On 28 January 2016 at 16:12, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com> wrote: ... 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=7… 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=7… Fae -- faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

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, 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link to that email: http://wikistrategies.net/grant-transparency/ Perhaps Lisa can tell us whether that policy was ever rescinded?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 &lt;z(a)mzmcbride.com&gt; 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 &lt;lila(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote:

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 &lt;lila(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote:

Lila Tretikov wrote: 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

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

On 07/02/16 09:41, Chris Keating wrote: Maybe you missed this: <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/James_Heilman_removal_FAQ#What_happened.3F> 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

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 &lt;jayen466(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

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 &lt;wiki.pine(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

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 it will often because many not singled 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

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 &lt;darekj(a)alk.edu.plwrote: 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?) 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 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. Strongly agree, and thank you for addressing this. And yet, the bigger picture is that we have been literally flooded with Again, thank you for acknowledging. When mistakes are made, often a consequence is that more work needs to be done. 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. 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 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. ..

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 &lt;sarahsv.wiki(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 6:11 PM, SarahSV &lt;sarahsv.wiki(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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 &lt;darekj(a)alk.edu.pl&gt; wrote: 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

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 &lt;darekj(a)alk.edu.pl&gt; 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 &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

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 &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; 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 &lt;risker.wp(a)gmail.com&gt; 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 &lt;ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

FYI making main stream media http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-15/wikimedia-foundation-aims-to-take-… On 14 February 2016 at 00:49, Anthony Cole &lt;ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com

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?

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=p… "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)&a… "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_fo… On Feb 15, 2016 2:35 AM, "Lila Tretikov" &lt;lila(a)wikimedia.org&gt; 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" &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:19 AM, Pete Forsyth &lt;peteforsyth(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: ​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

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 &lt;email(a)mikepeel.net&gt; wrote:

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

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 &lt;jayen466(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

+ Footnotes. On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Lila Tretikov &lt;lila(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: -- 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_gra…