance
of any donations over $100,000 USD, it seems to be obvious that they
should
be consulted and possibly should actively approve any grant
applications
where the dollar value sought is higher than that amount. I don't
believe
the current policies require advance approval or even advance
notification,
though.
Risker/Anne
On 12 February 2016 at 03:54, Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, I am not complaining. I point out that all this huha does not get us anywhere. I am not afraid to give an opinion and I am not afraid to
be
a
contrarian when I think it makes sense. Yes, things happened that
were
not
beautiful. They are not what upset me. What upsets me is that people
like
Siko and Anna are leaving. Because they are part of "my" Wikimedia Foundation. What upsets me is that I routinely use Magnus's tool and process hundreds of thousands of records and am to understand that
official
query is stunted and does not allow for this "because it was not in
the
design" and it is then pointed out that it takes money to solve
this...
My point is that baying for blood is not what helps us forward. What
I
do
know is that when sheer negativity is not coupled with an ability to
stop
and move forward, we will get in a downward spiral. I fault Pine for
not
being able to stop. What I wish for is for people like Anna and Siko
and
money for our environment and not for an endowment. Thanks, GerardM
On 12 February 2016 at 09:35, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipedia@zog.org
wrote:
Gerard,
I was waiting for this mail. For me personally, your complaining is achieving exactly the opposite of what you think.
It sounds as if you'd much rather prefer to stick your head in the
sand
and
hope things will blow over. "Move along, nothing to see here -- oh
look!
something positive over there!" is not going to solve anything.
Michel
On 12 February 2016 at 09:24, Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, Pine as you are talking about "self inflicting wounds" I take it
you
are
not talking in your personal capacity. When is it enough for you?
When
are
you going to talk about positive things, things that will move us
forward.
Why ask for blood and more blood? What is it that you hope to
achieve?
Who do you represent in this unending litany of negativity and
what
have
you achieved in this way? When Lila was engaged in her role, she
was
to
direct in a different direction and she is doing that. You may
not
like
it
and that is ok. Thanks, GerardM
On 12 February 2016 at 08:43, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com
wrote:
> Dariusz, thanks for continuing to engage here. Besides the good
questions
> that others have asked, I'll add a few: > > 1. If the Knowledge Engine is such an important project, why is
it
not
> mentioned in >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16
? > > 2. I realize that as a percentage of the WMF budget, $250k is a relatively > small number. As others have said, this is not a reason for
opacity
about
> it, nor a reason for not having a conversation with the
community
about
> something so strategically important as a decision to explore
the
question > of "Would users go to Wikipedia if it were an open channel
beyond
an
> encyclopedia?" It's one thing to have a blue-sky exercise
thinking
about
> possibilities, and another thing to take a $250k step in that
direction,
> especially without consulting the community. > > 3. I am getting tired about seeing bad news in general about
WMF
> governance, planning, and turnover. I am curious how you plan
to
address
> those issues. Like you, I would rather that we be talking about
our
> movement plans for the next 10 years. However, it's difficult
to
have
those > conversations when WMF is making so many self-inflicted wounds.
The
recent > round of resignations is of respectable people from the WMF
staff
is
making > the situation that much more concerning and that much more
difficult
to
> recover from. It seems to me that WMF leadership has lost
control
of
this
> situation, and I'd like to hear what the recovery plan is.
Personally,
I
> feel that we need leadership that can build good relationships
with
the
> staff and community, is transparent by default, and is capable
of
restoring > the credibility of the organization's planning, execution, and
goodwill.
I > think that we may need new leadership to make that happen. I am interested > to hear your thoughts. > > Pine > > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <
darekj@alk.edu.pl
> wrote: > > > 11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV" sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com
napisał(a):
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > Hi > > > Dariusz, > > > > > > T > > > he grant application doesn't restrict the search engine to
Wikimedia
> > projects. It says that the "Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia [is
a]
system
> for > > discovering reliable and trustworthy public information on
the
Internet. > > > > My understanding is that the top range could potentially be
all
> open/public > > resources, but this is the far stretched total goal, and
still
not
a
> > general search engine of all content including commercial
one.
> > > > And a rrasonable realistic outcome can be just improving our
searches
> > across projects. > > > > I can't comment on the initial ideas or goals, as I was not
on
the
Board > > before August 2015, but this is what I understand we build
now.
> > > > . > > > > > > The document says the "Search Engine by Wikipedia" budget
for
2015–2016 > > ($2.4 million) was approved by the board. Can you point us
to
which
> board > > meeting approved it and what was discussed there? > > > > > > > I dont recall this specifically, and I'm going to elude this
question
by > > going to sleep (and hoping someone better informed may pick). > > > > Good night! > > > > Dj > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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@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@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@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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
FYI making main stream media
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-15/wikimedia-foundation-aims-to-take-o...
On 14 February 2016 at 00:49, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com wrote:
Anne, we're talking about almost the same thing, but not exactly. I say "advised" you say "consulted". "Consulted" implies soliciting or expecting some kind of response or engagement - probably approval/disapproval/critique/input. "Advised" means they got the memo. I think "advised" is enough, and if the board wants more engagement, they can initiate it - presuming the notification is clear and comprehensive, of course.
Anthony Cole
On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Well, I'm not sure about that, Anthony. By "consulted", I would mean something to the effect of "We're looking at applying to XX for a grant
of
$YYY to do ZZZ" and asking the Board if they would be likely to agree to accept such a grant if the application is successful. The grant application, evaluation and approval process is costly in both time and resources, and for both the applicant and the grantmaker. Being informed that a grant has been approved sounds more like a fait accompli situation for the Board - they look petty and ungrateful if they say no, even if
they
don't think it was a reasonable grant application. In this case, we're only dealing with $250,000. What if this was $1 million? $10 million?
I think it is healthier for everyone if the Board is properly consulted before the application is submitted. (And again, I note that we don't
know
how much was actually requested in this case, only what was granted.)
Risker/Anne
On 12 February 2016 at 21:23, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com wrote:
Anne, regarding:
"Since the Board must approve acceptance of any donations over $100,000 USD, it seems to be obvious that they should be consulted and possibly should actively approve any grant applications where the dollar value sought is higher than that amount."
I'm not sure that the board should be *consulted* ahead of such applications' or should prior-approve all such applications. That
seems a
bit like micromanagement. But it makes sense to me for the board to be *advised *of such applications and when they're being actively contemplated or prepared.
Anthony Cole
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way, Gerard. I personally would
like
to feel more assured that the WMF is looking into the longer future
and
actively plannning for the day that donations no longer support a
large
staff doing lots of things.
I am concerned today that the team specifically tasked to work
closely
with
so many elements of the community has lost 7% of its staff, and 30%
of
its
leaders, in a single week. This should be a concern in any
organization.
With respect to the Knight grant - I know that many times grant applications are made for considerably more than is given, and I am interested to know how much the WMF requested in the first place. I
would
also like to know whether or not the Board was formally advised of
the
request before it was submitted. Since the Board must approve
acceptance
of any donations over $100,000 USD, it seems to be obvious that they
should
be consulted and possibly should actively approve any grant
applications
where the dollar value sought is higher than that amount. I don't
believe
the current policies require advance approval or even advance
notification,
though.
Risker/Anne
On 12 February 2016 at 03:54, Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, I am not complaining. I point out that all this huha does not get
us
anywhere. I am not afraid to give an opinion and I am not afraid to
be
a
contrarian when I think it makes sense. Yes, things happened that
were
not
beautiful. They are not what upset me. What upsets me is that
people
like
Siko and Anna are leaving. Because they are part of "my" Wikimedia Foundation. What upsets me is that I routinely use Magnus's tool
and
process hundreds of thousands of records and am to understand that
official
query is stunted and does not allow for this "because it was not in
the
design" and it is then pointed out that it takes money to solve
this...
My point is that baying for blood is not what helps us forward.
What
I
do
know is that when sheer negativity is not coupled with an ability
to
stop
and move forward, we will get in a downward spiral. I fault Pine
for
not
being able to stop. What I wish for is for people like Anna and
Siko
and
money for our environment and not for an endowment. Thanks, GerardM
On 12 February 2016 at 09:35, Michel Vuijlsteke <wikipedia@zog.org
wrote:
Gerard,
I was waiting for this mail. For me personally, your complaining
is
achieving exactly the opposite of what you think.
It sounds as if you'd much rather prefer to stick your head in
the
sand
and
hope things will blow over. "Move along, nothing to see here --
oh
look!
something positive over there!" is not going to solve anything.
Michel
On 12 February 2016 at 09:24, Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
> Hoi, > Pine as you are talking about "self inflicting wounds" I take
it
you
are
> not talking in your personal capacity. When is it enough for
you?
When
are > you going to talk about positive things, things that will move
us
forward. > Why ask for blood and more blood? What is it that you hope to
achieve?
> > Who do you represent in this unending litany of negativity and
what
have
> you achieved in this way? When Lila was engaged in her role,
she
was
to
> direct in a different direction and she is doing that. You may
not
like
it > and that is ok. > Thanks, > GerardM > > On 12 February 2016 at 08:43, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com
wrote:
> > > Dariusz, thanks for continuing to engage here. Besides the
good
questions > > that others have asked, I'll add a few: > > > > 1. If the Knowledge Engine is such an important project, why
is
it
not
> > mentioned in > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16
> ? > > > > 2. I realize that as a percentage of the WMF budget, $250k
is a
> relatively > > small number. As others have said, this is not a reason for
opacity
about > > it, nor a reason for not having a conversation with the
community
about
> > something so strategically important as a decision to explore
the
> question > > of "Would users go to Wikipedia if it were an open channel
beyond
an
> > encyclopedia?" It's one thing to have a blue-sky exercise
thinking
about > > possibilities, and another thing to take a $250k step in that direction, > > especially without consulting the community. > > > > 3. I am getting tired about seeing bad news in general about
WMF
> > governance, planning, and turnover. I am curious how you plan
to
address > > those issues. Like you, I would rather that we be talking
about
our
> > movement plans for the next 10 years. However, it's difficult
to
have
> those > > conversations when WMF is making so many self-inflicted
wounds.
The
> recent > > round of resignations is of respectable people from the WMF
staff
is
> making > > the situation that much more concerning and that much more
difficult
to
> > recover from. It seems to me that WMF leadership has lost
control
of
this > > situation, and I'd like to hear what the recovery plan is.
Personally,
I > > feel that we need leadership that can build good
relationships
with
the
> > staff and community, is transparent by default, and is
capable
of
> restoring > > the credibility of the organization's planning, execution,
and
goodwill. > I > > think that we may need new leadership to make that happen. I
am
> interested > > to hear your thoughts. > > > > Pine > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <
darekj@alk.edu.pl
> > > wrote: > > > > > 11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV" sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com
napisał(a):
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > Hi > > > > Dariusz, > > > > > > > > T > > > > he grant application doesn't restrict the search engine
to
Wikimedia > > > projects. It says that the "Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia
[is
a]
system > > for > > > discovering reliable and trustworthy public information on
the
> Internet. > > > > > > My understanding is that the top range could potentially be
all
> > open/public > > > resources, but this is the far stretched total goal, and
still
not
a
> > > general search engine of all content including commercial
one.
> > > > > > And a rrasonable realistic outcome can be just improving
our
searches
> > > across projects. > > > > > > I can't comment on the initial ideas or goals, as I was not
on
the
> Board > > > before August 2015, but this is what I understand we build
now.
> > > > > > . > > > > > > > > The document says the "Search Engine by Wikipedia" budget
for
> 2015–2016 > > > ($2.4 million) was approved by the board. Can you point us
to
which
> > board > > > meeting approved it and what was discussed there? > > > > > > > > > > I dont recall this specifically, and I'm going to elude
this
question
> by > > > going to sleep (and hoping someone better informed may
pick).
> > > > > > Good night! > > > > > > Dj > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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@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@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@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@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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi Gnangarra,
Thank you for forwarding, the authors of the article seem to be confused about the nature of the project. Our Comms team is working to clarify this. Please expect to see something from us in next few days.
Lila
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
FYI making main stream media
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-15/wikimedia-foundation-aims-to-take-o...
On 14 February 2016 at 00:49, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com wrote:
Anne, we're talking about almost the same thing, but not exactly. I say "advised" you say "consulted". "Consulted" implies soliciting or
expecting
some kind of response or engagement - probably approval/disapproval/critique/input. "Advised" means they got the memo. I think "advised" is enough, and if the board wants more engagement, they
can
initiate it - presuming the notification is clear and comprehensive, of course.
Anthony Cole
On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Well, I'm not sure about that, Anthony. By "consulted", I would mean something to the effect of "We're looking at applying to XX for a grant
of
$YYY to do ZZZ" and asking the Board if they would be likely to agree
to
accept such a grant if the application is successful. The grant application, evaluation and approval process is costly in both time and resources, and for both the applicant and the grantmaker. Being
informed
that a grant has been approved sounds more like a fait accompli
situation
for the Board - they look petty and ungrateful if they say no, even if
they
don't think it was a reasonable grant application. In this case, we're only dealing with $250,000. What if this was $1 million? $10 million?
I think it is healthier for everyone if the Board is properly consulted before the application is submitted. (And again, I note that we don't
know
how much was actually requested in this case, only what was granted.)
Risker/Anne
On 12 February 2016 at 21:23, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com
wrote:
Anne, regarding:
"Since the Board must approve acceptance of any donations over
$100,000
USD, it seems to be obvious that they should be consulted and
possibly
should actively approve any grant applications where the dollar value sought is higher than that amount."
I'm not sure that the board should be *consulted* ahead of such applications' or should prior-approve all such applications. That
seems a
bit like micromanagement. But it makes sense to me for the board to
be
*advised *of such applications and when they're being actively contemplated or prepared.
Anthony Cole
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way, Gerard. I personally
would
like
to feel more assured that the WMF is looking into the longer future
and
actively plannning for the day that donations no longer support a
large
staff doing lots of things.
I am concerned today that the team specifically tasked to work
closely
with
so many elements of the community has lost 7% of its staff, and 30%
of
its
leaders, in a single week. This should be a concern in any
organization.
With respect to the Knight grant - I know that many times grant applications are made for considerably more than is given, and I am interested to know how much the WMF requested in the first place.
I
would
also like to know whether or not the Board was formally advised of
the
request before it was submitted. Since the Board must approve
acceptance
of any donations over $100,000 USD, it seems to be obvious that
they
should
be consulted and possibly should actively approve any grant
applications
where the dollar value sought is higher than that amount. I don't
believe
the current policies require advance approval or even advance
notification,
though.
Risker/Anne
On 12 February 2016 at 03:54, Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, I am not complaining. I point out that all this huha does not get
us
anywhere. I am not afraid to give an opinion and I am not afraid
to
be
a
contrarian when I think it makes sense. Yes, things happened that
were
not
beautiful. They are not what upset me. What upsets me is that
people
like
Siko and Anna are leaving. Because they are part of "my"
Wikimedia
Foundation. What upsets me is that I routinely use Magnus's tool
and
process hundreds of thousands of records and am to understand
that
official
query is stunted and does not allow for this "because it was not
in
the
design" and it is then pointed out that it takes money to solve
this...
My point is that baying for blood is not what helps us forward.
What
I
do
know is that when sheer negativity is not coupled with an ability
to
stop
and move forward, we will get in a downward spiral. I fault Pine
for
not
being able to stop. What I wish for is for people like Anna and
Siko
and
money for our environment and not for an endowment. Thanks, GerardM
On 12 February 2016 at 09:35, Michel Vuijlsteke <
wikipedia@zog.org
wrote:
> Gerard, > > I was waiting for this mail. For me personally, your
complaining
is
> achieving exactly the opposite of what you think. > > It sounds as if you'd much rather prefer to stick your head in
the
sand
and > hope things will blow over. "Move along, nothing to see here --
oh
look!
> something positive over there!" is not going to solve anything. > > Michel > > On 12 February 2016 at 09:24, Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
> > wrote: > > > Hoi, > > Pine as you are talking about "self inflicting wounds" I take
it
you
are > > not talking in your personal capacity. When is it enough for
you?
When
> are > > you going to talk about positive things, things that will
move
us
> forward. > > Why ask for blood and more blood? What is it that you hope to
achieve?
> > > > Who do you represent in this unending litany of negativity
and
what
have > > you achieved in this way? When Lila was engaged in her role,
she
was
to
> > direct in a different direction and she is doing that. You
may
not
like
> it > > and that is ok. > > Thanks, > > GerardM > > > > On 12 February 2016 at 08:43, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com
wrote:
> > > > > Dariusz, thanks for continuing to engage here. Besides the
good
> questions > > > that others have asked, I'll add a few: > > > > > > 1. If the Knowledge Engine is such an important project,
why
is
it
not > > > mentioned in > > > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16
> > ? > > > > > > 2. I realize that as a percentage of the WMF budget, $250k
is a
> > relatively > > > small number. As others have said, this is not a reason for
opacity
> about > > > it, nor a reason for not having a conversation with the
community
about > > > something so strategically important as a decision to
explore
the
> > question > > > of "Would users go to Wikipedia if it were an open channel
beyond
an
> > > encyclopedia?" It's one thing to have a blue-sky exercise
thinking
> about > > > possibilities, and another thing to take a $250k step in
that
> direction, > > > especially without consulting the community. > > > > > > 3. I am getting tired about seeing bad news in general
about
WMF
> > > governance, planning, and turnover. I am curious how you
plan
to
> address > > > those issues. Like you, I would rather that we be talking
about
our
> > > movement plans for the next 10 years. However, it's
difficult
to
have
> > those > > > conversations when WMF is making so many self-inflicted
wounds.
The
> > recent > > > round of resignations is of respectable people from the WMF
staff
is
> > making > > > the situation that much more concerning and that much more
difficult
to > > > recover from. It seems to me that WMF leadership has lost
control
of
> this > > > situation, and I'd like to hear what the recovery plan is. Personally, > I > > > feel that we need leadership that can build good
relationships
with
the > > > staff and community, is transparent by default, and is
capable
of
> > restoring > > > the credibility of the organization's planning, execution,
and
> goodwill. > > I > > > think that we may need new leadership to make that happen.
I
am
> > interested > > > to hear your thoughts. > > > > > > Pine > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak < darekj@alk.edu.pl > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > 11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV" sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com
napisał(a):
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Hi > > > > > Dariusz, > > > > > > > > > > T > > > > > he grant application doesn't restrict the search engine
to
> Wikimedia > > > > projects. It says that the "Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia
[is
a]
> system > > > for > > > > discovering reliable and trustworthy public information
on
the
> > Internet. > > > > > > > > My understanding is that the top range could potentially
be
all
> > > open/public > > > > resources, but this is the far stretched total goal, and
still
not
a > > > > general search engine of all content including commercial
one.
> > > > > > > > And a rrasonable realistic outcome can be just improving
our
searches > > > > across projects. > > > > > > > > I can't comment on the initial ideas or goals, as I was
not
on
the
> > Board > > > > before August 2015, but this is what I understand we
build
now.
> > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > The document says the "Search Engine by Wikipedia"
budget
for
> > 2015–2016 > > > > ($2.4 million) was approved by the board. Can you point
us
to
which > > > board > > > > meeting approved it and what was discussed there? > > > > > > > > > > > > > I dont recall this specifically, and I'm going to elude
this
question > > by > > > > going to sleep (and hoping someone better informed may
pick).
> > > > > > > > Good night! > > > > > > > > Dj > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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@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@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@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@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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles
Any changes to the software must be gradual and reversible. We need to make sure that any changes contribute positively to the community, as ultimately determined by the Wikimedia Foundation, in full consultation with the community consensus.
----
Lila at all, Why you don't consult he community about new projects/code?
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 02:35:06 -0800 From: lila@wikimedia.org To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?
Hi Gnangarra,
Thank you for forwarding, the authors of the article seem to be confused about the nature of the project. Our Comms team is working to clarify this. Please expect to see something from us in next few days.
Lila
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
FYI making main stream media
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-15/wikimedia-foundation-aims-to-take-o...
On 14 February 2016 at 00:49, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com wrote:
Anne, we're talking about almost the same thing, but not exactly. I say "advised" you say "consulted". "Consulted" implies soliciting or
expecting
some kind of response or engagement - probably approval/disapproval/critique/input. "Advised" means they got the memo. I think "advised" is enough, and if the board wants more engagement, they
can
initiate it - presuming the notification is clear and comprehensive, of course.
Anthony Cole
On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Well, I'm not sure about that, Anthony. By "consulted", I would mean something to the effect of "We're looking at applying to XX for a grant
of
$YYY to do ZZZ" and asking the Board if they would be likely to agree
to
accept such a grant if the application is successful. The grant application, evaluation and approval process is costly in both time and resources, and for both the applicant and the grantmaker. Being
informed
that a grant has been approved sounds more like a fait accompli
situation
for the Board - they look petty and ungrateful if they say no, even if
they
don't think it was a reasonable grant application. In this case, we're only dealing with $250,000. What if this was $1 million? $10 million?
I think it is healthier for everyone if the Board is properly consulted before the application is submitted. (And again, I note that we don't
know
how much was actually requested in this case, only what was granted.)
Risker/Anne
On 12 February 2016 at 21:23, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com
wrote:
Anne, regarding:
"Since the Board must approve acceptance of any donations over
$100,000
USD, it seems to be obvious that they should be consulted and
possibly
should actively approve any grant applications where the dollar value sought is higher than that amount."
I'm not sure that the board should be *consulted* ahead of such applications' or should prior-approve all such applications. That
seems a
bit like micromanagement. But it makes sense to me for the board to
be
*advised *of such applications and when they're being actively contemplated or prepared.
Anthony Cole
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way, Gerard. I personally
would
like
to feel more assured that the WMF is looking into the longer future
and
actively plannning for the day that donations no longer support a
large
staff doing lots of things.
I am concerned today that the team specifically tasked to work
closely
with
so many elements of the community has lost 7% of its staff, and 30%
of
its
leaders, in a single week. This should be a concern in any
organization.
With respect to the Knight grant - I know that many times grant applications are made for considerably more than is given, and I am interested to know how much the WMF requested in the first place.
I
would
also like to know whether or not the Board was formally advised of
the
request before it was submitted. Since the Board must approve
acceptance
of any donations over $100,000 USD, it seems to be obvious that
they
should
be consulted and possibly should actively approve any grant
applications
where the dollar value sought is higher than that amount. I don't
believe
the current policies require advance approval or even advance
notification,
though.
Risker/Anne
On 12 February 2016 at 03:54, Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
> Hoi, > I am not complaining. I point out that all this huha does not get
us
> anywhere. I am not afraid to give an opinion and I am not afraid
to
be
a
> contrarian when I think it makes sense. Yes, things happened that
were
not > beautiful. They are not what upset me. What upsets me is that
people
like
> Siko and Anna are leaving. Because they are part of "my"
Wikimedia
> Foundation. What upsets me is that I routinely use Magnus's tool
and
> process hundreds of thousands of records and am to understand
that
official > query is stunted and does not allow for this "because it was not
in
the
> design" and it is then pointed out that it takes money to solve
this...
> > My point is that baying for blood is not what helps us forward.
What
I
do
> know is that when sheer negativity is not coupled with an ability
to
stop
> and move forward, we will get in a downward spiral. I fault Pine
for
not
> being able to stop. What I wish for is for people like Anna and
Siko
and
> money for our environment and not for an endowment. > Thanks, > GerardM > > On 12 February 2016 at 09:35, Michel Vuijlsteke <
wikipedia@zog.org
wrote: > > > Gerard, > > > > I was waiting for this mail. For me personally, your
complaining
is
> > achieving exactly the opposite of what you think. > > > > It sounds as if you'd much rather prefer to stick your head in
the
sand
> and > > hope things will blow over. "Move along, nothing to see here --
oh
look! > > something positive over there!" is not going to solve anything. > > > > Michel > > > > On 12 February 2016 at 09:24, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com > > > > wrote: > > > > > Hoi, > > > Pine as you are talking about "self inflicting wounds" I take
it
you
> are > > > not talking in your personal capacity. When is it enough for
you?
When > > are > > > you going to talk about positive things, things that will
move
us
> > forward. > > > Why ask for blood and more blood? What is it that you hope to achieve? > > > > > > Who do you represent in this unending litany of negativity
and
what
> have > > > you achieved in this way? When Lila was engaged in her role,
she
was
to > > > direct in a different direction and she is doing that. You
may
not
like > > it > > > and that is ok. > > > Thanks, > > > GerardM > > > > > > On 12 February 2016 at 08:43, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com
wrote:
> > > > > > > Dariusz, thanks for continuing to engage here. Besides the
good
> > questions > > > > that others have asked, I'll add a few: > > > > > > > > 1. If the Knowledge Engine is such an important project,
why
is
it
> not > > > > mentioned in > > > > > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16
> > > ? > > > > > > > > 2. I realize that as a percentage of the WMF budget, $250k
is a
> > > relatively > > > > small number. As others have said, this is not a reason for
opacity
> > about > > > > it, nor a reason for not having a conversation with the
community
> about > > > > something so strategically important as a decision to
explore
the
> > > question > > > > of "Would users go to Wikipedia if it were an open channel
beyond
an > > > > encyclopedia?" It's one thing to have a blue-sky exercise
thinking
> > about > > > > possibilities, and another thing to take a $250k step in
that
> > direction, > > > > especially without consulting the community. > > > > > > > > 3. I am getting tired about seeing bad news in general
about
WMF
> > > > governance, planning, and turnover. I am curious how you
plan
to
> > address > > > > those issues. Like you, I would rather that we be talking
about
our
> > > > movement plans for the next 10 years. However, it's
difficult
to
have > > > those > > > > conversations when WMF is making so many self-inflicted
wounds.
The
> > > recent > > > > round of resignations is of respectable people from the WMF
staff
is > > > making > > > > the situation that much more concerning and that much more difficult > to > > > > recover from. It seems to me that WMF leadership has lost
control
of > > this > > > > situation, and I'd like to hear what the recovery plan is. > Personally, > > I > > > > feel that we need leadership that can build good
relationships
with
> the > > > > staff and community, is transparent by default, and is
capable
of
> > > restoring > > > > the credibility of the organization's planning, execution,
and
> > goodwill. > > > I > > > > think that we may need new leadership to make that happen.
I
am
> > > interested > > > > to hear your thoughts. > > > > > > > > Pine > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak < > darekj@alk.edu.pl > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > 11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV" sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com napisał(a): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > Dariusz, > > > > > > > > > > > > T > > > > > > he grant application doesn't restrict the search engine
to
> > Wikimedia > > > > > projects. It says that the "Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia
[is
a]
> > system > > > > for > > > > > discovering reliable and trustworthy public information
on
the
> > > Internet. > > > > > > > > > > My understanding is that the top range could potentially
be
all
> > > > open/public > > > > > resources, but this is the far stretched total goal, and
still
not > a > > > > > general search engine of all content including commercial
one.
> > > > > > > > > > And a rrasonable realistic outcome can be just improving
our
> searches > > > > > across projects. > > > > > > > > > > I can't comment on the initial ideas or goals, as I was
not
on
the > > > Board > > > > > before August 2015, but this is what I understand we
build
now.
> > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > The document says the "Search Engine by Wikipedia"
budget
for
> > > 2015–2016 > > > > > ($2.4 million) was approved by the board. Can you point
us
to
> which > > > > board > > > > > meeting approved it and what was discussed there? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I dont recall this specifically, and I'm going to elude
this
> question > > > by > > > > > going to sleep (and hoping someone better informed may
pick).
> > > > > > > > > > Good night! > > > > > > > > > > Dj > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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@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@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@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@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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Lila Tretikov Wikimedia Foundation
*“Be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid.”* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, Search is relatively stand alone. It has been improved in the past. As it is, there are gaping holes that are easily fixed with a hack by Magnus. Search for instance on the Tamil Wikipedia for an English Wikipedia article only or for an American like Valerie Simpson that does not.
Improving search does not have the same impact that the editor has. The quality as it is poor to say the least. How for instance do you find pictures of a 'paard' the windmill thingie? The notion that something has to be done in a particular way is imho a knee jerk reaction. We do not fulfil our mission; sharing in the sum of all knowledge, we do not even begin to share what is available to us.
Has the community ever decided that search is any good? Really, it has improved a lot over the years but it is still poor and we can use the money of the Knight foundation to do a better job. It needs to be exponentially better. Thanks, GerardM
On 15 February 2016 at 17:13, Steinsplitter Wiki < steinsplitter-wiki@live.com> wrote:
Regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles
Any changes to the software must be gradual and reversible. We need to make sure that any changes contribute positively to the community, as ultimately determined by the Wikimedia Foundation, in full consultation with the community consensus.
Lila at all, Why you don't consult he community about new projects/code?
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 02:35:06 -0800 From: lila@wikimedia.org To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and
grant offer?
Hi Gnangarra,
Thank you for forwarding, the authors of the article seem to be confused about the nature of the project. Our Comms team is working to clarify
this.
Please expect to see something from us in next few days.
Lila
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
FYI making main stream media
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-15/wikimedia-foundation-aims-to-take-o...
On 14 February 2016 at 00:49, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com
wrote:
Anne, we're talking about almost the same thing, but not exactly. I
say
"advised" you say "consulted". "Consulted" implies soliciting or
expecting
some kind of response or engagement - probably approval/disapproval/critique/input. "Advised" means they got the
memo. I
think "advised" is enough, and if the board wants more engagement,
they
can
initiate it - presuming the notification is clear and comprehensive,
of
course.
Anthony Cole
On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com
wrote:
Well, I'm not sure about that, Anthony. By "consulted", I would
mean
something to the effect of "We're looking at applying to XX for a
grant
of
$YYY to do ZZZ" and asking the Board if they would be likely to
agree
to
accept such a grant if the application is successful. The grant application, evaluation and approval process is costly in both
time and
resources, and for both the applicant and the grantmaker. Being
informed
that a grant has been approved sounds more like a fait accompli
situation
for the Board - they look petty and ungrateful if they say no,
even if
they
don't think it was a reasonable grant application. In this case,
we're
only dealing with $250,000. What if this was $1 million? $10
million?
I think it is healthier for everyone if the Board is properly
consulted
before the application is submitted. (And again, I note that we
don't
know
how much was actually requested in this case, only what was
granted.)
Risker/Anne
On 12 February 2016 at 21:23, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com
wrote:
Anne, regarding:
"Since the Board must approve acceptance of any donations over
$100,000
USD, it seems to be obvious that they should be consulted and
possibly
should actively approve any grant applications where the dollar
value
sought is higher than that amount."
I'm not sure that the board should be *consulted* ahead of such applications' or should prior-approve all such applications. That
seems a
bit like micromanagement. But it makes sense to me for the board
to
be
*advised *of such applications and when they're being actively
contemplated or
prepared.
Anthony Cole
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com
wrote:
> I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way, Gerard. I personally
would
like
> to feel more assured that the WMF is looking into the longer
future
and
> actively plannning for the day that donations no longer
support a
large
> staff doing lots of things. > > I am concerned today that the team specifically tasked to work
closely
with > so many elements of the community has lost 7% of its staff,
and 30%
of
its > leaders, in a single week. This should be a concern in any
organization.
> > With respect to the Knight grant - I know that many times grant > applications are made for considerably more than is given, and
I am
> interested to know how much the WMF requested in the first
place.
I
would > also like to know whether or not the Board was formally
advised of
the
> request before it was submitted. Since the Board must approve
acceptance
> of any donations over $100,000 USD, it seems to be obvious that
they
should > be consulted and possibly should actively approve any grant
applications
> where the dollar value sought is higher than that amount. I
don't
believe > the current policies require advance approval or even advance notification, > though. > > Risker/Anne > > On 12 February 2016 at 03:54, Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
> > wrote: > > > Hoi, > > I am not complaining. I point out that all this huha does
not get
us
> > anywhere. I am not afraid to give an opinion and I am not
afraid
to
be
a > > contrarian when I think it makes sense. Yes, things happened
that
were
> not > > beautiful. They are not what upset me. What upsets me is that
people
like > > Siko and Anna are leaving. Because they are part of "my"
Wikimedia
> > Foundation. What upsets me is that I routinely use Magnus's
tool
and
> > process hundreds of thousands of records and am to understand
that
> official > > query is stunted and does not allow for this "because it was
not
in
the
> > design" and it is then pointed out that it takes money to
solve
this...
> > > > My point is that baying for blood is not what helps us
forward.
What
I
do > > know is that when sheer negativity is not coupled with an
ability
to
stop > > and move forward, we will get in a downward spiral. I fault
Pine
for
not > > being able to stop. What I wish for is for people like Anna
and
Siko
and > > money for our environment and not for an endowment. > > Thanks, > > GerardM > > > > On 12 February 2016 at 09:35, Michel Vuijlsteke <
wikipedia@zog.org
> wrote: > > > > > Gerard, > > > > > > I was waiting for this mail. For me personally, your
complaining
is
> > > achieving exactly the opposite of what you think. > > > > > > It sounds as if you'd much rather prefer to stick your
head in
the
sand > > and > > > hope things will blow over. "Move along, nothing to see
here --
oh
> look! > > > something positive over there!" is not going to solve
anything.
> > > > > > Michel > > > > > > On 12 February 2016 at 09:24, Gerard Meijssen < > gerard.meijssen@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hoi, > > > > Pine as you are talking about "self inflicting wounds" I
take
it
you > > are > > > > not talking in your personal capacity. When is it enough
for
you?
> When > > > are > > > > you going to talk about positive things, things that will
move
us
> > > forward. > > > > Why ask for blood and more blood? What is it that you
hope to
> achieve? > > > > > > > > Who do you represent in this unending litany of
negativity
and
what
> > have > > > > you achieved in this way? When Lila was engaged in her
role,
she
was > to > > > > direct in a different direction and she is doing that.
You
may
not
> like > > > it > > > > and that is ok. > > > > Thanks, > > > > GerardM > > > > > > > > On 12 February 2016 at 08:43, Pine W <
wiki.pine@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Dariusz, thanks for continuing to engage here. Besides
the
good
> > > questions > > > > > that others have asked, I'll add a few: > > > > > > > > > > 1. If the Knowledge Engine is such an important
project,
why
is
it > > not > > > > > mentioned in > > > > > > > > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16
> > > > ? > > > > > > > > > > 2. I realize that as a percentage of the WMF budget,
$250k
is a
> > > > relatively > > > > > small number. As others have said, this is not a
reason for
opacity > > > about > > > > > it, nor a reason for not having a conversation with the
community
> > about > > > > > something so strategically important as a decision to
explore
the
> > > > question > > > > > of "Would users go to Wikipedia if it were an open
channel
beyond
> an > > > > > encyclopedia?" It's one thing to have a blue-sky
exercise
thinking > > > about > > > > > possibilities, and another thing to take a $250k step
in
that
> > > direction, > > > > > especially without consulting the community. > > > > > > > > > > 3. I am getting tired about seeing bad news in general
about
WMF
> > > > > governance, planning, and turnover. I am curious how
you
plan
to
> > > address > > > > > those issues. Like you, I would rather that we be
talking
about
our > > > > > movement plans for the next 10 years. However, it's
difficult
to
> have > > > > those > > > > > conversations when WMF is making so many self-inflicted
wounds.
The > > > > recent > > > > > round of resignations is of respectable people from
the WMF
staff
> is > > > > making > > > > > the situation that much more concerning and that much
more
> difficult > > to > > > > > recover from. It seems to me that WMF leadership has
lost
control
> of > > > this > > > > > situation, and I'd like to hear what the recovery plan
is.
> > Personally, > > > I > > > > > feel that we need leadership that can build good
relationships
with > > the > > > > > staff and community, is transparent by default, and is
capable
of
> > > > restoring > > > > > the credibility of the organization's planning,
execution,
and
> > > goodwill. > > > > I > > > > > think that we may need new leadership to make that
happen.
I
am
> > > > interested > > > > > to hear your thoughts. > > > > > > > > > > Pine > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak < > > darekj@alk.edu.pl > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > 11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV" <
sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com>
> napisał(a): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > Dariusz, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > T > > > > > > > he grant application doesn't restrict the search
engine
to
> > > Wikimedia > > > > > > projects. It says that the "Knowledge Engine by
Wikipedia
[is
a] > > > system > > > > > for > > > > > > discovering reliable and trustworthy public
information
on
the
> > > > Internet. > > > > > > > > > > > > My understanding is that the top range could
potentially
be
all
> > > > > open/public > > > > > > resources, but this is the far stretched total goal,
and
still
> not > > a > > > > > > general search engine of all content including
commercial
one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > And a rrasonable realistic outcome can be just
improving
our
> > searches > > > > > > across projects. > > > > > > > > > > > > I can't comment on the initial ideas or goals, as I
was
not
on
> the > > > > Board > > > > > > before August 2015, but this is what I understand we
build
now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The document says the "Search Engine by Wikipedia"
budget
for
> > > > 2015–2016 > > > > > > ($2.4 million) was approved by the board. Can you
point
us
to
> > which > > > > > board > > > > > > meeting approved it and what was discussed there? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I dont recall this specifically, and I'm going to
elude
this
> > question > > > > by > > > > > > going to sleep (and hoping someone better informed
may
pick).
> > > > > > > > > > > > Good night! > > > > > > > > > > > > Dj > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > > > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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@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@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@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@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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Lila Tretikov Wikimedia Foundation
*“Be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid.”* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Lila,
The confusion, as you will surely agree, is understandable given the scattershot and often contradictory information provided by WMF to differing audiences. Above all, I hope the next volley of communication will address the central contradictions between what you and Jimmy Wales publicly stated prior to the publication of the grant application, and the words in the application itself.
I will quote these below, but first to underscore the importance: when Siko questioned the integrity of the organization, these are the apparent willful lies that came to mind for me.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
Quotes:
"To make this very clear: no one in top positions has proposed or is proposing that WMF should get into the general "searching" or to try to "be google". It's an interesting hypothetical which has not been part of any serious strategy proposal, nor even discussed at the board level, nor proposed to the board by staff, nor a part of any grant, etc. It's a total lie." -J. Wales, Feb. 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=pr...
"Let’s all treat each other withcivility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Civility and etiquette https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Etiquette, and see if we can collaborate to build a consensus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Consensus on the WMF’s project direction to help readers discover the high quality content and knowledge our editors are creating." - L. Tretikov, Feb. 1 https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)&am...
"Knowledge Engine By Wikipedia is a federated knowledge engine that will give users the most reliable and most trustworthy public information channel on the web, applying fundamentals of transparent Wiki-based systems to surfacing the most relevant and important information." Grant application, August 2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-10/In_foc... On Feb 15, 2016 2:35 AM, "Lila Tretikov" lila@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Gnangarra,
Thank you for forwarding, the authors of the article seem to be confused about the nature of the project. Our Comms team is working to clarify this. Please expect to see something from us in next few days.
Lila
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
FYI making main stream media
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-15/wikimedia-foundation-aims-to-take-o...
On 14 February 2016 at 00:49, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com wrote:
Anne, we're talking about almost the same thing, but not exactly. I say "advised" you say "consulted". "Consulted" implies soliciting or
expecting
some kind of response or engagement - probably approval/disapproval/critique/input. "Advised" means they got the
memo. I
think "advised" is enough, and if the board wants more engagement, they
can
initiate it - presuming the notification is clear and comprehensive, of course.
Anthony Cole
On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Well, I'm not sure about that, Anthony. By "consulted", I would mean something to the effect of "We're looking at applying to XX for a
grant
of
$YYY to do ZZZ" and asking the Board if they would be likely to agree
to
accept such a grant if the application is successful. The grant application, evaluation and approval process is costly in both time
and
resources, and for both the applicant and the grantmaker. Being
informed
that a grant has been approved sounds more like a fait accompli
situation
for the Board - they look petty and ungrateful if they say no, even
if
they
don't think it was a reasonable grant application. In this case,
we're
only dealing with $250,000. What if this was $1 million? $10
million?
I think it is healthier for everyone if the Board is properly
consulted
before the application is submitted. (And again, I note that we
don't
know
how much was actually requested in this case, only what was granted.)
Risker/Anne
On 12 February 2016 at 21:23, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com
wrote:
Anne, regarding:
"Since the Board must approve acceptance of any donations over
$100,000
USD, it seems to be obvious that they should be consulted and
possibly
should actively approve any grant applications where the dollar
value
sought is higher than that amount."
I'm not sure that the board should be *consulted* ahead of such applications' or should prior-approve all such applications. That
seems a
bit like micromanagement. But it makes sense to me for the board to
be
*advised *of such applications and when they're being actively contemplated
or
prepared.
Anthony Cole
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way, Gerard. I personally
would
like
to feel more assured that the WMF is looking into the longer
future
and
actively plannning for the day that donations no longer support a
large
staff doing lots of things.
I am concerned today that the team specifically tasked to work
closely
with
so many elements of the community has lost 7% of its staff, and
30%
of
its
leaders, in a single week. This should be a concern in any
organization.
With respect to the Knight grant - I know that many times grant applications are made for considerably more than is given, and I
am
interested to know how much the WMF requested in the first place.
I
would
also like to know whether or not the Board was formally advised
of
the
request before it was submitted. Since the Board must approve
acceptance
of any donations over $100,000 USD, it seems to be obvious that
they
should
be consulted and possibly should actively approve any grant
applications
where the dollar value sought is higher than that amount. I
don't
believe
the current policies require advance approval or even advance
notification,
though.
Risker/Anne
On 12 February 2016 at 03:54, Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
> Hoi, > I am not complaining. I point out that all this huha does not
get
us
> anywhere. I am not afraid to give an opinion and I am not
afraid
to
be
a
> contrarian when I think it makes sense. Yes, things happened
that
were
not > beautiful. They are not what upset me. What upsets me is that
people
like
> Siko and Anna are leaving. Because they are part of "my"
Wikimedia
> Foundation. What upsets me is that I routinely use Magnus's
tool
and
> process hundreds of thousands of records and am to understand
that
official > query is stunted and does not allow for this "because it was
not
in
the
> design" and it is then pointed out that it takes money to solve
this...
> > My point is that baying for blood is not what helps us forward.
What
I
do
> know is that when sheer negativity is not coupled with an
ability
to
stop
> and move forward, we will get in a downward spiral. I fault
Pine
for
not
> being able to stop. What I wish for is for people like Anna and
Siko
and
> money for our environment and not for an endowment. > Thanks, > GerardM > > On 12 February 2016 at 09:35, Michel Vuijlsteke <
wikipedia@zog.org
wrote: > > > Gerard, > > > > I was waiting for this mail. For me personally, your
complaining
is
> > achieving exactly the opposite of what you think. > > > > It sounds as if you'd much rather prefer to stick your head
in
the
sand
> and > > hope things will blow over. "Move along, nothing to see here
--
oh
look! > > something positive over there!" is not going to solve
anything.
> > > > Michel > > > > On 12 February 2016 at 09:24, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com > > > > wrote: > > > > > Hoi, > > > Pine as you are talking about "self inflicting wounds" I
take
it
you
> are > > > not talking in your personal capacity. When is it enough
for
you?
When > > are > > > you going to talk about positive things, things that will
move
us
> > forward. > > > Why ask for blood and more blood? What is it that you hope
to
achieve? > > > > > > Who do you represent in this unending litany of negativity
and
what
> have > > > you achieved in this way? When Lila was engaged in her
role,
she
was
to > > > direct in a different direction and she is doing that. You
may
not
like > > it > > > and that is ok. > > > Thanks, > > > GerardM > > > > > > On 12 February 2016 at 08:43, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com
wrote:
> > > > > > > Dariusz, thanks for continuing to engage here. Besides
the
good
> > questions > > > > that others have asked, I'll add a few: > > > > > > > > 1. If the Knowledge Engine is such an important project,
why
is
it
> not > > > > mentioned in > > > > > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16
> > > ? > > > > > > > > 2. I realize that as a percentage of the WMF budget,
$250k
is a
> > > relatively > > > > small number. As others have said, this is not a reason
for
opacity
> > about > > > > it, nor a reason for not having a conversation with the
community
> about > > > > something so strategically important as a decision to
explore
the
> > > question > > > > of "Would users go to Wikipedia if it were an open
channel
beyond
an > > > > encyclopedia?" It's one thing to have a blue-sky exercise
thinking
> > about > > > > possibilities, and another thing to take a $250k step in
that
> > direction, > > > > especially without consulting the community. > > > > > > > > 3. I am getting tired about seeing bad news in general
about
WMF
> > > > governance, planning, and turnover. I am curious how you
plan
to
> > address > > > > those issues. Like you, I would rather that we be talking
about
our
> > > > movement plans for the next 10 years. However, it's
difficult
to
have > > > those > > > > conversations when WMF is making so many self-inflicted
wounds.
The
> > > recent > > > > round of resignations is of respectable people from the
WMF
staff
is > > > making > > > > the situation that much more concerning and that much
more
difficult > to > > > > recover from. It seems to me that WMF leadership has lost
control
of > > this > > > > situation, and I'd like to hear what the recovery plan
is.
> Personally, > > I > > > > feel that we need leadership that can build good
relationships
with
> the > > > > staff and community, is transparent by default, and is
capable
of
> > > restoring > > > > the credibility of the organization's planning,
execution,
and
> > goodwill. > > > I > > > > think that we may need new leadership to make that
happen.
I
am
> > > interested > > > > to hear your thoughts. > > > > > > > > Pine > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak < > darekj@alk.edu.pl > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > 11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV" sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com napisał(a): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > Dariusz, > > > > > > > > > > > > T > > > > > > he grant application doesn't restrict the search
engine
to
> > Wikimedia > > > > > projects. It says that the "Knowledge Engine by
Wikipedia
[is
a]
> > system > > > > for > > > > > discovering reliable and trustworthy public information
on
the
> > > Internet. > > > > > > > > > > My understanding is that the top range could
potentially
be
all
> > > > open/public > > > > > resources, but this is the far stretched total goal,
and
still
not > a > > > > > general search engine of all content including
commercial
one.
> > > > > > > > > > And a rrasonable realistic outcome can be just
improving
our
> searches > > > > > across projects. > > > > > > > > > > I can't comment on the initial ideas or goals, as I was
not
on
the > > > Board > > > > > before August 2015, but this is what I understand we
build
now.
> > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > The document says the "Search Engine by Wikipedia"
budget
for
> > > 2015–2016 > > > > > ($2.4 million) was approved by the board. Can you
point
us
to
> which > > > > board > > > > > meeting approved it and what was discussed there? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I dont recall this specifically, and I'm going to elude
this
> question > > > by > > > > > going to sleep (and hoping someone better informed may
pick).
> > > > > > > > > > Good night! > > > > > > > > > > Dj > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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@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@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@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@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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Lila Tretikov Wikimedia Foundation
*“Be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid.”* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, The notion that WMF should out google Google is stupid, certainly at that kind of money. Search in the Wikimedia Foundation is much better but it is still easy for Magnus (for some time now) to improve the search results considerably.
The notion that search should not be strategic is laughable. Jane said that she uses Google to search results in our project because it does a better job. She searches in English !! Now consider searching in Tamil it finds a lot more than only results in Tamil. Then apply this to our aim; provide the sum of all knowledge.
Yes Siko left. It does however not follow that this has to do with grant of the Knight foundation. Yes she is outspoken in what she says but it does not follow that everything good is suspect. When James Heilman says that he has an issue with the focus on search, that is different. It does still not follow that we do a good job on search or that the additional effort as described in the Knight grant is not an important persuit. Thanks, GerardM Thanks, GerardM
On 15 February 2016 at 17:57, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Lila,
The confusion, as you will surely agree, is understandable given the scattershot and often contradictory information provided by WMF to differing audiences. Above all, I hope the next volley of communication will address the central contradictions between what you and Jimmy Wales publicly stated prior to the publication of the grant application, and the words in the application itself.
I will quote these below, but first to underscore the importance: when Siko questioned the integrity of the organization, these are the apparent willful lies that came to mind for me.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
Quotes:
"To make this very clear: no one in top positions has proposed or is proposing that WMF should get into the general "searching" or to try to "be google". It's an interesting hypothetical which has not been part of any serious strategy proposal, nor even discussed at the board level, nor proposed to the board by staff, nor a part of any grant, etc. It's a total lie." -J. Wales, Feb. 1
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=pr...
"Let’s all treat each other withcivility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Civility and etiquette https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Etiquette, and see if we can collaborate to build a consensus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Consensus on the WMF’s project direction to help readers discover the high quality content and knowledge our editors are creating." - L. Tretikov, Feb. 1
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)&am...
"Knowledge Engine By Wikipedia is a federated knowledge engine that will give users the most reliable and most trustworthy public information channel on the web, applying fundamentals of transparent Wiki-based systems to surfacing the most relevant and important information." Grant application, August 2015
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-10/In_foc... On Feb 15, 2016 2:35 AM, "Lila Tretikov" lila@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Gnangarra,
Thank you for forwarding, the authors of the article seem to be confused about the nature of the project. Our Comms team is working to clarify
this.
Please expect to see something from us in next few days.
Lila
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
FYI making main stream media
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-15/wikimedia-foundation-aims-to-take-o...
On 14 February 2016 at 00:49, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com
wrote:
Anne, we're talking about almost the same thing, but not exactly. I
say
"advised" you say "consulted". "Consulted" implies soliciting or
expecting
some kind of response or engagement - probably approval/disapproval/critique/input. "Advised" means they got the
memo. I
think "advised" is enough, and if the board wants more engagement,
they
can
initiate it - presuming the notification is clear and comprehensive,
of
course.
Anthony Cole
On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com
wrote:
Well, I'm not sure about that, Anthony. By "consulted", I would
mean
something to the effect of "We're looking at applying to XX for a
grant
of
$YYY to do ZZZ" and asking the Board if they would be likely to
agree
to
accept such a grant if the application is successful. The grant application, evaluation and approval process is costly in both time
and
resources, and for both the applicant and the grantmaker. Being
informed
that a grant has been approved sounds more like a fait accompli
situation
for the Board - they look petty and ungrateful if they say no, even
if
they
don't think it was a reasonable grant application. In this case,
we're
only dealing with $250,000. What if this was $1 million? $10
million?
I think it is healthier for everyone if the Board is properly
consulted
before the application is submitted. (And again, I note that we
don't
know
how much was actually requested in this case, only what was
granted.)
Risker/Anne
On 12 February 2016 at 21:23, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com
wrote:
Anne, regarding:
"Since the Board must approve acceptance of any donations over
$100,000
USD, it seems to be obvious that they should be consulted and
possibly
should actively approve any grant applications where the dollar
value
sought is higher than that amount."
I'm not sure that the board should be *consulted* ahead of such applications' or should prior-approve all such applications. That
seems a
bit like micromanagement. But it makes sense to me for the board
to
be
*advised *of such applications and when they're being actively
contemplated
or
prepared.
Anthony Cole
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com
wrote:
> I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way, Gerard. I personally
would
like
> to feel more assured that the WMF is looking into the longer
future
and
> actively plannning for the day that donations no longer
support a
large
> staff doing lots of things. > > I am concerned today that the team specifically tasked to work
closely
with > so many elements of the community has lost 7% of its staff, and
30%
of
its > leaders, in a single week. This should be a concern in any
organization.
> > With respect to the Knight grant - I know that many times grant > applications are made for considerably more than is given, and
I
am
> interested to know how much the WMF requested in the first
place.
I
would > also like to know whether or not the Board was formally advised
of
the
> request before it was submitted. Since the Board must approve
acceptance
> of any donations over $100,000 USD, it seems to be obvious that
they
should > be consulted and possibly should actively approve any grant
applications
> where the dollar value sought is higher than that amount. I
don't
believe > the current policies require advance approval or even advance notification, > though. > > Risker/Anne > > On 12 February 2016 at 03:54, Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
> > wrote: > > > Hoi, > > I am not complaining. I point out that all this huha does not
get
us
> > anywhere. I am not afraid to give an opinion and I am not
afraid
to
be
a > > contrarian when I think it makes sense. Yes, things happened
that
were
> not > > beautiful. They are not what upset me. What upsets me is that
people
like > > Siko and Anna are leaving. Because they are part of "my"
Wikimedia
> > Foundation. What upsets me is that I routinely use Magnus's
tool
and
> > process hundreds of thousands of records and am to understand
that
> official > > query is stunted and does not allow for this "because it was
not
in
the
> > design" and it is then pointed out that it takes money to
solve
this...
> > > > My point is that baying for blood is not what helps us
forward.
What
I
do > > know is that when sheer negativity is not coupled with an
ability
to
stop > > and move forward, we will get in a downward spiral. I fault
Pine
for
not > > being able to stop. What I wish for is for people like Anna
and
Siko
and > > money for our environment and not for an endowment. > > Thanks, > > GerardM > > > > On 12 February 2016 at 09:35, Michel Vuijlsteke <
wikipedia@zog.org
> wrote: > > > > > Gerard, > > > > > > I was waiting for this mail. For me personally, your
complaining
is
> > > achieving exactly the opposite of what you think. > > > > > > It sounds as if you'd much rather prefer to stick your head
in
the
sand > > and > > > hope things will blow over. "Move along, nothing to see
here
--
oh
> look! > > > something positive over there!" is not going to solve
anything.
> > > > > > Michel > > > > > > On 12 February 2016 at 09:24, Gerard Meijssen < > gerard.meijssen@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hoi, > > > > Pine as you are talking about "self inflicting wounds" I
take
it
you > > are > > > > not talking in your personal capacity. When is it enough
for
you?
> When > > > are > > > > you going to talk about positive things, things that will
move
us
> > > forward. > > > > Why ask for blood and more blood? What is it that you
hope
to
> achieve? > > > > > > > > Who do you represent in this unending litany of
negativity
and
what
> > have > > > > you achieved in this way? When Lila was engaged in her
role,
she
was > to > > > > direct in a different direction and she is doing that.
You
may
not
> like > > > it > > > > and that is ok. > > > > Thanks, > > > > GerardM > > > > > > > > On 12 February 2016 at 08:43, Pine W <
wiki.pine@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Dariusz, thanks for continuing to engage here. Besides
the
good
> > > questions > > > > > that others have asked, I'll add a few: > > > > > > > > > > 1. If the Knowledge Engine is such an important
project,
why
is
it > > not > > > > > mentioned in > > > > > > > > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16
> > > > ? > > > > > > > > > > 2. I realize that as a percentage of the WMF budget,
$250k
is a
> > > > relatively > > > > > small number. As others have said, this is not a reason
for
opacity > > > about > > > > > it, nor a reason for not having a conversation with the
community
> > about > > > > > something so strategically important as a decision to
explore
the
> > > > question > > > > > of "Would users go to Wikipedia if it were an open
channel
beyond
> an > > > > > encyclopedia?" It's one thing to have a blue-sky
exercise
thinking > > > about > > > > > possibilities, and another thing to take a $250k step
in
that
> > > direction, > > > > > especially without consulting the community. > > > > > > > > > > 3. I am getting tired about seeing bad news in general
about
WMF
> > > > > governance, planning, and turnover. I am curious how
you
plan
to
> > > address > > > > > those issues. Like you, I would rather that we be
talking
about
our > > > > > movement plans for the next 10 years. However, it's
difficult
to
> have > > > > those > > > > > conversations when WMF is making so many self-inflicted
wounds.
The > > > > recent > > > > > round of resignations is of respectable people from the
WMF
staff
> is > > > > making > > > > > the situation that much more concerning and that much
more
> difficult > > to > > > > > recover from. It seems to me that WMF leadership has
lost
control
> of > > > this > > > > > situation, and I'd like to hear what the recovery plan
is.
> > Personally, > > > I > > > > > feel that we need leadership that can build good
relationships
with > > the > > > > > staff and community, is transparent by default, and is
capable
of
> > > > restoring > > > > > the credibility of the organization's planning,
execution,
and
> > > goodwill. > > > > I > > > > > think that we may need new leadership to make that
happen.
I
am
> > > > interested > > > > > to hear your thoughts. > > > > > > > > > > Pine > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak < > > darekj@alk.edu.pl > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > 11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV" <
sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com>
> napisał(a): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > Dariusz, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > T > > > > > > > he grant application doesn't restrict the search
engine
to
> > > Wikimedia > > > > > > projects. It says that the "Knowledge Engine by
Wikipedia
[is
a] > > > system > > > > > for > > > > > > discovering reliable and trustworthy public
information
on
the
> > > > Internet. > > > > > > > > > > > > My understanding is that the top range could
potentially
be
all
> > > > > open/public > > > > > > resources, but this is the far stretched total goal,
and
still
> not > > a > > > > > > general search engine of all content including
commercial
one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > And a rrasonable realistic outcome can be just
improving
our
> > searches > > > > > > across projects. > > > > > > > > > > > > I can't comment on the initial ideas or goals, as I
was
not
on
> the > > > > Board > > > > > > before August 2015, but this is what I understand we
build
now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The document says the "Search Engine by Wikipedia"
budget
for
> > > > 2015–2016 > > > > > > ($2.4 million) was approved by the board. Can you
point
us
to
> > which > > > > > board > > > > > > meeting approved it and what was discussed there? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I dont recall this specifically, and I'm going to
elude
this
> > question > > > > by > > > > > > going to sleep (and hoping someone better informed
may
pick).
> > > > > > > > > > > > Good night! > > > > > > > > > > > > Dj > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > > > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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@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@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@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@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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Lila Tretikov Wikimedia Foundation
*“Be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid.”* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Gerard, you and I agree on most of these points. Certainly, there is room for improvement on intra-Wikimedia search, and such work is important, and I would assume more pressing for non-English projects. And I agree, it is quite possible Siko's concerns about integrity are not directly related to the Knowledge Engine. (If they are unrelated, that would only more strongly suggest there are fundamental issues to be addressed around integrity; multiple issues would be worse than isolated incidents.)
But none of your points relate to whether Wikimedia leadership has been honest and forthright in its public communications about the Knowledge Engine. That is my concern here.
Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Feb 15, 2016 9:11 AM, "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The notion that WMF should out google Google is stupid, certainly at that kind of money. Search in the Wikimedia Foundation is much better but it is still easy for Magnus (for some time now) to improve the search results considerably.
The notion that search should not be strategic is laughable. Jane said that she uses Google to search results in our project because it does a better job. She searches in English !! Now consider searching in Tamil it finds a lot more than only results in Tamil. Then apply this to our aim; provide the sum of all knowledge.
Yes Siko left. It does however not follow that this has to do with grant of the Knight foundation. Yes she is outspoken in what she says but it does not follow that everything good is suspect. When James Heilman says that he has an issue with the focus on search, that is different. It does still not follow that we do a good job on search or that the additional effort as described in the Knight grant is not an important persuit. Thanks, GerardM Thanks, GerardM
On 15 February 2016 at 17:57, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Lila,
The confusion, as you will surely agree, is understandable given the scattershot and often contradictory information provided by WMF to differing audiences. Above all, I hope the next volley of communication will address the central contradictions between what you and Jimmy Wales publicly stated prior to the publication of the grant application, and
the
words in the application itself.
I will quote these below, but first to underscore the importance: when
Siko
questioned the integrity of the organization, these are the apparent willful lies that came to mind for me.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
Quotes:
"To make this very clear: no one in top positions has proposed or is proposing that WMF should get into the general "searching" or to try to
"be
google". It's an interesting hypothetical which has not been part of any serious strategy proposal, nor even discussed at the board level, nor proposed to the board by staff, nor a part of any grant, etc. It's a
total
lie." -J. Wales, Feb. 1
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=pr...
"Let’s all treat each other withcivility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Civility and etiquette https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Etiquette, and see if we can collaborate to build a consensus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Consensus on the WMF’s project direction to help readers discover the high quality content and knowledge our editors are creating." - L. Tretikov, Feb. 1
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)&am...
"Knowledge Engine By Wikipedia is a federated knowledge engine that will give users the most reliable and most trustworthy public information channel on the web, applying fundamentals of transparent Wiki-based
systems
to surfacing the most relevant and important information." Grant application, August 2015
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-10/In_foc...
On Feb 15, 2016 2:35 AM, "Lila Tretikov" lila@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Gnangarra,
Thank you for forwarding, the authors of the article seem to be
confused
about the nature of the project. Our Comms team is working to clarify
this.
Please expect to see something from us in next few days.
Lila
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com
wrote:
FYI making main stream media
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-15/wikimedia-foundation-aims-to-take-o...
On 14 February 2016 at 00:49, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com
wrote:
Anne, we're talking about almost the same thing, but not exactly. I
say
"advised" you say "consulted". "Consulted" implies soliciting or
expecting
some kind of response or engagement - probably approval/disapproval/critique/input. "Advised" means they got the
memo. I
think "advised" is enough, and if the board wants more engagement,
they
can
initiate it - presuming the notification is clear and
comprehensive,
of
course.
Anthony Cole
On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com
wrote:
Well, I'm not sure about that, Anthony. By "consulted", I would
mean
something to the effect of "We're looking at applying to XX for a
grant
of
$YYY to do ZZZ" and asking the Board if they would be likely to
agree
to
accept such a grant if the application is successful. The grant application, evaluation and approval process is costly in both
time
and
resources, and for both the applicant and the grantmaker. Being
informed
that a grant has been approved sounds more like a fait accompli
situation
for the Board - they look petty and ungrateful if they say no,
even
if
they
don't think it was a reasonable grant application. In this case,
we're
only dealing with $250,000. What if this was $1 million? $10
million?
I think it is healthier for everyone if the Board is properly
consulted
before the application is submitted. (And again, I note that we
don't
know
how much was actually requested in this case, only what was
granted.)
Risker/Anne
On 12 February 2016 at 21:23, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com
wrote:
> Anne, regarding: > > "Since the Board must approve acceptance of any donations over
$100,000
> USD, it seems to be obvious that they should be consulted and
possibly
> should actively approve any grant applications where the dollar
value
> sought is higher than that amount." > > I'm not sure that the board should be *consulted* ahead of such > applications' or should prior-approve all such applications.
That
seems a
> bit like micromanagement. But it makes sense to me for the
board
to
be
> *advised > *of such applications and when they're being actively
contemplated
or
> prepared. > > Anthony Cole > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com
wrote:
> > > I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way, Gerard. I
personally
would
like > > to feel more assured that the WMF is looking into the longer
future
and
> > actively plannning for the day that donations no longer
support a
large
> > staff doing lots of things. > > > > I am concerned today that the team specifically tasked to
work
closely
> with > > so many elements of the community has lost 7% of its staff,
and
30%
of
> its > > leaders, in a single week. This should be a concern in any organization. > > > > With respect to the Knight grant - I know that many times
grant
> > applications are made for considerably more than is given,
and
I
am
> > interested to know how much the WMF requested in the first
place.
I
> would > > also like to know whether or not the Board was formally
advised
of
the
> > request before it was submitted. Since the Board must
approve
acceptance > > of any donations over $100,000 USD, it seems to be obvious
that
they
> should > > be consulted and possibly should actively approve any grant applications > > where the dollar value sought is higher than that amount. I
don't
> believe > > the current policies require advance approval or even advance > notification, > > though. > > > > Risker/Anne > > > > On 12 February 2016 at 03:54, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com > > > > wrote: > > > > > Hoi, > > > I am not complaining. I point out that all this huha does
not
get
us
> > > anywhere. I am not afraid to give an opinion and I am not
afraid
to
be > a > > > contrarian when I think it makes sense. Yes, things
happened
that
were > > not > > > beautiful. They are not what upset me. What upsets me is
that
people
> like > > > Siko and Anna are leaving. Because they are part of "my"
Wikimedia
> > > Foundation. What upsets me is that I routinely use Magnus's
tool
and
> > > process hundreds of thousands of records and am to
understand
that
> > official > > > query is stunted and does not allow for this "because it
was
not
in
the > > > design" and it is then pointed out that it takes money to
solve
this... > > > > > > My point is that baying for blood is not what helps us
forward.
What
I > do > > > know is that when sheer negativity is not coupled with an
ability
to
> stop > > > and move forward, we will get in a downward spiral. I fault
Pine
for
> not > > > being able to stop. What I wish for is for people like Anna
and
Siko
> and > > > money for our environment and not for an endowment. > > > Thanks, > > > GerardM > > > > > > On 12 February 2016 at 09:35, Michel Vuijlsteke <
wikipedia@zog.org
> > wrote: > > > > > > > Gerard, > > > > > > > > I was waiting for this mail. For me personally, your
complaining
is
> > > > achieving exactly the opposite of what you think. > > > > > > > > It sounds as if you'd much rather prefer to stick your
head
in
the
> sand > > > and > > > > hope things will blow over. "Move along, nothing to see
here
--
oh
> > look! > > > > something positive over there!" is not going to solve
anything.
> > > > > > > > Michel > > > > > > > > On 12 February 2016 at 09:24, Gerard Meijssen < > > gerard.meijssen@gmail.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hoi, > > > > > Pine as you are talking about "self inflicting wounds"
I
take
it
> you > > > are > > > > > not talking in your personal capacity. When is it
enough
for
you?
> > When > > > > are > > > > > you going to talk about positive things, things that
will
move
us
> > > > forward. > > > > > Why ask for blood and more blood? What is it that you
hope
to
> > achieve? > > > > > > > > > > Who do you represent in this unending litany of
negativity
and
what > > > have > > > > > you achieved in this way? When Lila was engaged in her
role,
she
> was > > to > > > > > direct in a different direction and she is doing that.
You
may
not > > like > > > > it > > > > > and that is ok. > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > GerardM > > > > > > > > > > On 12 February 2016 at 08:43, Pine W <
wiki.pine@gmail.com>
wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Dariusz, thanks for continuing to engage here.
Besides
the
good
> > > > questions > > > > > > that others have asked, I'll add a few: > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. If the Knowledge Engine is such an important
project,
why
is
> it > > > not > > > > > > mentioned in > > > > > > > > > > > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16
> > > > > ? > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. I realize that as a percentage of the WMF budget,
$250k
is a
> > > > > relatively > > > > > > small number. As others have said, this is not a
reason
for
> opacity > > > > about > > > > > > it, nor a reason for not having a conversation with
the
community > > > about > > > > > > something so strategically important as a decision to
explore
the > > > > > question > > > > > > of "Would users go to Wikipedia if it were an open
channel
beyond > > an > > > > > > encyclopedia?" It's one thing to have a blue-sky
exercise
> thinking > > > > about > > > > > > possibilities, and another thing to take a $250k step
in
that
> > > > direction, > > > > > > especially without consulting the community. > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. I am getting tired about seeing bad news in
general
about
WMF > > > > > > governance, planning, and turnover. I am curious how
you
plan
to > > > > address > > > > > > those issues. Like you, I would rather that we be
talking
about
> our > > > > > > movement plans for the next 10 years. However, it's
difficult
to > > have > > > > > those > > > > > > conversations when WMF is making so many
self-inflicted
wounds.
> The > > > > > recent > > > > > > round of resignations is of respectable people from
the
WMF
staff > > is > > > > > making > > > > > > the situation that much more concerning and that much
more
> > difficult > > > to > > > > > > recover from. It seems to me that WMF leadership has
lost
control > > of > > > > this > > > > > > situation, and I'd like to hear what the recovery
plan
is.
> > > Personally, > > > > I > > > > > > feel that we need leadership that can build good
relationships
> with > > > the > > > > > > staff and community, is transparent by default, and
is
capable
of > > > > > restoring > > > > > > the credibility of the organization's planning,
execution,
and
> > > > goodwill. > > > > > I > > > > > > think that we may need new leadership to make that
happen.
I
am
> > > > > interested > > > > > > to hear your thoughts. > > > > > > > > > > > > Pine > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak < > > > darekj@alk.edu.pl > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > 11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV" <
sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com>
> > napisał(a): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > Dariusz, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > T > > > > > > > > he grant application doesn't restrict the search
engine
to
> > > > Wikimedia > > > > > > > projects. It says that the "Knowledge Engine by
Wikipedia
[is
> a] > > > > system > > > > > > for > > > > > > > discovering reliable and trustworthy public
information
on
the > > > > > Internet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My understanding is that the top range could
potentially
be
all > > > > > > open/public > > > > > > > resources, but this is the far stretched total
goal,
and
still > > not > > > a > > > > > > > general search engine of all content including
commercial
one. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And a rrasonable realistic outcome can be just
improving
our
> > > searches > > > > > > > across projects. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can't comment on the initial ideas or goals, as I
was
not
on > > the > > > > > Board > > > > > > > before August 2015, but this is what I understand
we
build
now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The document says the "Search Engine by
Wikipedia"
budget
for > > > > > 2015–2016 > > > > > > > ($2.4 million) was approved by the board. Can you
point
us
to > > > which > > > > > > board > > > > > > > meeting approved it and what was discussed there? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I dont recall this specifically, and I'm going to
elude
this
> > > question > > > > > by > > > > > > > going to sleep (and hoping someone better informed
may
pick).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good night! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dj > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > > > > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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@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@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@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@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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Lila Tretikov Wikimedia Foundation
*“Be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid.”* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, When you harp on things that do not truly matter, you get the wrong results. It is not search that you are after, it is about aligning the needs you feel about communication and openness and the lack of trust you feel towards the WMF. I care about both. However, when Lila was hired it was communicated loud and clear that the WMF would become more of an organisation that would technically enable our projects. That in essence means a change of culture. My appreciation is that this has not been really taken on board by many and given the unfortunate changes at the board there is a lack of trust in what is happening at the moment. It has been getting towards a flash point for some time.
The whole thing with the Knight Foundation is what this flashpoint is focused on and, it is a fight that will only have losers. When we have a conversation of what kind of organisation we are, then fine. If we are to be more activist, I want our endowment fund only to invest in green energy to offset the harm that is done by using the electricity that is generated by dirty sources. We hide behind our hosting company because it uses dirty energy (and forget that we can offset that anyway somewhere else).
So what will it be, continue talk about things that are not the real issue and fail or talk about what it is, where we really hurt. Trust in the acceptance that the WMF and its board may be brave and do their job and when this trust has broken down, what we can do to come to a workable and acceptable continuation of what we do. Thanks, GerardM
On 15 February 2016 at 19:19, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Gerard, you and I agree on most of these points. Certainly, there is room for improvement on intra-Wikimedia search, and such work is important, and I would assume more pressing for non-English projects. And I agree, it is quite possible Siko's concerns about integrity are not directly related to the Knowledge Engine. (If they are unrelated, that would only more strongly suggest there are fundamental issues to be addressed around integrity; multiple issues would be worse than isolated incidents.)
But none of your points relate to whether Wikimedia leadership has been honest and forthright in its public communications about the Knowledge Engine. That is my concern here.
Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Feb 15, 2016 9:11 AM, "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The notion that WMF should out google Google is stupid, certainly at that kind of money. Search in the Wikimedia Foundation is much better but it
is
still easy for Magnus (for some time now) to improve the search results considerably.
The notion that search should not be strategic is laughable. Jane said
that
she uses Google to search results in our project because it does a better job. She searches in English !! Now consider searching in Tamil it finds
a
lot more than only results in Tamil. Then apply this to our aim; provide the sum of all knowledge.
Yes Siko left. It does however not follow that this has to do with grant
of
the Knight foundation. Yes she is outspoken in what she says but it does not follow that everything good is suspect. When James Heilman says that
he
has an issue with the focus on search, that is different. It does still
not
follow that we do a good job on search or that the additional effort as described in the Knight grant is not an important persuit. Thanks, GerardM Thanks, GerardM
On 15 February 2016 at 17:57, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com
wrote:
Lila,
The confusion, as you will surely agree, is understandable given the scattershot and often contradictory information provided by WMF to differing audiences. Above all, I hope the next volley of communication will address the central contradictions between what you and Jimmy
Wales
publicly stated prior to the publication of the grant application, and
the
words in the application itself.
I will quote these below, but first to underscore the importance: when
Siko
questioned the integrity of the organization, these are the apparent willful lies that came to mind for me.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
Quotes:
"To make this very clear: no one in top positions has proposed or is proposing that WMF should get into the general "searching" or to try to
"be
google". It's an interesting hypothetical which has not been part of
any
serious strategy proposal, nor even discussed at the board level, nor proposed to the board by staff, nor a part of any grant, etc. It's a
total
lie." -J. Wales, Feb. 1
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=pr...
"Let’s all treat each other withcivility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Civility and etiquette https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Etiquette, and see if we can collaborate to build a consensus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Consensus on
the
WMF’s project direction to help readers discover the high quality
content
and knowledge our editors are creating." - L. Tretikov, Feb. 1
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)&am...
"Knowledge Engine By Wikipedia is a federated knowledge engine that
will
give users the most reliable and most trustworthy public information channel on the web, applying fundamentals of transparent Wiki-based
systems
to surfacing the most relevant and important information." Grant application, August 2015
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-10/In_foc...
On Feb 15, 2016 2:35 AM, "Lila Tretikov" lila@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Gnangarra,
Thank you for forwarding, the authors of the article seem to be
confused
about the nature of the project. Our Comms team is working to clarify
this.
Please expect to see something from us in next few days.
Lila
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com
wrote:
FYI making main stream media
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-15/wikimedia-foundation-aims-to-take-o...
On 14 February 2016 at 00:49, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com
wrote:
Anne, we're talking about almost the same thing, but not
exactly. I
say
"advised" you say "consulted". "Consulted" implies soliciting or
expecting
some kind of response or engagement - probably approval/disapproval/critique/input. "Advised" means they got the
memo. I
think "advised" is enough, and if the board wants more
engagement,
they
can
initiate it - presuming the notification is clear and
comprehensive,
of
course.
Anthony Cole
On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com
wrote:
> Well, I'm not sure about that, Anthony. By "consulted", I
would
mean
> something to the effect of "We're looking at applying to XX
for a
grant
of > $YYY to do ZZZ" and asking the Board if they would be likely to
agree
to
> accept such a grant if the application is successful. The
grant
> application, evaluation and approval process is costly in both
time
and
> resources, and for both the applicant and the grantmaker.
Being
informed
> that a grant has been approved sounds more like a fait accompli
situation
> for the Board - they look petty and ungrateful if they say no,
even
if
they > don't think it was a reasonable grant application. In this
case,
we're
> only dealing with $250,000. What if this was $1 million? $10
million?
> > I think it is healthier for everyone if the Board is properly
consulted
> before the application is submitted. (And again, I note that
we
don't
know > how much was actually requested in this case, only what was
granted.)
> > Risker/Anne > > On 12 February 2016 at 21:23, Anthony Cole <
ahcoleecu@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > Anne, regarding: > > > > "Since the Board must approve acceptance of any donations
over
$100,000
> > USD, it seems to be obvious that they should be consulted and
possibly
> > should actively approve any grant applications where the
dollar
value
> > sought is higher than that amount." > > > > I'm not sure that the board should be *consulted* ahead of
such
> > applications' or should prior-approve all such applications.
That
seems a > > bit like micromanagement. But it makes sense to me for the
board
to
be
> > *advised > > *of such applications and when they're being actively
contemplated
or
> > prepared. > > > > Anthony Cole > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com
wrote:
> > > > > I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way, Gerard. I
personally
would
> like > > > to feel more assured that the WMF is looking into the
longer
future
and > > > actively plannning for the day that donations no longer
support a
large > > > staff doing lots of things. > > > > > > I am concerned today that the team specifically tasked to
work
closely > > with > > > so many elements of the community has lost 7% of its staff,
and
30%
of > > its > > > leaders, in a single week. This should be a concern in any > organization. > > > > > > With respect to the Knight grant - I know that many times
grant
> > > applications are made for considerably more than is given,
and
I
am
> > > interested to know how much the WMF requested in the first
place.
I
> > would > > > also like to know whether or not the Board was formally
advised
of
the > > > request before it was submitted. Since the Board must
approve
> acceptance > > > of any donations over $100,000 USD, it seems to be obvious
that
they
> > should > > > be consulted and possibly should actively approve any grant > applications > > > where the dollar value sought is higher than that amount.
I
don't
> > believe > > > the current policies require advance approval or even
advance
> > notification, > > > though. > > > > > > Risker/Anne > > > > > > On 12 February 2016 at 03:54, Gerard Meijssen < > gerard.meijssen@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hoi, > > > > I am not complaining. I point out that all this huha does
not
get
us > > > > anywhere. I am not afraid to give an opinion and I am not
afraid
to
> be > > a > > > > contrarian when I think it makes sense. Yes, things
happened
that
> were > > > not > > > > beautiful. They are not what upset me. What upsets me is
that
people > > like > > > > Siko and Anna are leaving. Because they are part of "my"
Wikimedia
> > > > Foundation. What upsets me is that I routinely use
Magnus's
tool
and > > > > process hundreds of thousands of records and am to
understand
that
> > > official > > > > query is stunted and does not allow for this "because it
was
not
in
> the > > > > design" and it is then pointed out that it takes money to
solve
> this... > > > > > > > > My point is that baying for blood is not what helps us
forward.
What > I > > do > > > > know is that when sheer negativity is not coupled with an
ability
to > > stop > > > > and move forward, we will get in a downward spiral. I
fault
Pine
for > > not > > > > being able to stop. What I wish for is for people like
Anna
and
Siko > > and > > > > money for our environment and not for an endowment. > > > > Thanks, > > > > GerardM > > > > > > > > On 12 February 2016 at 09:35, Michel Vuijlsteke <
wikipedia@zog.org
> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Gerard, > > > > > > > > > > I was waiting for this mail. For me personally, your
complaining
is > > > > > achieving exactly the opposite of what you think. > > > > > > > > > > It sounds as if you'd much rather prefer to stick your
head
in
the > > sand > > > > and > > > > > hope things will blow over. "Move along, nothing to see
here
--
oh > > > look! > > > > > something positive over there!" is not going to solve
anything.
> > > > > > > > > > Michel > > > > > > > > > > On 12 February 2016 at 09:24, Gerard Meijssen < > > > gerard.meijssen@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hoi, > > > > > > Pine as you are talking about "self inflicting
wounds"
I
take
it > > you > > > > are > > > > > > not talking in your personal capacity. When is it
enough
for
you? > > > When > > > > > are > > > > > > you going to talk about positive things, things that
will
move
us > > > > > forward. > > > > > > Why ask for blood and more blood? What is it that you
hope
to
> > > achieve? > > > > > > > > > > > > Who do you represent in this unending litany of
negativity
and
> what > > > > have > > > > > > you achieved in this way? When Lila was engaged in
her
role,
she > > was > > > to > > > > > > direct in a different direction and she is doing
that.
You
may
> not > > > like > > > > > it > > > > > > and that is ok. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > GerardM > > > > > > > > > > > > On 12 February 2016 at 08:43, Pine W <
wiki.pine@gmail.com>
> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dariusz, thanks for continuing to engage here.
Besides
the
good > > > > > questions > > > > > > > that others have asked, I'll add a few: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. If the Knowledge Engine is such an important
project,
why
is > > it > > > > not > > > > > > > mentioned in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16
> > > > > > ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. I realize that as a percentage of the WMF
budget,
$250k
is a > > > > > > relatively > > > > > > > small number. As others have said, this is not a
reason
for
> > opacity > > > > > about > > > > > > > it, nor a reason for not having a conversation with
the
> community > > > > about > > > > > > > something so strategically important as a decision
to
explore
> the > > > > > > question > > > > > > > of "Would users go to Wikipedia if it were an open
channel
> beyond > > > an > > > > > > > encyclopedia?" It's one thing to have a blue-sky
exercise
> > thinking > > > > > about > > > > > > > possibilities, and another thing to take a $250k
step
in
that
> > > > > direction, > > > > > > > especially without consulting the community. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. I am getting tired about seeing bad news in
general
about
> WMF > > > > > > > governance, planning, and turnover. I am curious
how
you
plan
> to > > > > > address > > > > > > > those issues. Like you, I would rather that we be
talking
about > > our > > > > > > > movement plans for the next 10 years. However, it's
difficult
> to > > > have > > > > > > those > > > > > > > conversations when WMF is making so many
self-inflicted
wounds. > > The > > > > > > recent > > > > > > > round of resignations is of respectable people from
the
WMF
> staff > > > is > > > > > > making > > > > > > > the situation that much more concerning and that
much
more
> > > difficult > > > > to > > > > > > > recover from. It seems to me that WMF leadership
has
lost
> control > > > of > > > > > this > > > > > > > situation, and I'd like to hear what the recovery
plan
is.
> > > > Personally, > > > > > I > > > > > > > feel that we need leadership that can build good relationships > > with > > > > the > > > > > > > staff and community, is transparent by default, and
is
capable > of > > > > > > restoring > > > > > > > the credibility of the organization's planning,
execution,
and > > > > > goodwill. > > > > > > I > > > > > > > think that we may need new leadership to make that
happen.
I
am > > > > > > interested > > > > > > > to hear your thoughts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pine > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Dariusz
Jemielniak <
> > > > darekj@alk.edu.pl > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV" <
sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com>
> > > napisał(a): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > > Dariusz, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > T > > > > > > > > > he grant application doesn't restrict the
search
engine
to > > > > > Wikimedia > > > > > > > > projects. It says that the "Knowledge Engine by
Wikipedia
[is > > a] > > > > > system > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > discovering reliable and trustworthy public
information
on
> the > > > > > > Internet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My understanding is that the top range could
potentially
be
> all > > > > > > > open/public > > > > > > > > resources, but this is the far stretched total
goal,
and
> still > > > not > > > > a > > > > > > > > general search engine of all content including
commercial
> one. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And a rrasonable realistic outcome can be just
improving
our > > > > searches > > > > > > > > across projects. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can't comment on the initial ideas or goals,
as I
was
not
> on > > > the > > > > > > Board > > > > > > > > before August 2015, but this is what I understand
we
build
> now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The document says the "Search Engine by
Wikipedia"
budget
> for > > > > > > 2015–2016 > > > > > > > > ($2.4 million) was approved by the board. Can
you
point
us
> to > > > > which > > > > > > > board > > > > > > > > meeting approved it and what was discussed there? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I dont recall this specifically, and I'm going to
elude
this > > > > question > > > > > > by > > > > > > > > going to sleep (and hoping someone better
informed
may
pick). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good night! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dj > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > > > > > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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@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@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@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@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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- Lila Tretikov Wikimedia Foundation
*“Be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid.”* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:19 AM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Gerard, you and I agree on most of these points. Certainly, there is room for improvement on intra-Wikimedia search, and such work is important, and I would assume more pressing for non-English projects. And I agree, it is quite possible Siko's concerns about integrity are not directly related to the Knowledge Engine. (If they are unrelated, that would only more strongly suggest there are fundamental issues to be addressed around integrity; multiple issues would be worse than isolated incidents.)
Pete, I suggest you reach out to Siko and talk to her directly if you want to learn more about what she referred to in her email. Only she can explain to you, if she chooses to, what specific issues led her to feel a specific way towards her position in the Foundation. Trying to pick up signals is very tricky as there are some signals here and there, but there are also a lot of noise. If Siko chooses not to speak further, I suggest not speculating. If Siko chooses to explain more, I suggest talking directly to the individual(s) who are responsible for the practices that have concerned Siko. Only by hearing all sides of the story you can get close to a true understanding of the problem. (I acknowledge that this will be a very time consuming approach for everyone involved, but if you want to know the truth, there is no other way.) Leila
-- Leila Zia Research Scientist Wikimedia Foundation
Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Feb 15, 2016 9:11 AM, "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The notion that WMF should out google Google is stupid, certainly at that kind of money. Search in the Wikimedia Foundation is much better but it
is
still easy for Magnus (for some time now) to improve the search results considerably.
The notion that search should not be strategic is laughable. Jane said
that
she uses Google to search results in our project because it does a better job. She searches in English !! Now consider searching in Tamil it finds
a
lot more than only results in Tamil. Then apply this to our aim; provide the sum of all knowledge.
Yes Siko left. It does however not follow that this has to do with grant
of
the Knight foundation. Yes she is outspoken in what she says but it does not follow that everything good is suspect. When James Heilman says that
he
has an issue with the focus on search, that is different. It does still
not
follow that we do a good job on search or that the additional effort as described in the Knight grant is not an important persuit. Thanks, GerardM Thanks, GerardM
On 15 February 2016 at 17:57, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com
wrote:
Lila,
The confusion, as you will surely agree, is understandable given the scattershot and often contradictory information provided by WMF to differing audiences. Above all, I hope the next volley of communication will address the central contradictions between what you and Jimmy
Wales
publicly stated prior to the publication of the grant application, and
the
words in the application itself.
I will quote these below, but first to underscore the importance: when
Siko
questioned the integrity of the organization, these are the apparent willful lies that came to mind for me.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
Quotes:
"To make this very clear: no one in top positions has proposed or is proposing that WMF should get into the general "searching" or to try to
"be
google". It's an interesting hypothetical which has not been part of
any
serious strategy proposal, nor even discussed at the board level, nor proposed to the board by staff, nor a part of any grant, etc. It's a
total
lie." -J. Wales, Feb. 1
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=pr...
"Let’s all treat each other withcivility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Civility and etiquette https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Etiquette, and see if we can collaborate to build a consensus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Consensus on
the
WMF’s project direction to help readers discover the high quality
content
and knowledge our editors are creating." - L. Tretikov, Feb. 1
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)&am...
"Knowledge Engine By Wikipedia is a federated knowledge engine that
will
give users the most reliable and most trustworthy public information channel on the web, applying fundamentals of transparent Wiki-based
systems
to surfacing the most relevant and important information." Grant application, August 2015
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-10/In_foc...
On Feb 15, 2016 2:35 AM, "Lila Tretikov" lila@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Gnangarra,
Thank you for forwarding, the authors of the article seem to be
confused
about the nature of the project. Our Comms team is working to clarify
this.
Please expect to see something from us in next few days.
Lila
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com
wrote:
FYI making main stream media
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-15/wikimedia-foundation-aims-to-take-o...
On 14 February 2016 at 00:49, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com
wrote:
Anne, we're talking about almost the same thing, but not
exactly. I
say
"advised" you say "consulted". "Consulted" implies soliciting or
expecting
some kind of response or engagement - probably approval/disapproval/critique/input. "Advised" means they got the
memo. I
think "advised" is enough, and if the board wants more
engagement,
they
can
initiate it - presuming the notification is clear and
comprehensive,
of
course.
Anthony Cole
On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com
wrote:
> Well, I'm not sure about that, Anthony. By "consulted", I
would
mean
> something to the effect of "We're looking at applying to XX
for a
grant
of > $YYY to do ZZZ" and asking the Board if they would be likely to
agree
to
> accept such a grant if the application is successful. The
grant
> application, evaluation and approval process is costly in both
time
and
> resources, and for both the applicant and the grantmaker.
Being
informed
> that a grant has been approved sounds more like a fait accompli
situation
> for the Board - they look petty and ungrateful if they say no,
even
if
they > don't think it was a reasonable grant application. In this
case,
we're
> only dealing with $250,000. What if this was $1 million? $10
million?
> > I think it is healthier for everyone if the Board is properly
consulted
> before the application is submitted. (And again, I note that
we
don't
know > how much was actually requested in this case, only what was
granted.)
> > Risker/Anne > > On 12 February 2016 at 21:23, Anthony Cole <
ahcoleecu@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > Anne, regarding: > > > > "Since the Board must approve acceptance of any donations
over
$100,000
> > USD, it seems to be obvious that they should be consulted and
possibly
> > should actively approve any grant applications where the
dollar
value
> > sought is higher than that amount." > > > > I'm not sure that the board should be *consulted* ahead of
such
> > applications' or should prior-approve all such applications.
That
seems a > > bit like micromanagement. But it makes sense to me for the
board
to
be
> > *advised > > *of such applications and when they're being actively
contemplated
or
> > prepared. > > > > Anthony Cole > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com
wrote:
> > > > > I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way, Gerard. I
personally
would
> like > > > to feel more assured that the WMF is looking into the
longer
future
and > > > actively plannning for the day that donations no longer
support a
large > > > staff doing lots of things. > > > > > > I am concerned today that the team specifically tasked to
work
closely > > with > > > so many elements of the community has lost 7% of its staff,
and
30%
of > > its > > > leaders, in a single week. This should be a concern in any > organization. > > > > > > With respect to the Knight grant - I know that many times
grant
> > > applications are made for considerably more than is given,
and
I
am
> > > interested to know how much the WMF requested in the first
place.
I
> > would > > > also like to know whether or not the Board was formally
advised
of
the > > > request before it was submitted. Since the Board must
approve
> acceptance > > > of any donations over $100,000 USD, it seems to be obvious
that
they
> > should > > > be consulted and possibly should actively approve any grant > applications > > > where the dollar value sought is higher than that amount.
I
don't
> > believe > > > the current policies require advance approval or even
advance
> > notification, > > > though. > > > > > > Risker/Anne > > > > > > On 12 February 2016 at 03:54, Gerard Meijssen < > gerard.meijssen@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hoi, > > > > I am not complaining. I point out that all this huha does
not
get
us > > > > anywhere. I am not afraid to give an opinion and I am not
afraid
to
> be > > a > > > > contrarian when I think it makes sense. Yes, things
happened
that
> were > > > not > > > > beautiful. They are not what upset me. What upsets me is
that
people > > like > > > > Siko and Anna are leaving. Because they are part of "my"
Wikimedia
> > > > Foundation. What upsets me is that I routinely use
Magnus's
tool
and > > > > process hundreds of thousands of records and am to
understand
that
> > > official > > > > query is stunted and does not allow for this "because it
was
not
in
> the > > > > design" and it is then pointed out that it takes money to
solve
> this... > > > > > > > > My point is that baying for blood is not what helps us
forward.
What > I > > do > > > > know is that when sheer negativity is not coupled with an
ability
to > > stop > > > > and move forward, we will get in a downward spiral. I
fault
Pine
for > > not > > > > being able to stop. What I wish for is for people like
Anna
and
Siko > > and > > > > money for our environment and not for an endowment. > > > > Thanks, > > > > GerardM > > > > > > > > On 12 February 2016 at 09:35, Michel Vuijlsteke <
wikipedia@zog.org
> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Gerard, > > > > > > > > > > I was waiting for this mail. For me personally, your
complaining
is > > > > > achieving exactly the opposite of what you think. > > > > > > > > > > It sounds as if you'd much rather prefer to stick your
head
in
the > > sand > > > > and > > > > > hope things will blow over. "Move along, nothing to see
here
--
oh > > > look! > > > > > something positive over there!" is not going to solve
anything.
> > > > > > > > > > Michel > > > > > > > > > > On 12 February 2016 at 09:24, Gerard Meijssen < > > > gerard.meijssen@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hoi, > > > > > > Pine as you are talking about "self inflicting
wounds"
I
take
it > > you > > > > are > > > > > > not talking in your personal capacity. When is it
enough
for
you? > > > When > > > > > are > > > > > > you going to talk about positive things, things that
will
move
us > > > > > forward. > > > > > > Why ask for blood and more blood? What is it that you
hope
to
> > > achieve? > > > > > > > > > > > > Who do you represent in this unending litany of
negativity
and
> what > > > > have > > > > > > you achieved in this way? When Lila was engaged in
her
role,
she > > was > > > to > > > > > > direct in a different direction and she is doing
that.
You
may
> not > > > like > > > > > it > > > > > > and that is ok. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > GerardM > > > > > > > > > > > > On 12 February 2016 at 08:43, Pine W <
wiki.pine@gmail.com>
> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dariusz, thanks for continuing to engage here.
Besides
the
good > > > > > questions > > > > > > > that others have asked, I'll add a few: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. If the Knowledge Engine is such an important
project,
why
is > > it > > > > not > > > > > > > mentioned in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16
> > > > > > ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. I realize that as a percentage of the WMF
budget,
$250k
is a > > > > > > relatively > > > > > > > small number. As others have said, this is not a
reason
for
> > opacity > > > > > about > > > > > > > it, nor a reason for not having a conversation with
the
> community > > > > about > > > > > > > something so strategically important as a decision
to
explore
> the > > > > > > question > > > > > > > of "Would users go to Wikipedia if it were an open
channel
> beyond > > > an > > > > > > > encyclopedia?" It's one thing to have a blue-sky
exercise
> > thinking > > > > > about > > > > > > > possibilities, and another thing to take a $250k
step
in
that
> > > > > direction, > > > > > > > especially without consulting the community. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. I am getting tired about seeing bad news in
general
about
> WMF > > > > > > > governance, planning, and turnover. I am curious
how
you
plan
> to > > > > > address > > > > > > > those issues. Like you, I would rather that we be
talking
about > > our > > > > > > > movement plans for the next 10 years. However, it's
difficult
> to > > > have > > > > > > those > > > > > > > conversations when WMF is making so many
self-inflicted
wounds. > > The > > > > > > recent > > > > > > > round of resignations is of respectable people from
the
WMF
> staff > > > is > > > > > > making > > > > > > > the situation that much more concerning and that
much
more
> > > difficult > > > > to > > > > > > > recover from. It seems to me that WMF leadership
has
lost
> control > > > of > > > > > this > > > > > > > situation, and I'd like to hear what the recovery
plan
is.
> > > > Personally, > > > > > I > > > > > > > feel that we need leadership that can build good relationships > > with > > > > the > > > > > > > staff and community, is transparent by default, and
is
capable > of > > > > > > restoring > > > > > > > the credibility of the organization's planning,
execution,
and > > > > > goodwill. > > > > > > I > > > > > > > think that we may need new leadership to make that
happen.
I
am > > > > > > interested > > > > > > > to hear your thoughts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pine > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Dariusz
Jemielniak <
> > > > darekj@alk.edu.pl > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV" <
sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com>
> > > napisał(a): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > > Dariusz, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > T > > > > > > > > > he grant application doesn't restrict the
search
engine
to > > > > > Wikimedia > > > > > > > > projects. It says that the "Knowledge Engine by
Wikipedia
[is > > a] > > > > > system > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > discovering reliable and trustworthy public
information
on
> the > > > > > > Internet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My understanding is that the top range could
potentially
be
> all > > > > > > > open/public > > > > > > > > resources, but this is the far stretched total
goal,
and
> still > > > not > > > > a > > > > > > > > general search engine of all content including
commercial
> one. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And a rrasonable realistic outcome can be just
improving
our > > > > searches > > > > > > > > across projects. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can't comment on the initial ideas or goals,
as I
was
not
> on > > > the > > > > > > Board > > > > > > > > before August 2015, but this is what I understand
we
build
> now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The document says the "Search Engine by
Wikipedia"
budget
> for > > > > > > 2015–2016 > > > > > > > > ($2.4 million) was approved by the board. Can
you
point
us
> to > > > > which > > > > > > > board > > > > > > > > meeting approved it and what was discussed there? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I dont recall this specifically, and I'm going to
elude
this > > > > question > > > > > > by > > > > > > > > going to sleep (and hoping someone better
informed
may
pick). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good night! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dj > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > > > > > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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@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@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@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@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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- Lila Tretikov Wikimedia Foundation
*“Be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid.”* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 15 Feb 2016, at 17:10, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The notion that WMF should out google Google is stupid, certainly at that kind of money.
I'm still confused about what kind of 'search engine' is actually being proposed here. Is it: 1) Wikimedia specific: index all of Wikimedia's content and make that easier for users of the sites to find 2) Wikimedia + selected others: like (1), but also allow some other like-minded sources into the mix 3) Google-scale: index everything (duckduckgo-like) ... or somewhere on the scale between those points?
A lot of people seem to be assuming (3), others are liking the idea of (1), but (2) (or maybe (1) leading to (2)) might be closer to the reality?
Thanks, Mike
I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking this Michael. Reading the documents I've seen, it seemed like (1) to me, but a lot of the assumptions seem to lean towards (3). If it is (1), then that is an entirely reasonable thing for the Foundation to be putting development effort into. The problem is that the statements in the grant documents are quite vague, and given the rest of the shenanigans that the WMF has been involved in lately, people are quite predictably jumping to the least flattering conclusion.
Cheers, Craig
On 16 February 2016 at 05:36, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
On 15 Feb 2016, at 17:10, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, The notion that WMF should out google Google is stupid, certainly at that kind of money.
I'm still confused about what kind of 'search engine' is actually being proposed here. Is it:
- Wikimedia specific: index all of Wikimedia's content and make that
easier for users of the sites to find 2) Wikimedia + selected others: like (1), but also allow some other like-minded sources into the mix 3) Google-scale: index everything (duckduckgo-like) ... or somewhere on the scale between those points?
A lot of people seem to be assuming (3), others are liking the idea of (1), but (2) (or maybe (1) leading to (2)) might be closer to the reality?
Thanks, Mike _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi Mike,
We plan to publish a blog tomorrow that addresses some of the questions raised here and confusion in the press. To briefly address your questions specifically, here is where we are today: the the grant allows us to pursue strictly (1) -- a better Wiki search. In that, it supports testing of some of our hypotheses on how to best do this.
It is possible we could pursue (2) in the future (for example, integrating a few specific ones such as OpenStreetMaps or Internet Archive). At some point we have looked into (2+) -- adding broader knowledge sources, though we didn't get into specifics there, and have since decided against increasing the scope. I am not considering (3). Going after general search engine traffic and users is inconsistent with our mission. Our focus is on knowledge.
To be clear, search itself is only one aspect of the work of the Discovery team. This team is also tasked with discovering how to better interconnect our various formats of knowledge, thus amplifying the impact of our volunteers' contributions. Only some of our knowledge is actually connected and discoverable today, other is very hard to find. Search is a simple, non-invasive point of entry into the Wikimedia knowledge ecosystem.
I welcome and appreciate the feedback and support of members of our Wikimedia movement. Collectively, our thinking evolves as we learn. We will continue to make hypotheses, test them, and adjust our path accordingly.
Lila
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Craig Franklin cfranklin@halonetwork.net wrote:
I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking this Michael. Reading the documents I've seen, it seemed like (1) to me, but a lot of the assumptions seem to lean towards (3). If it is (1), then that is an entirely reasonable thing for the Foundation to be putting development effort into. The problem is that the statements in the grant documents are quite vague, and given the rest of the shenanigans that the WMF has been involved in lately, people are quite predictably jumping to the least flattering conclusion.
Cheers, Craig
On 16 February 2016 at 05:36, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
On 15 Feb 2016, at 17:10, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, The notion that WMF should out google Google is stupid, certainly at
that
kind of money.
I'm still confused about what kind of 'search engine' is actually being proposed here. Is it:
- Wikimedia specific: index all of Wikimedia's content and make that
easier for users of the sites to find 2) Wikimedia + selected others: like (1), but also allow some other like-minded sources into the mix 3) Google-scale: index everything (duckduckgo-like) ... or somewhere on the scale between those points?
A lot of people seem to be assuming (3), others are liking the idea of (1), but (2) (or maybe (1) leading to (2)) might be closer to the
reality?
Thanks, Mike _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
+ Footnotes.
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Lila Tretikov lila@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Mike,
We plan to publish a blog tomorrow that addresses some of the questions raised here and confusion in the press. To briefly address your questions specifically, here is where we are today: the the grant allows us to pursue strictly (1) -- a better Wiki search. In that, it supports testing of some of our hypotheses on how to best do this.
It is possible we could pursue (2) in the future (for example, integrating a few specific ones such as OpenStreetMaps or Internet Archive). At some point we have looked into (2+) -- adding broader knowledge sources, though we didn't get into specifics there, and have since decided against increasing the scope. I am not considering (3). Going after general search engine traffic and users is inconsistent with our mission. Our focus is on knowledge.
To be clear, search itself is only one aspect of the work of the Discovery team. This team is also tasked with discovering how to better interconnect our various formats of knowledge, thus amplifying the impact of our volunteers' contributions. Only some of our knowledge is actually connected and discoverable today, other is very hard to find. Search is a simple, non-invasive point of entry into the Wikimedia knowledge ecosystem.
I welcome and appreciate the feedback and support of members of our Wikimedia movement. Collectively, our thinking evolves as we learn. We will continue to make hypotheses, test them, and adjust our path accordingly.
Lila
[1] Wikimedia specific: index all of Wikimedia's content and make that easier for users of the sites to find
[2] Wikimedia + selected others: like (1), but also allow some other like-minded sources into the mix (limited, identified sources)
[2+] Wikimedia + other knowledge
[3] Google-scale: crawl and index everything (duckduckgo-like) all content included (shops, goods, etc.)
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Craig Franklin <cfranklin@halonetwork.net
wrote:
I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking this Michael. Reading the documents I've seen, it seemed like (1) to me, but a lot of the assumptions seem to lean towards (3). If it is (1), then that is an entirely reasonable thing for the Foundation to be putting development effort into. The problem is that the statements in the grant documents are quite vague, and given the rest of the shenanigans that the WMF has been involved in lately, people are quite predictably jumping to the least flattering conclusion.
Cheers, Craig
On 16 February 2016 at 05:36, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
On 15 Feb 2016, at 17:10, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, The notion that WMF should out google Google is stupid, certainly at
that
kind of money.
I'm still confused about what kind of 'search engine' is actually being proposed here. Is it:
- Wikimedia specific: index all of Wikimedia's content and make that
easier for users of the sites to find 2) Wikimedia + selected others: like (1), but also allow some other like-minded sources into the mix 3) Google-scale: index everything (duckduckgo-like) ... or somewhere on the scale between those points?
A lot of people seem to be assuming (3), others are liking the idea of (1), but (2) (or maybe (1) leading to (2)) might be closer to the
reality?
Thanks, Mike _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Lila Tretikov Wikimedia Foundation
*“Be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid.”*
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
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 11:01 PM, Lila Tretikov lila@wikimedia.org wrote:
- Footnotes.
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Lila Tretikov lila@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Mike,
We plan to publish a blog tomorrow that addresses some of the questions raised here and confusion in the press. To briefly address your questions specifically, here is where we are today: the the grant allows us to pursue strictly (1) -- a better Wiki search. In that, it supports testing of some of our hypotheses on how to best do this.
It is possible we could pursue (2) in the future (for example, integrating a few specific ones such as OpenStreetMaps or Internet Archive). At some point we have looked into (2+) -- adding broader knowledge sources, though we didn't get into specifics there, and have since decided against increasing the scope. I am not considering (3). Going after general search engine traffic and users is inconsistent with our mission. Our focus is on knowledge.
To be clear, search itself is only one aspect of the work of the Discovery team. This team is also tasked with discovering how to better interconnect our various formats of knowledge, thus amplifying the impact of our volunteers' contributions. Only some of our knowledge is actually connected and discoverable today, other is very hard to find. Search is a simple, non-invasive point of entry into the Wikimedia knowledge ecosystem.
I welcome and appreciate the feedback and support of members of our Wikimedia movement. Collectively, our thinking evolves as we learn. We will continue to make hypotheses, test them, and adjust our path accordingly.
Lila
[1] Wikimedia specific: index all of Wikimedia's content and make that easier for users of the sites to find
[2] Wikimedia + selected others: like (1), but also allow some other like-minded sources into the mix (limited, identified sources)
[2+] Wikimedia + other knowledge
[3] Google-scale: crawl and index everything (duckduckgo-like) all content included (shops, goods, etc.)
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Craig Franklin < cfranklin@halonetwork.net> wrote:
I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking this Michael. Reading the documents I've seen, it seemed like (1) to me, but a lot of the assumptions seem to lean towards (3). If it is (1), then that is an entirely reasonable thing for the Foundation to be putting development effort into. The problem is that the statements in the grant documents are quite vague, and given the rest of the shenanigans that the WMF has been involved in lately, people are quite predictably jumping to the least flattering conclusion.
Cheers, Craig
On 16 February 2016 at 05:36, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
On 15 Feb 2016, at 17:10, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, The notion that WMF should out google Google is stupid, certainly at
that
kind of money.
I'm still confused about what kind of 'search engine' is actually being proposed here. Is it:
- Wikimedia specific: index all of Wikimedia's content and make that
easier for users of the sites to find 2) Wikimedia + selected others: like (1), but also allow some other like-minded sources into the mix 3) Google-scale: index everything (duckduckgo-like) ... or somewhere on the scale between those points?
A lot of people seem to be assuming (3), others are liking the idea of (1), but (2) (or maybe (1) leading to (2)) might be closer to the
reality?
Thanks, Mike _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Lila Tretikov Wikimedia Foundation
*“Be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid.”*
-- Lila Tretikov Wikimedia Foundation
*“Be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid.”*
The grant application to the Knight Foundation says that the "Search Engine by Wikipedia" budget for 2015–2016 is $2.4 million, and that this was approved by the Board of Trustees. [1]
I can't find any reference to this in the minutes. Could one of the trustees tell us which meeting approved it and what was discussed there?
Sarah
[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/a/a7/Knowledge_engine_gran...
Here is another such example. Jimmy Wales has tonight told[1] a volunteer
---o0o---
First the idea that Wikidata could be used to "construct articles" with "no need for editors to edit actual article content" is pretty absurd from a technological point of view. Major breakthroughs in AI would be necessary. That isn't what is intended at all, obviously.
---o0o---
So "major breakthroughs in AI" are necessary? This is 2016, and the page "API:Presenting Wikidata knowledge"[2] on MediaWiki specifically points out:
---o0o---
* Reasonator[3] and Autodesc[4] are tools that create machine-generated articles and short descriptions about Wikidata items.
---o0o---
Both the Reasonator and Autodesc pages feature what seem to be examples of such articles:
https://tools.wmflabs.org/autodesc?q=Q1339&links=wikipedia&lang=en&a...
https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?q=Q1339
The just concluded strategy consultation[5] specifically highlighted the idea to "Explore ways to scale machine-generated, machine-verified and machine-assisted content."
Now, I've got nothing against these ideas in principle. However, like Pete, I am absolutely astonished at the sheer number of self-contradictory messages coming from the WMF with regard to all of this.
Could this please stop?
Andreas
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=pr...
[2] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Presenting_Wikidata_knowledge#See_also [3] https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/ [4] https://tools.wmflabs.org/autodesc [5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2016_Strategy/Knowledge
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Lila,
The confusion, as you will surely agree, is understandable given the scattershot and often contradictory information provided by WMF to differing audiences. Above all, I hope the next volley of communication will address the central contradictions between what you and Jimmy Wales publicly stated prior to the publication of the grant application, and the words in the application itself.
I will quote these below, but first to underscore the importance: when Siko questioned the integrity of the organization, these are the apparent willful lies that came to mind for me.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
Quotes:
"To make this very clear: no one in top positions has proposed or is proposing that WMF should get into the general "searching" or to try to "be google". It's an interesting hypothetical which has not been part of any serious strategy proposal, nor even discussed at the board level, nor proposed to the board by staff, nor a part of any grant, etc. It's a total lie." -J. Wales, Feb. 1
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=pr...
"Let’s all treat each other withcivility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Civility and etiquette https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Etiquette, and see if we can collaborate to build a consensus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Consensus on the WMF’s project direction to help readers discover the high quality content and knowledge our editors are creating." - L. Tretikov, Feb. 1
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)&am...
"Knowledge Engine By Wikipedia is a federated knowledge engine that will give users the most reliable and most trustworthy public information channel on the web, applying fundamentals of transparent Wiki-based systems to surfacing the most relevant and important information." Grant application, August 2015
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-10/In_foc... On Feb 15, 2016 2:35 AM, "Lila Tretikov" lila@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Gnangarra,
Thank you for forwarding, the authors of the article seem to be confused about the nature of the project. Our Comms team is working to clarify
this.
Please expect to see something from us in next few days.
Lila
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
FYI making main stream media
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-15/wikimedia-foundation-aims-to-take-o...
On 14 February 2016 at 00:49, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com
wrote:
Anne, we're talking about almost the same thing, but not exactly. I
say
"advised" you say "consulted". "Consulted" implies soliciting or
expecting
some kind of response or engagement - probably approval/disapproval/critique/input. "Advised" means they got the
memo. I
think "advised" is enough, and if the board wants more engagement,
they
can
initiate it - presuming the notification is clear and comprehensive,
of
course.
Anthony Cole
On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com
wrote:
Well, I'm not sure about that, Anthony. By "consulted", I would
mean
something to the effect of "We're looking at applying to XX for a
grant
of
$YYY to do ZZZ" and asking the Board if they would be likely to
agree
to
accept such a grant if the application is successful. The grant application, evaluation and approval process is costly in both time
and
resources, and for both the applicant and the grantmaker. Being
informed
that a grant has been approved sounds more like a fait accompli
situation
for the Board - they look petty and ungrateful if they say no, even
if
they
don't think it was a reasonable grant application. In this case,
we're
only dealing with $250,000. What if this was $1 million? $10
million?
I think it is healthier for everyone if the Board is properly
consulted
before the application is submitted. (And again, I note that we
don't
know
how much was actually requested in this case, only what was
granted.)
Risker/Anne
On 12 February 2016 at 21:23, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com
wrote:
Anne, regarding:
"Since the Board must approve acceptance of any donations over
$100,000
USD, it seems to be obvious that they should be consulted and
possibly
should actively approve any grant applications where the dollar
value
sought is higher than that amount."
I'm not sure that the board should be *consulted* ahead of such applications' or should prior-approve all such applications. That
seems a
bit like micromanagement. But it makes sense to me for the board
to
be
*advised *of such applications and when they're being actively
contemplated
or
prepared.
Anthony Cole
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com
wrote:
> I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way, Gerard. I personally
would
like
> to feel more assured that the WMF is looking into the longer
future
and
> actively plannning for the day that donations no longer
support a
large
> staff doing lots of things. > > I am concerned today that the team specifically tasked to work
closely
with > so many elements of the community has lost 7% of its staff, and
30%
of
its > leaders, in a single week. This should be a concern in any
organization.
> > With respect to the Knight grant - I know that many times grant > applications are made for considerably more than is given, and
I
am
> interested to know how much the WMF requested in the first
place.
I
would > also like to know whether or not the Board was formally advised
of
the
> request before it was submitted. Since the Board must approve
acceptance
> of any donations over $100,000 USD, it seems to be obvious that
they
should > be consulted and possibly should actively approve any grant
applications
> where the dollar value sought is higher than that amount. I
don't
believe > the current policies require advance approval or even advance notification, > though. > > Risker/Anne > > On 12 February 2016 at 03:54, Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
> > wrote: > > > Hoi, > > I am not complaining. I point out that all this huha does not
get
us
> > anywhere. I am not afraid to give an opinion and I am not
afraid
to
be
a > > contrarian when I think it makes sense. Yes, things happened
that
were
> not > > beautiful. They are not what upset me. What upsets me is that
people
like > > Siko and Anna are leaving. Because they are part of "my"
Wikimedia
> > Foundation. What upsets me is that I routinely use Magnus's
tool
and
> > process hundreds of thousands of records and am to understand
that
> official > > query is stunted and does not allow for this "because it was
not
in
the
> > design" and it is then pointed out that it takes money to
solve
this...
> > > > My point is that baying for blood is not what helps us
forward.
What
I
do > > know is that when sheer negativity is not coupled with an
ability
to
stop > > and move forward, we will get in a downward spiral. I fault
Pine
for
not > > being able to stop. What I wish for is for people like Anna
and
Siko
and > > money for our environment and not for an endowment. > > Thanks, > > GerardM > > > > On 12 February 2016 at 09:35, Michel Vuijlsteke <
wikipedia@zog.org
> wrote: > > > > > Gerard, > > > > > > I was waiting for this mail. For me personally, your
complaining
is
> > > achieving exactly the opposite of what you think. > > > > > > It sounds as if you'd much rather prefer to stick your head
in
the
sand > > and > > > hope things will blow over. "Move along, nothing to see
here
--
oh
> look! > > > something positive over there!" is not going to solve
anything.
> > > > > > Michel > > > > > > On 12 February 2016 at 09:24, Gerard Meijssen < > gerard.meijssen@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hoi, > > > > Pine as you are talking about "self inflicting wounds" I
take
it
you > > are > > > > not talking in your personal capacity. When is it enough
for
you?
> When > > > are > > > > you going to talk about positive things, things that will
move
us
> > > forward. > > > > Why ask for blood and more blood? What is it that you
hope
to
> achieve? > > > > > > > > Who do you represent in this unending litany of
negativity
and
what
> > have > > > > you achieved in this way? When Lila was engaged in her
role,
she
was > to > > > > direct in a different direction and she is doing that.
You
may
not
> like > > > it > > > > and that is ok. > > > > Thanks, > > > > GerardM > > > > > > > > On 12 February 2016 at 08:43, Pine W <
wiki.pine@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Dariusz, thanks for continuing to engage here. Besides
the
good
> > > questions > > > > > that others have asked, I'll add a few: > > > > > > > > > > 1. If the Knowledge Engine is such an important
project,
why
is
it > > not > > > > > mentioned in > > > > > > > > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16
> > > > ? > > > > > > > > > > 2. I realize that as a percentage of the WMF budget,
$250k
is a
> > > > relatively > > > > > small number. As others have said, this is not a reason
for
opacity > > > about > > > > > it, nor a reason for not having a conversation with the
community
> > about > > > > > something so strategically important as a decision to
explore
the
> > > > question > > > > > of "Would users go to Wikipedia if it were an open
channel
beyond
> an > > > > > encyclopedia?" It's one thing to have a blue-sky
exercise
thinking > > > about > > > > > possibilities, and another thing to take a $250k step
in
that
> > > direction, > > > > > especially without consulting the community. > > > > > > > > > > 3. I am getting tired about seeing bad news in general
about
WMF
> > > > > governance, planning, and turnover. I am curious how
you
plan
to
> > > address > > > > > those issues. Like you, I would rather that we be
talking
about
our > > > > > movement plans for the next 10 years. However, it's
difficult
to
> have > > > > those > > > > > conversations when WMF is making so many self-inflicted
wounds.
The > > > > recent > > > > > round of resignations is of respectable people from the
WMF
staff
> is > > > > making > > > > > the situation that much more concerning and that much
more
> difficult > > to > > > > > recover from. It seems to me that WMF leadership has
lost
control
> of > > > this > > > > > situation, and I'd like to hear what the recovery plan
is.
> > Personally, > > > I > > > > > feel that we need leadership that can build good
relationships
with > > the > > > > > staff and community, is transparent by default, and is
capable
of
> > > > restoring > > > > > the credibility of the organization's planning,
execution,
and
> > > goodwill. > > > > I > > > > > think that we may need new leadership to make that
happen.
I
am
> > > > interested > > > > > to hear your thoughts. > > > > > > > > > > Pine > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak < > > darekj@alk.edu.pl > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > 11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV" <
sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com>
> napisał(a): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > Dariusz, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > T > > > > > > > he grant application doesn't restrict the search
engine
to
> > > Wikimedia > > > > > > projects. It says that the "Knowledge Engine by
Wikipedia
[is
a] > > > system > > > > > for > > > > > > discovering reliable and trustworthy public
information
on
the
> > > > Internet. > > > > > > > > > > > > My understanding is that the top range could
potentially
be
all
> > > > > open/public > > > > > > resources, but this is the far stretched total goal,
and
still
> not > > a > > > > > > general search engine of all content including
commercial
one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > And a rrasonable realistic outcome can be just
improving
our
> > searches > > > > > > across projects. > > > > > > > > > > > > I can't comment on the initial ideas or goals, as I
was
not
on
> the > > > > Board > > > > > > before August 2015, but this is what I understand we
build
now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The document says the "Search Engine by Wikipedia"
budget
for
> > > > 2015–2016 > > > > > > ($2.4 million) was approved by the board. Can you
point
us
to
> > which > > > > > board > > > > > > meeting approved it and what was discussed there? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I dont recall this specifically, and I'm going to
elude
this
> > question > > > > by > > > > > > going to sleep (and hoping someone better informed
may
pick).
> > > > > > > > > > > > Good night! > > > > > > > > > > > > Dj > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > > > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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@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@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@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@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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Lila Tretikov Wikimedia Foundation
*“Be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid.”* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 16 Feb 2016, at 00:26, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Here is another such example. Jimmy Wales has tonight told[1] a volunteer
---o0o---
First the idea that Wikidata could be used to "construct articles" with "no need for editors to edit actual article content" is pretty absurd from a technological point of view. Major breakthroughs in AI would be necessary. That isn't what is intended at all, obviously.
That seems logical. Wikidata can in principle provide basic articles that can then be improved by editors, but at the moment it's just getting up to the standard where it can provide infobox contents. Or do you think that Wikidata can provide FA-quality articles already?
Thanks, Mike
Mike,
If we're thinking about having article generators produce articles "on the fly" and deliver them to millions of readers in response to queries, especially in foreign languages, then that doesn't meet my definition of "that isn't what is intended at all, obviously".
Andreas
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:33 AM, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
On 16 Feb 2016, at 00:26, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Here is another such example. Jimmy Wales has tonight told[1] a volunteer
---o0o---
First the idea that Wikidata could be used to "construct articles" with
"no
need for editors to edit actual article content" is pretty absurd from a technological point of view. Major breakthroughs in AI would be necessary. That isn't what is intended at all, obviously.
That seems logical. Wikidata can in principle provide basic articles that can then be improved by editors, but at the moment it's just getting up to the standard where it can provide infobox contents. Or do you think that Wikidata can provide FA-quality articles already?
Thanks, Mike _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, Reasonator is at this stage at best and at most as good as bot generated articles. Generally they suck but provide a service. Reasonator does not provide adequate service. Try this [1] for instance. Reasonator will not create proper texts for many if not most languages because Wikidata does not have the information to do that properly. It can be done and it should be done but that is a completely different story and will have a gestation period of years not months.
The fact that Magnus pulled a rabbit out of a hat is just that. It is a hack, a wonderful hack and it is possible to hack around this whole issue but true text generation on the appropriate level is NOT what Wikidata currently does. What Reasonator does in stead is provide adequate information where Wikidata provides unstructured data.
Jimmy is right when he says that at this stage on the fly creation of articles is impossible.
This whole story has the grant of the Knight Foundation as its flashpoint. It is only that and sadly so. The point is that many people in the community do not trust the Wikimedia Foundation to do good. This is not a recent thing. We have always had people insist on some crackpot idea. An old one is the insistence that old skins should still work. That all information should be possible in a text only browser. Commons cannot be trusted with public domain pictures. Many people and ideas like this are alive and well and sour our relations.
People advocated for a different board. They got it and the result is disappointing. What makes it bad is that the diplomatic skills of Jan-Bart are sorely missed. What makes it bad that the flash point is mistaken for the issue. What makes it bad is that bad faith is assumed.
My experience is that what the community spouts is worse than what the WMF does. It actively undermines what we stand for and at the same time it is not even open to consider issues around quality of Wikipedia or Wikidata that are not the same old old.
Really do consider what you want and what the real issue is. Forget about this grant because it is not about search, it is not about automatically generated articles. What it is about is "share in the sum of all knowledge" and how we are going to accomplish this together. Thanks, GerardM
[1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?q=Q1339&lang=de
On 16 February 2016 at 01:26, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Here is another such example. Jimmy Wales has tonight told[1] a volunteer
---o0o---
First the idea that Wikidata could be used to "construct articles" with "no need for editors to edit actual article content" is pretty absurd from a technological point of view. Major breakthroughs in AI would be necessary. That isn't what is intended at all, obviously.
---o0o---
So "major breakthroughs in AI" are necessary? This is 2016, and the page "API:Presenting Wikidata knowledge"[2] on MediaWiki specifically points out:
---o0o---
- Reasonator[3] and Autodesc[4] are tools that create machine-generated
articles and short descriptions about Wikidata items.
---o0o---
Both the Reasonator and Autodesc pages feature what seem to be examples of such articles:
https://tools.wmflabs.org/autodesc?q=Q1339&links=wikipedia&lang=en&a...
https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?q=Q1339
The just concluded strategy consultation[5] specifically highlighted the idea to "Explore ways to scale machine-generated, machine-verified and machine-assisted content."
Now, I've got nothing against these ideas in principle. However, like Pete, I am absolutely astonished at the sheer number of self-contradictory messages coming from the WMF with regard to all of this.
Could this please stop?
Andreas
[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=pr...
[2] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Presenting_Wikidata_knowledge#See_also [3] https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/ [4] https://tools.wmflabs.org/autodesc [5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2016_Strategy/Knowledge
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Lila,
The confusion, as you will surely agree, is understandable given the scattershot and often contradictory information provided by WMF to differing audiences. Above all, I hope the next volley of communication will address the central contradictions between what you and Jimmy Wales publicly stated prior to the publication of the grant application, and
the
words in the application itself.
I will quote these below, but first to underscore the importance: when
Siko
questioned the integrity of the organization, these are the apparent willful lies that came to mind for me.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
Quotes:
"To make this very clear: no one in top positions has proposed or is proposing that WMF should get into the general "searching" or to try to
"be
google". It's an interesting hypothetical which has not been part of any serious strategy proposal, nor even discussed at the board level, nor proposed to the board by staff, nor a part of any grant, etc. It's a
total
lie." -J. Wales, Feb. 1
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=pr...
"Let’s all treat each other withcivility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Civility and etiquette https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Etiquette, and see if we can collaborate to build a consensus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Consensus on the WMF’s project direction to help readers discover the high quality content and knowledge our editors are creating." - L. Tretikov, Feb. 1
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)&am...
"Knowledge Engine By Wikipedia is a federated knowledge engine that will give users the most reliable and most trustworthy public information channel on the web, applying fundamentals of transparent Wiki-based
systems
to surfacing the most relevant and important information." Grant application, August 2015
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-10/In_foc...
On Feb 15, 2016 2:35 AM, "Lila Tretikov" lila@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Gnangarra,
Thank you for forwarding, the authors of the article seem to be
confused
about the nature of the project. Our Comms team is working to clarify
this.
Please expect to see something from us in next few days.
Lila
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com
wrote:
FYI making main stream media
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-15/wikimedia-foundation-aims-to-take-o...
On 14 February 2016 at 00:49, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com
wrote:
Anne, we're talking about almost the same thing, but not exactly. I
say
"advised" you say "consulted". "Consulted" implies soliciting or
expecting
some kind of response or engagement - probably approval/disapproval/critique/input. "Advised" means they got the
memo. I
think "advised" is enough, and if the board wants more engagement,
they
can
initiate it - presuming the notification is clear and
comprehensive,
of
course.
Anthony Cole
On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com
wrote:
Well, I'm not sure about that, Anthony. By "consulted", I would
mean
something to the effect of "We're looking at applying to XX for a
grant
of
$YYY to do ZZZ" and asking the Board if they would be likely to
agree
to
accept such a grant if the application is successful. The grant application, evaluation and approval process is costly in both
time
and
resources, and for both the applicant and the grantmaker. Being
informed
that a grant has been approved sounds more like a fait accompli
situation
for the Board - they look petty and ungrateful if they say no,
even
if
they
don't think it was a reasonable grant application. In this case,
we're
only dealing with $250,000. What if this was $1 million? $10
million?
I think it is healthier for everyone if the Board is properly
consulted
before the application is submitted. (And again, I note that we
don't
know
how much was actually requested in this case, only what was
granted.)
Risker/Anne
On 12 February 2016 at 21:23, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com
wrote:
> Anne, regarding: > > "Since the Board must approve acceptance of any donations over
$100,000
> USD, it seems to be obvious that they should be consulted and
possibly
> should actively approve any grant applications where the dollar
value
> sought is higher than that amount." > > I'm not sure that the board should be *consulted* ahead of such > applications' or should prior-approve all such applications.
That
seems a
> bit like micromanagement. But it makes sense to me for the
board
to
be
> *advised > *of such applications and when they're being actively
contemplated
or
> prepared. > > Anthony Cole > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com
wrote:
> > > I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way, Gerard. I
personally
would
like > > to feel more assured that the WMF is looking into the longer
future
and
> > actively plannning for the day that donations no longer
support a
large
> > staff doing lots of things. > > > > I am concerned today that the team specifically tasked to
work
closely
> with > > so many elements of the community has lost 7% of its staff,
and
30%
of
> its > > leaders, in a single week. This should be a concern in any organization. > > > > With respect to the Knight grant - I know that many times
grant
> > applications are made for considerably more than is given,
and
I
am
> > interested to know how much the WMF requested in the first
place.
I
> would > > also like to know whether or not the Board was formally
advised
of
the
> > request before it was submitted. Since the Board must
approve
acceptance > > of any donations over $100,000 USD, it seems to be obvious
that
they
> should > > be consulted and possibly should actively approve any grant applications > > where the dollar value sought is higher than that amount. I
don't
> believe > > the current policies require advance approval or even advance > notification, > > though. > > > > Risker/Anne > > > > On 12 February 2016 at 03:54, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com > > > > wrote: > > > > > Hoi, > > > I am not complaining. I point out that all this huha does
not
get
us
> > > anywhere. I am not afraid to give an opinion and I am not
afraid
to
be > a > > > contrarian when I think it makes sense. Yes, things
happened
that
were > > not > > > beautiful. They are not what upset me. What upsets me is
that
people
> like > > > Siko and Anna are leaving. Because they are part of "my"
Wikimedia
> > > Foundation. What upsets me is that I routinely use Magnus's
tool
and
> > > process hundreds of thousands of records and am to
understand
that
> > official > > > query is stunted and does not allow for this "because it
was
not
in
the > > > design" and it is then pointed out that it takes money to
solve
this... > > > > > > My point is that baying for blood is not what helps us
forward.
What
I > do > > > know is that when sheer negativity is not coupled with an
ability
to
> stop > > > and move forward, we will get in a downward spiral. I fault
Pine
for
> not > > > being able to stop. What I wish for is for people like Anna
and
Siko
> and > > > money for our environment and not for an endowment. > > > Thanks, > > > GerardM > > > > > > On 12 February 2016 at 09:35, Michel Vuijlsteke <
wikipedia@zog.org
> > wrote: > > > > > > > Gerard, > > > > > > > > I was waiting for this mail. For me personally, your
complaining
is
> > > > achieving exactly the opposite of what you think. > > > > > > > > It sounds as if you'd much rather prefer to stick your
head
in
the
> sand > > > and > > > > hope things will blow over. "Move along, nothing to see
here
--
oh
> > look! > > > > something positive over there!" is not going to solve
anything.
> > > > > > > > Michel > > > > > > > > On 12 February 2016 at 09:24, Gerard Meijssen < > > gerard.meijssen@gmail.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hoi, > > > > > Pine as you are talking about "self inflicting wounds"
I
take
it
> you > > > are > > > > > not talking in your personal capacity. When is it
enough
for
you?
> > When > > > > are > > > > > you going to talk about positive things, things that
will
move
us
> > > > forward. > > > > > Why ask for blood and more blood? What is it that you
hope
to
> > achieve? > > > > > > > > > > Who do you represent in this unending litany of
negativity
and
what > > > have > > > > > you achieved in this way? When Lila was engaged in her
role,
she
> was > > to > > > > > direct in a different direction and she is doing that.
You
may
not > > like > > > > it > > > > > and that is ok. > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > GerardM > > > > > > > > > > On 12 February 2016 at 08:43, Pine W <
wiki.pine@gmail.com>
wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Dariusz, thanks for continuing to engage here.
Besides
the
good
> > > > questions > > > > > > that others have asked, I'll add a few: > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. If the Knowledge Engine is such an important
project,
why
is
> it > > > not > > > > > > mentioned in > > > > > > > > > > > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16
> > > > > ? > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. I realize that as a percentage of the WMF budget,
$250k
is a
> > > > > relatively > > > > > > small number. As others have said, this is not a
reason
for
> opacity > > > > about > > > > > > it, nor a reason for not having a conversation with
the
community > > > about > > > > > > something so strategically important as a decision to
explore
the > > > > > question > > > > > > of "Would users go to Wikipedia if it were an open
channel
beyond > > an > > > > > > encyclopedia?" It's one thing to have a blue-sky
exercise
> thinking > > > > about > > > > > > possibilities, and another thing to take a $250k step
in
that
> > > > direction, > > > > > > especially without consulting the community. > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. I am getting tired about seeing bad news in
general
about
WMF > > > > > > governance, planning, and turnover. I am curious how
you
plan
to > > > > address > > > > > > those issues. Like you, I would rather that we be
talking
about
> our > > > > > > movement plans for the next 10 years. However, it's
difficult
to > > have > > > > > those > > > > > > conversations when WMF is making so many
self-inflicted
wounds.
> The > > > > > recent > > > > > > round of resignations is of respectable people from
the
WMF
staff > > is > > > > > making > > > > > > the situation that much more concerning and that much
more
> > difficult > > > to > > > > > > recover from. It seems to me that WMF leadership has
lost
control > > of > > > > this > > > > > > situation, and I'd like to hear what the recovery
plan
is.
> > > Personally, > > > > I > > > > > > feel that we need leadership that can build good
relationships
> with > > > the > > > > > > staff and community, is transparent by default, and
is
capable
of > > > > > restoring > > > > > > the credibility of the organization's planning,
execution,
and
> > > > goodwill. > > > > > I > > > > > > think that we may need new leadership to make that
happen.
I
am
> > > > > interested > > > > > > to hear your thoughts. > > > > > > > > > > > > Pine > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak < > > > darekj@alk.edu.pl > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > 11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV" <
sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com>
> > napisał(a): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > Dariusz, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > T > > > > > > > > he grant application doesn't restrict the search
engine
to
> > > > Wikimedia > > > > > > > projects. It says that the "Knowledge Engine by
Wikipedia
[is
> a] > > > > system > > > > > > for > > > > > > > discovering reliable and trustworthy public
information
on
the > > > > > Internet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My understanding is that the top range could
potentially
be
all > > > > > > open/public > > > > > > > resources, but this is the far stretched total
goal,
and
still > > not > > > a > > > > > > > general search engine of all content including
commercial
one. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And a rrasonable realistic outcome can be just
improving
our
> > > searches > > > > > > > across projects. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can't comment on the initial ideas or goals, as I
was
not
on > > the > > > > > Board > > > > > > > before August 2015, but this is what I understand
we
build
now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The document says the "Search Engine by
Wikipedia"
budget
for > > > > > 2015–2016 > > > > > > > ($2.4 million) was approved by the board. Can you
point
us
to > > > which > > > > > > board > > > > > > > meeting approved it and what was discussed there? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I dont recall this specifically, and I'm going to
elude
this
> > > question > > > > > by > > > > > > > going to sleep (and hoping someone better informed
may
pick).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good night! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dj > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > > > > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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@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@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@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@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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Lila Tretikov Wikimedia Foundation
*“Be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid.”* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org