I was very surprised to read on the Wikimedia blog a post from Naoko Komura, the WMF program manager heading up the Wikipedia Usability Initiative, funded by the Stanton Foundation.
Post: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/01/21/a-note-on-the-wikipedia-usability-initi...
To quote Komura,
"On the space front, we had outgrown our current space in the South of Market area of San Francisco, and we were in search of space specifically for this project. I am happy to announce that Wikia has agreed to sublease two of their conference rooms to the Wikimedia Foundation for the project duration (Jan'09-Mar'10). Daniel [Phelps] collected a dozen bids for the space in SOMA, and Wikia matched the best offer."
I submitted a comment to the blog, but over seven hours later, it is still not published, and there is a history of my questions to that blog being ignored or censored. So, I'm going to ask here, and I'll also advise the list moderators that this message is being copied to members of the press.
Could we have more detail, please, on the note that "Wikia matched the best offer"? Were the other ten higher bidders also given the opportunity to match the best offer? Why was Wikia chosen on a "second and adjusted offer" basis, rather than choosing the good-faith firm that submitted the lowest offer initially? Was the first low bidder given the chance to further discount their rate? If so, what was their response? If not, why not?
I have to agree with Steven Walling's comment on the blog. He said, "I find the idea of the Foundation working that closely with Wikia, literally and figuratively, discomforting. We already have enough people confused about the difference between the two organizations, and to be honest, this feels like nepotism."
Actually, it's not nepotism. And, there are no uniform laws regarding nepotism. It's potentially worse. Self-dealing, which is what this really smacks of, is covered in case law, judicial opinions, and some statutes.
I have been assured in countless places that "Wikia and the Wikimedia Foundation are complete separate organizations" and that there were "no business relationships" between the members of a past WMF Board that was 60% comprised of Wikia employees/owners. Considering the past Wikia/Wikipedia fiasco of Ryan "Essjay" Jordan, I would have thought the WMF would be hyper-sensitive to working in concert yet again with their neighbor down the street.
In summary:
We know Wikia was recently laying off workers in the economic downturn. Presumably, Wikia now has excess office space per employee. WMF gets a grant, presumably funded by tax-deductible dollars. Expending that grant on office space is served up to an ostensibly "open" and "fair" competitive search among 12 candidate landlords. A lowest bid is received. However, a bidder who happens to have strong personnel ties to the Board of WMF and the Advisory Board of WMF, is given the opportunity to match the lowest bid, which they do, since they have empty office space doing them no good empty.
Net result: Tax-advantaged dollars will be transferred to a for-profit corporation with an "inside track" to the decision-making body of the non-profit organization.
It strikes me as fishy, to use a gentle word.
Could we have more detail, please, on the note that "Wikia matched the best offer"? Were the other ten higher bidders also given the opportunity to match the best offer? Why was Wikia chosen on a "second and adjusted offer" basis, rather than choosing the good-faith firm that submitted the lowest offer initially? Was the first low bidder given the chance to further discount their rate? If so, what was their response? If not, why not?
I'd appreciate answers to those questions as well.
I have to agree with Steven Walling's comment on the blog. He said, "I find the idea of the Foundation working that closely with Wikia, literally and figuratively, discomforting. We already have enough people confused about the difference between the two organizations, and to be honest, this feels like nepotism."
It does seem likely to confuse. Only a couple of days ago I had to explain to someone that we had nothing to do with Wikia and had to qualify that by mentioning that there was some sharing of personnel, in future I'll have to qualify it even more.
Considering the past Wikia/Wikipedia fiasco of Ryan "Essjay" Jordan, I would have thought the WMF would be hyper-sensitive to working in concert yet again with their neighbor down the street.
I don't see the connection there, I'm afraid. Essjay's employment at Wikia had nothing to do with WMF, it just happened to be how we all found out about his true identity.
In WMF's defence, this sentence from the blog may at least partly explain the decision:
"Wikia has been doing intensive work on the usability front and making the code available to public, so I look forward to collaborating with the Wikia technical and product teams to exchange ideas and learn from their work."
There is a certain amount of logic in working with one of the biggest non-WMF MediaWiki users on this project.
On 1/23/09 11:49 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Could we have more detail, please, on the note that "Wikia matched the best offer"? Were the other ten higher bidders also given the opportunity to match the best offer? Why was Wikia chosen on a "second and adjusted offer" basis, rather than choosing the good-faith firm that submitted the lowest offer initially? Was the first low bidder given the chance to further discount their rate? If so, what was their response? If not, why not?
I'd appreciate answers to those questions as well.
Wikia's space is physically closer to WMF's main office than the best other bid, making it easier for the project team to work with the main office. (We'd much rather keep them *in* our main office, but we're simply out of room!)
The fact that Wikia also has software developers working on MediaWiki usability is a big plus as well -- being physically close to Wikia's office makes technical collaboration with their team easier, which translates directly to benefiting end users.
These benefits would be present even if the price didn't match the best other offer, but would have been outweighed by a significant price difference (or being able to increase our primary space at an effective cost, say by taking over the space next door which is alas not currently available).
"Wikia has been doing intensive work on the usability front and making the code available to public, so I look forward to collaborating with the Wikia technical and product teams to exchange ideas and learn from their work."
There is a certain amount of logic in working with one of the biggest non-WMF MediaWiki users on this project.
Bingo.
-- brion
(We'd much rather keep them *in* our main office, but we're simply out of room!)
I'm curious, how did that happen exactly? You didn't get the office that long ago and most of the recent hires have been planned a fair amount of time in advance. Why did you get a bigger office to start with?
2009/1/23 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
I'm curious, how did that happen exactly? You didn't get the office that long ago and most of the recent hires have been planned a fair amount of time in advance.
Growth can be unpredictable for a number of reasons - changing assumptions about capacity needs, revenue, etc.; the normal unpredictable factors in any hiring process, etc. This is all expected and normal for an organization that was, last year, essentially in start-up mode. The Stanton usability grant, specifically, was not a planned or anticipated opportunity: we always expected that we'd be doing significant work in that area, but we were lucky to find a funder whose goals were lined up with ours to allow this to happen on a larger scale and sooner than we expected.
Brion;
Thank you for your enlightened perspective on how the sticker price isn't the only cost.
________________________________ From: Brion Vibber brion@wikimedia.org To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 12:08:27 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikia leasing office space to WMF
On 1/23/09 11:49 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Could we have more detail, please, on the note that "Wikia matched the best offer"? Were the other ten higher bidders also given the opportunity to match the best offer? Why was Wikia chosen on a "second and adjusted offer" basis, rather than choosing the good-faith firm that submitted the lowest offer initially? Was the first low bidder given the chance to further discount their rate? If so, what was their response? If not, why not?
I'd appreciate answers to those questions as well.
Wikia's space is physically closer to WMF's main office than the best other bid, making it easier for the project team to work with the main office. (We'd much rather keep them *in* our main office, but we're simply out of room!)
The fact that Wikia also has software developers working on MediaWiki usability is a big plus as well -- being physically close to Wikia's office makes technical collaboration with their team easier, which translates directly to benefiting end users.
These benefits would be present even if the price didn't match the best other offer, but would have been outweighed by a significant price difference (or being able to increase our primary space at an effective cost, say by taking over the space next door which is alas not currently available).
"Wikia has been doing intensive work on the usability front and making the code available to public, so I look forward to collaborating with the Wikia technical and product teams to exchange ideas and learn from their work."
There is a certain amount of logic in working with one of the biggest non-WMF MediaWiki users on this project.
Bingo.
-- brion
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 8:37 PM, Gregory Kohs thekohser@gmail.com wrote:
I'll also advise the list moderators that this message is being copied to members of the press.
Thanks for the heads-up, now I'm frightened...
Seriously, I have nothing against you raising these questions, but sentences like the above won't help your cause and will just allow other people to dismiss your arguments more quickly.
M.
The issue is pretty plain and simple: * Our Office Manager explored several options, including Wikia; * We've suggested to Wikia a fair market rate based on the average of the other options we obtained; * After some negotiation, Wikia accepted. Weighing other pros and cons of the space against other options, we decided to go with Wikia; * Neither Jimmy Wales nor anyone else involved with both WMF and Wikia was involved in this decision-making process, to avoid any conflict of interest.
I know that Wikia/WMF related stuff is pretty exciting, but really, we have work to do. We're not going to not make a decision that is right just because it creates fodder for trolling. (And I hope that if this turns into a troll-fest, the list moderators will take appropriate action.)
Erik Moeller wrote:
[snip]
- We've suggested to Wikia a fair market rate based on the average of
the other options we obtained;
- After some negotiation, Wikia accepted. Weighing other pros and cons
of the space against other options, we decided to go with Wikia;
To clarify, did Wikia match the lowest bid?
2009/1/23 David Levy lifeisunfair@gmail.com:
Erik Moeller wrote:
[snip]
- We've suggested to Wikia a fair market rate based on the average of
the other options we obtained;
- After some negotiation, Wikia accepted. Weighing other pros and cons
of the space against other options, we decided to go with Wikia;
To clarify, did Wikia match the lowest bid?
No, and we didn't ask them to. We obtained about a dozen bids, ranging from about $150 to $565 per person/month. Obviously all those spaces had different characteristics. Wikia was in the running because it had desirable characteristics from the start (high proximity, shared kitchen access, shared speakerphone use, shared Internet connection, etc.). We used averaging as a way to arrive at a fair market rate to neither advantage nor disadvantage Wikia when suggesting a rate. The averaging also resulted in a rate that was roughly equivalent to the most comparable space in the running.
Wikia, too, looked at different potential tenants for the space. The final rate we negotiated was slightly higher than the most comparable option we looked at (and considered very seriously, including a site visit). However, the relative advantages of the Wikia space compensated for that. We were quite careful not to draw any special advantages from our relationship to Wikia, and Wikia was careful to treat us in our negotiations like any other tenant. While we're likely to work with them on technical aspects of the projects, we were also careful to keep that completely separate.
2009/1/23 Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
2009/1/23 David Levy lifeisunfair@gmail.com:
Erik Moeller wrote:
[snip]
- We've suggested to Wikia a fair market rate based on the average of
the other options we obtained;
- After some negotiation, Wikia accepted. Weighing other pros and cons
of the space against other options, we decided to go with Wikia;
To clarify, did Wikia match the lowest bid?
No, and we didn't ask them to. We obtained about a dozen bids, ranging from about $150 to $565 per person/month. Obviously all those spaces had different characteristics. Wikia was in the running because it had desirable characteristics from the start (high proximity, shared kitchen access, shared speakerphone use, shared Internet connection, etc.). We used averaging as a way to arrive at a fair market rate to neither advantage nor disadvantage Wikia when suggesting a rate. The averaging also resulted in a rate that was roughly equivalent to the most comparable space in the running.
Is that common practice for US charities? I'm not sure that would cut it in the UK...
Wikia, too, looked at different potential tenants for the space. The final rate we negotiated was slightly higher than the most comparable option we looked at (and considered very seriously, including a site visit). However, the relative advantages of the Wikia space compensated for that. We were quite careful not to draw any special advantages from our relationship to Wikia, and Wikia was careful to treat us in our negotiations like any other tenant. While we're likely to work with them on technical aspects of the projects, we were also careful to keep that completely separate.
You don't just need to avoid a COI, you need to avoid the perception of one. This deal will, undoubtedly, be interpreted by many as an inside job. I'm sure it isn't, but that's how a lot of people will see it. Did you consider the PR cost when weighing it all up?
Hoi, Having an office close to the main office, having an environment that is shared with colleagues who way are sharing their impressive usability improvements are tangible benefits. The cost of the office space conforms to market rates.
The natural state of these discussions is that there are always people pissing in the wind. That spoils things somewhat.
The benefits of this deal are quite obvious and material. The work done both by Wikia and Wikimedia Foundation is open source. Both organisations will benefit because of the new emphasis on usability. It is the WMF that benefits most because they have to catch up. Wikia will only start to benefit when their usability improvements are adopted. Some of the Wikia improvemets will be more then welcome. Thanks, GerardM
2009/1/23 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com
2009/1/23 Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
2009/1/23 David Levy lifeisunfair@gmail.com:
Erik Moeller wrote:
[snip]
- We've suggested to Wikia a fair market rate based on the average of
the other options we obtained;
- After some negotiation, Wikia accepted. Weighing other pros and cons
of the space against other options, we decided to go with Wikia;
To clarify, did Wikia match the lowest bid?
No, and we didn't ask them to. We obtained about a dozen bids, ranging from about $150 to $565 per person/month. Obviously all those spaces had different characteristics. Wikia was in the running because it had desirable characteristics from the start (high proximity, shared kitchen access, shared speakerphone use, shared Internet connection, etc.). We used averaging as a way to arrive at a fair market rate to neither advantage nor disadvantage Wikia when suggesting a rate. The averaging also resulted in a rate that was roughly equivalent to the most comparable space in the running.
Is that common practice for US charities? I'm not sure that would cut it in the UK...
Wikia, too, looked at different potential tenants for the space. The final rate we negotiated was slightly higher than the most comparable option we looked at (and considered very seriously, including a site visit). However, the relative advantages of the Wikia space compensated for that. We were quite careful not to draw any special advantages from our relationship to Wikia, and Wikia was careful to treat us in our negotiations like any other tenant. While we're likely to work with them on technical aspects of the projects, we were also careful to keep that completely separate.
You don't just need to avoid a COI, you need to avoid the perception of one. This deal will, undoubtedly, be interpreted by many as an inside job. I'm sure it isn't, but that's how a lot of people will see it. Did you consider the PR cost when weighing it all up?
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2009/1/23 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, Having an office close to the main office, having an environment that is shared with colleagues who way are sharing their impressive usability improvements are tangible benefits.
I agree, the issue is with how much you value them. They definitely have a value, but I haven't, as yet, seem any attempt to quantify that.
The cost of the office space conforms to market rates.
Sure, but they don't conform to the cheapest rate. Any decision by a charity to spend more money than is strictly necessary needs to be justified. I'm not saying that it's unjustifiable, it just hasn't been justified yet.
2009/1/23 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
The natural state of these discussions is that there are always people pissing in the wind. That spoils things somewhat.
Hear hear, true words in a typical Dutch wording. :-) I am amazed about the transparency and openess the staff members are giving here, and I am looking forward to the results of these splendid work conditions.
Kind regards Ziko
"Wer durch des Argwohns Brille schaut, sieht Raupen selbst im Sauerkraut." Wilhelm Busch
2009/1/23 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
. Did you consider the PR cost when weighing it all up?
Of course. It's a normal transaction and any noise about it is likely going to be ephemeral. We will continue to calmly and sensibly explain it to reasonable people, and that's all there is to it.
2009/1/23 Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
2009/1/23 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
. Did you consider the PR cost when weighing it all up?
Of course. It's a normal transaction and any noise about it is likely going to be ephemeral. We will continue to calmly and sensibly explain it to reasonable people, and that's all there is to it.
Sounds good. Could you calmly and sensibly explain it to me, then? How did you come to decide that the addition benefits of working in Wikia's offices were worth the extra money? (I'm willing to accept that there could be a good explanation, I'd just like to see it.)
2009/1/23 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
Sounds good. Could you calmly and sensibly explain it to me, then? How did you come to decide that the addition benefits of working in Wikia's offices were worth the extra money? (I'm willing to accept that there could be a good explanation, I'd just like to see it.)
I already named some of them - greater proximity, shared kitchen use, shared speakerphone use, established Internet connectivity. The other space we were looking at also had noise issues: open concept with two other tenants, and some noise every day at 6PM due to music lessons in the same building.
2009/1/23 Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
2009/1/23 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
Sounds good. Could you calmly and sensibly explain it to me, then? How did you come to decide that the addition benefits of working in Wikia's offices were worth the extra money? (I'm willing to accept that there could be a good explanation, I'd just like to see it.)
I already named some of them - greater proximity, shared kitchen use, shared speakerphone use, established Internet connectivity. The other space we were looking at also had noise issues: open concept with two other tenants, and some noise every day at 6PM due to music lessons in the same building.
I was looking for something a little more quantitative. I know it is difficult to quantify these things, which is why, in my experience, charities usually err on the side of caution. In fact, the model governing documents for the UK Charities Commission explicitly forbids any such dealings with companies that share directors with the charity (I'm not sure the law requires such strict rules, but they are certainly recommended).
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2009/1/23 Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
2009/1/23 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
Sounds good. Could you calmly and sensibly explain it to me, then? How did you come to decide that the addition benefits of working in Wikia's offices were worth the extra money? (I'm willing to accept that there could be a good explanation, I'd just like to see it.)
I already named some of them - greater proximity, shared kitchen use, shared speakerphone use, established Internet connectivity. The other space we were looking at also had noise issues: open concept with two other tenants, and some noise every day at 6PM due to music lessons in the same building.
I was looking for something a little more quantitative. I know it is difficult to quantify these things, which is why, in my experience, charities usually err on the side of caution. In fact, the model governing documents for the UK Charities Commission explicitly forbids any such dealings with companies that share directors with the charity (I'm not sure the law requires such strict rules, but they are certainly recommended).
Hello, Thomas.
I admire your persistence in putting your question forward until your question is answered. :-) Let me try to answer your questions by giving you the background of this negotiation. So the number of total quotes collected are ten including Wikia. The criteria of request for quotes were 1) the space needs to house minimum five personnel and (2) the project team needs a meeting room. These ten quotes are not apple-to-apple comparison, for example parameters such as total space availability, infrastructure readiness, meeting room availability, distance from the WMF, access to kitchen, noise level, furnished and etc. Of course, the price varies too. We narrowed down our selection to two office space candidates, one is a shared office (open space) with architects and a game software company, which is near the Moscone Center (15 minutes walk from the WMF). Let's call this space X for simplicity's sake. Wikia's sub-lease space, let's call it W, offered a smaller floor space than X, but the workspace is enclosed and can be shut down from noise, and access to a kitchen and toilet were better than X. Connectivity was ready to go, we just need to install a router for WiFi. W's asking price was more than X, but we said our offer price would not be more than the price quoted by X. So, W evaluated if they can rent out space higher than our offer price. As there was no higher bidder than us, W had agreed to offer the space at our offer price. So the fact that W is even closer-walking distance (5 minute) which saves about 20 minutes per trip per person was additional advantage for us. The traffic between the satellite office is not just by the project team, but it includes HR, IT and Finance so this 20 min/trip/person cannot be under-estimated if you translate it into the 15 months span. Finally, the fact that the project team can walk over to Wikia's tech team and exchange ideas or chat by the water foundation comes on top of fair financial evaluation summarized above. I will try my best not to bug Wikia's tech team when they have deadline to meet though. :-)
FYI - I posted the following reply to blog about 8 hours ago, but since it hasn't cleared the spam check, let me just insert here; "On the space front, the bid from the Wikia's space was matched to the equivalent office space in SOMA. Leasing office space from the walking distance location has a great advantage for the project team and the WMF. As the project team will meet with the WMF's tech team regularly and administrative resource such as HR and Finance are shared, keeping the satellite office at walking distance helps save time from going back and forth. On the tech collaboration front, we are not treating Wikia's development work as the solution. Their work is one of the modified MediaWiki we are evaluating along with what's out there such as deki, uniwiki and numerous extensions developed by MediaWiki developers. The project team will produce its own code, but if the solution is out there already, why not collaborate, incorporate, and make it available for existing and next users of MediaWiki? Isn't that an open source project all about? "
I wish you all a jolly weekend.
- Naoko
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Naoko Komura wrote:
[snip]
[Wikia]'s asking price was more than X, but we said our offer price would not be more than the price quoted by X. So, [Wikia] evaluated if they can rent out space higher than our offer price. As there was no higher bidder than us, [Wikia] had agreed to offer the space at our offer price.
Hence your statement that "Wikia matched the best offer." That seems entirely reasonable.
Is it correct to assume that Erik Möller erred in stating that Wikia was offered "a fair market rate based on the average of the other options ... obtained"?
2009/1/24 Naoko Komura nkomura@gmail.com:
Hello, Thomas.
I admire your persistence in putting your question forward until your question is answered. :-) Let me try to answer your questions by giving you the background of this negotiation.
Persistence is certainly not something I'm lacking! Some disagree about how admirable that is, though...
So the number of total quotes collected are ten including Wikia. The criteria of request for quotes were
- the space needs to house minimum five personnel and (2) the project team
needs a meeting room. These ten quotes are not apple-to-apple comparison, for example parameters such as total space availability, infrastructure readiness, meeting room availability, distance from the WMF, access to kitchen, noise level, furnished and etc. Of course, the price varies too. We narrowed down our selection to two office space candidates
How did you narrow it down? Was there something specific the cheaper bids were lacking?
, one is a shared office (open space) with architects and a game software company, which is near the Moscone Center (15 minutes walk from the WMF). Let's call this space X for simplicity's sake. Wikia's sub-lease space, let's call it W, offered a smaller floor space than X, but the workspace is enclosed and can be shut down from noise, and access to a kitchen and toilet were better than X. Connectivity was ready to go, we just need to install a router for WiFi. W's asking price was more than X, but we said our offer price would not be more than the price quoted by X. So, W evaluated if they can rent out space higher than our offer price. As there was no higher bidder than us, W had agreed to offer the space at our offer price.
Well, it certainly sounds like you made the right decision between X and W - a better solution for the same cost, who wouldn't take it? So it seems the only question remaining is about how you came up with the shortlist.
Thank you for helping me understand this decision.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 8:36 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2009/1/24 Naoko Komura nkomura@gmail.com:
Hello, Thomas.
I admire your persistence in putting your question forward until your question is answered. :-) Let me try to answer your questions by giving you the background of this negotiation.
Persistence is certainly not something I'm lacking! Some disagree about how admirable that is, though...
I think it is a good trait to have and admirable.
So the number of total quotes collected are ten including Wikia. The criteria of request for quotes
were
- the space needs to house minimum five personnel and (2) the project
team
needs a meeting room. These ten quotes are not apple-to-apple
comparison,
for example parameters such as total space availability, infrastructure readiness, meeting room availability, distance from the WMF, access to kitchen, noise level, furnished and etc. Of course, the price varies
too.
We narrowed down our selection to two office space candidates
How did you narrow it down? Was there something specific the cheaper bids were lacking?
More than of the quotes were either above the price range we had in mind or at the high end within the range. The price range we had in mind was $2,500-$3,000 for five to six people. (Additional desk is for a visiting staff from the WMF) There are a few quotes which came below the range, but the space either lacked a meeting space, lacked infrastructure like LAN, or required public transportation from the WMF office. The lease term with Wikia is $2,500 per month, month-to-month. The budget allows us to invest more fund for the space, but we would like to spend the gift prudently. It is always better to set aside funds so that we can invest in reusable tools such as automation of test tools and have ability to expand scope of usability test and product improvements.
[snip]
Thank you for helping me understand this decision.
You are very welcome. Do you think we are CIO ready if the WMF were U.K.-based entity? :-)
Best,
- Naoko
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2009/1/24 Naoko Komura nkomura@gmail.com:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 8:36 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
Persistence is certainly not something I'm lacking! Some disagree about how admirable that is, though...
I think it is a good trait to have and admirable.
Well, thank you.
More than of the quotes were either above the price range we had in mind or at the high end within the range. The price range we had in mind was $2,500-$3,000 for five to six people. (Additional desk is for a visiting staff from the WMF) There are a few quotes which came below the range, but the space either lacked a meeting space, lacked infrastructure like LAN, or required public transportation from the WMF office. The lease term with Wikia is $2,500 per month, month-to-month. The budget allows us to invest more fund for the space, but we would like to spend the gift prudently. It is always better to set aside funds so that we can invest in reusable tools such as automation of test tools and have ability to expand scope of usability test and product improvements.
Sounds good. Thank you.
Thank you for helping me understand this decision.
You are very welcome. Do you think we are CIO ready if the WMF were U.K.-based entity? :-)
I would need to review the legislation. This kind of deal certainly wouldn't be recommended, but it's probably legal.
Mr. Levy;
I respectfully believe that you are asking the wrong question. Rent is only a small part of cost. The whole cost should have been the arbiter in this matter, and I suspect it was from the posts by personnel.
________________________________ From: David Levy lifeisunfair@gmail.com To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 1:05:22 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikia leasing office space to WMF
Erik Moeller wrote:
[snip]
- We've suggested to Wikia a fair market rate based on the average of
the other options we obtained;
- After some negotiation, Wikia accepted. Weighing other pros and cons
of the space against other options, we decided to go with Wikia;
To clarify, did Wikia match the lowest bid?
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I wrote:
To clarify, did Wikia match the lowest bid?
Geoffrey Plourde replied:
Mr. Levy;
I respectfully believe that you are asking the wrong question. Rent is only a small part of cost. The whole cost should have been the arbiter in this matter, and I suspect it was from the posts by personnel.
I'm certainly not implying that rent was the only valid consideration. I asked the question because there was confusion regarding this specific point (with many people under the incorrect impression that Wikia's bid tied the lowest).
I personally agree with the decision to rent office space from Wikia, but I also agree that it's likely to come across as suspicious to many (and therefore warrants intense scrutiny). As others have noted, the mere appearance of impropriety (even where none exists) can be injurious to an organization's reputation. Thus far, I'm pleased with the forthright response from those involved in the decision.
I think that in the future the office staff may need to look at preemptive press releases. That would have eliminated this thread quickly.
________________________________ From: David Levy lifeisunfair@gmail.com To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 3:16:07 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikia leasing office space to WMF
I wrote:
To clarify, did Wikia match the lowest bid?
Geoffrey Plourde replied:
Mr. Levy;
I respectfully believe that you are asking the wrong question. Rent is only a small part of cost. The whole cost should have been the arbiter in this matter, and I suspect it was from the posts by personnel.
I'm certainly not implying that rent was the only valid consideration. I asked the question because there was confusion regarding this specific point (with many people under the incorrect impression that Wikia's bid tied the lowest).
I personally agree with the decision to rent office space from Wikia, but I also agree that it's likely to come across as suspicious to many (and therefore warrants intense scrutiny). As others have noted, the mere appearance of impropriety (even where none exists) can be injurious to an organization's reputation. Thus far, I'm pleased with the forthright response from those involved in the decision.
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2009/1/24 Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com:
I think that in the future the office staff may need to look at preemptive press releases. That would have eliminated this thread quickly.
Agreed. The questions asked here were extremely predictable and could have been answered before anyone had to ask them.
2009/1/23 Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
- We've suggested to Wikia a fair market rate based on the average of
the other options we obtained;
Average, or cheapest? If it really was average, then you're going to have need to justify precisely how the added bonuses from Wikia are worth whatever the difference was between the cheapest and the average. You need to use an abundance of caution when you're a charity doing business dealings with a company whose board overlaps with yours.
With a move you have several costs. The rent is only a small part. Travel is another factor. If rewiring is needed, it will cost even more. All these costs add up to make a real price.
________________________________ From: Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 1:15:06 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikia leasing office space to WMF
2009/1/23 Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
- We've suggested to Wikia a fair market rate based on the average of
the other options we obtained;
Average, or cheapest? If it really was average, then you're going to have need to justify precisely how the added bonuses from Wikia are worth whatever the difference was between the cheapest and the average. You need to use an abundance of caution when you're a charity doing business dealings with a company whose board overlaps with yours.
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Erik Moeller wrote:
I know that Wikia/WMF related stuff is pretty exciting, but really, we have work to do. We're not going to not make a decision that is right just because it creates fodder for trolling. (And I hope that if this turns into a troll-fest, the list moderators will take appropriate action.)
Mailing-list controversy is hardly the main PR problem here; the continuing confusion this creates in the wider world about the extent to which Wikia and the Wikimedia Foundation are entangled is a bigger one. It certainly *looks* suspicious. I know if something like this happened at some other organization I wasn't involved in---say, the Sierra Club was leasing space from a for-profit environmental lobbying firm founded by a Sierra Club board member---I would certainly raise my eyebrows, and I'd be skeptical when they assured me that there really weren't any shenanigans going on.
There's a reason organizations that depend on public goodwill try to avoid even the appearance of impropriety in this sort of respect, and auditors usually suggest avoiding those sorts of entanglements.
-Mark
Delirium delirium@hackish.org writes:
There's a reason organizations that depend on public goodwill try to avoid even the appearance of impropriety in this sort of respect, and auditors usually suggest avoiding those sorts of entanglements.
Could you please keep the amount of crackpotish kookery at a minimum at this list?
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Anders Wegge Keller wegge@wegge.dk wrote:
Delirium delirium@hackish.org writes:
There's a reason organizations that depend on public goodwill try to avoid even the appearance of impropriety in this sort of respect, and auditors usually suggest avoiding those sorts of entanglements.
Could you please keep the amount of crackpotish kookery at a minimum at this list?
I'm somewhat confused - Delirium's comment here is reasonable, accurate, and a legitimate concern, as opposed to some of the rest of the thread.
George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Anders Wegge Keller wegge@wegge.dk wrote:
Could you please keep the amount of crackpotish kookery at a minimum at this list?
I'm somewhat confused - Delirium's comment here is reasonable, accurate, and a legitimate concern, as opposed to some of the rest of the thread.
Not to me, and it just happened to be the one that tripped my trigger setting.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Anders Wegge Keller wegge@wegge.dk wrote:
George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Anders Wegge Keller wegge@wegge.dk
wrote:
Could you please keep the amount of crackpotish kookery at a minimum at this list?
I'm somewhat confused - Delirium's comment here is reasonable, accurate, and a legitimate concern, as opposed to some of the rest of the thread.
Not to me, and it just happened to be the one that tripped my trigger setting.
I respectfully request that you review it and reconsider.
There have been plenty of what I would consider to be hostile or kookish comments by those who do not wish the Foundation well in this thread. Delirium's comments seem to me to clearly be those of a concerned but constructively engaged community member.
George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Anders Wegge Keller wegge@wegge.dk wrote:
Not to me, and it just happened to be the one that tripped my trigger setting.
I respectfully request that you review it and reconsider.
Request denied. I stand by what I said, and you can be polite from here to eternity, but I consider Delerium a kook in his own right, nonwithstanding a seemingly thin veneer of civility in this case.
I find it interesting that critics of the Foundation are necessarily either a troll, crackpot or kook, and yet, by my estimation, each one of these critics has been around longer than the Foundation and wishes to make sure that it develops in a manner consistent with the much older philosophy surrounding the projects.
Here's a criticism the foundation really ought to consider: Quit calling us trolls, crackpots and kooks and simply address the matters in a factual way.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:05 PM, Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
Quit calling us trolls, crackpots and kooks and simply address the matters in a factual way.
Here's a suggestion for everyone: Stop the allusions to conspiracies ("tax-deductible money shifted to for-profit companies") *and* stop the name-calling.
M.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:01 PM, Anders Wegge Keller wegge@wegge.dk wrote:
George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Anders Wegge Keller wegge@wegge.dk wrote:
Not to me, and it just happened to be the one that tripped my trigger setting.
I respectfully request that you review it and reconsider.
Request denied. I stand by what I said, and you can be polite from here to eternity, but I consider Delerium a kook in his own right, nonwithstanding a seemingly thin veneer of civility in this case.
.....okay, and at this point I think that this thread becomes a certain waste of bits, no offense to anyone in particular ;-)
May I recommend a few breathes of fresh air for everyone or, alternatively, a strong cup of tea?
Michael
Beating on a dead horse is not a valid point.
________________________________ From: George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 1:47:54 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikia leasing office space to WMF
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Anders Wegge Keller wegge@wegge.dk wrote:
Delirium delirium@hackish.org writes:
There's a reason organizations that depend on public goodwill try to avoid even the appearance of impropriety in this sort of respect, and auditors usually suggest avoiding those sorts of entanglements.
Could you please keep the amount of crackpotish kookery at a minimum at this list?
I'm somewhat confused - Delirium's comment here is reasonable, accurate, and a legitimate concern, as opposed to some of the rest of the thread.
Anders Wegge Keller wrote:
Delirium delirium@hackish.org writes:
There's a reason organizations that depend on public goodwill try to avoid even the appearance of impropriety in this sort of respect, and auditors usually suggest avoiding those sorts of entanglements.
Could you please keep the amount of crackpotish kookery at a minimum at this list?
In what respect is it "crackpottish" or "kookery" to suggest that even appearance of impropriety, even where none exists, is damaging to nonprofit organizations that depend on public goodwill?
I'm not alleging that any actual impropriety took place, and I believe Erik's explanations. But that's only because I know several of the board members and believe they have Wikimedia's best interests in mind---heck, I recall publicly campaigning for Erik's election to the board some time ago.
Most people, however, neither know the board nor have any particularly great knowledge of Wikimedia's internals. Were it any other organization, as in my Sierra Club example, I wouldn't believe the explanation, so I wouldn't blame non-Wikimedians who read about this in the newspaper if they were a bit skeptical. That seems like it'll inevitably be damaging from a PR and fundraising perspective. I believe Erik's explanation of the space's benefits, I just think the Board is underestimating the negative effects to the Foundation's reputation.
-Mark
Delirium delirium@hackish.org writes:
Anders Wegge Keller wrote:
Could you please keep the amount of crackpotish kookery at a minimum at this list?
In what respect is it "crackpottish" or "kookery" to suggest that even appearance of impropriety, even where none exists, is damaging to nonprofit organizations that depend on public goodwill?
Except for being the umpteent person to continue the line of aggressive questioning, none. You just happened to be the unlucky roll of the dice.
Anders Wegge Keller wrote:
Delirium delirium@hackish.org writes:
Anders Wegge Keller wrote:
Could you please keep the amount of crackpotish kookery at a minimum at this list
In what respect is it "crackpottish" or "kookery" to suggest that even appearance of impropriety, even where none exists, is damaging to nonprofit organizations that depend on public goodwill?
Except for being the umpteent person to continue the line of aggressive questioning, none. You just happened to be the unlucky roll of the dice.
I'd like to respectfully ask the participants of this fork of the thread to immediately cease responding to it. Thanks.
Cary
Delirium wrote:
Most people, however, neither know the board nor have any particularly great knowledge of Wikimedia's internals. Were it any other organization, as in my Sierra Club example, I wouldn't believe the explanation, so I wouldn't blame non-Wikimedians who read about this in the newspaper if they were a bit skeptical. That seems like it'll inevitably be damaging from a PR and fundraising perspective. I believe Erik's explanation of the space's benefits, I just think the Board is underestimating the negative effects to the Foundation's reputation.
Anyone familiar enough with the background to understand why the lease might be an issue has probably formed their opinion about the potential for conflicts already. So I don't believe it will have a negative impact outside of people who have already made up their minds and won't reconsider. This discussion itself is evidence of that, as it seems the only person who thinks the lease is actually bad, as opposed to possibly looking bad, has a long history of finding fault with us no matter what. With regard to any impact on public relations or fundraising generally - if there are donors or media professionals who don't believe Erik's explanation (even without any evidence to the contrary), I'll be happy to discuss it with them.
--Michael Snow
Press contacts take note. Please enlighten any reporters with a basic primer in common sense.
________________________________ From: Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 11:53:27 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikia leasing office space to WMF
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 8:37 PM, Gregory Kohs thekohser@gmail.com wrote:
I'll also advise the list moderators that this message is being copied to members of the press.
Thanks for the heads-up, now I'm frightened...
Seriously, I have nothing against you raising these questions, but sentences like the above won't help your cause and will just allow other people to dismiss your arguments more quickly.
M.
I'm glad someone is concerned about this issue. Wikia has always smacked of "they wouldn't let us show ads on Wikipedia, so here is the for-profit branch of Wikipedia with ads." There are potential conflicts of interest at nearly every level of the Wikia/Wikipedia relationship.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Gregory Kohs thekohser@gmail.com wrote:
I was very surprised to read on the Wikimedia blog a post from Naoko Komura, the WMF program manager heading up the Wikipedia Usability Initiative, funded by the Stanton Foundation.
Post:
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/01/21/a-note-on-the-wikipedia-usability-initi...
To quote Komura,
"On the space front, we had outgrown our current space in the South of Market area of San Francisco, and we were in search of space specifically for this project. I am happy to announce that Wikia has agreed to sublease two of their conference rooms to the Wikimedia Foundation for the project duration (Jan'09-Mar'10). Daniel [Phelps] collected a dozen bids for the space in SOMA, and Wikia matched the best offer."
I submitted a comment to the blog, but over seven hours later, it is still not published, and there is a history of my questions to that blog being ignored or censored. So, I'm going to ask here, and I'll also advise the list moderators that this message is being copied to members of the press.
Could we have more detail, please, on the note that "Wikia matched the best offer"? Were the other ten higher bidders also given the opportunity to match the best offer? Why was Wikia chosen on a "second and adjusted offer" basis, rather than choosing the good-faith firm that submitted the lowest offer initially? Was the first low bidder given the chance to further discount their rate? If so, what was their response? If not, why not?
I have to agree with Steven Walling's comment on the blog. He said, "I find the idea of the Foundation working that closely with Wikia, literally and figuratively, discomforting. We already have enough people confused about the difference between the two organizations, and to be honest, this feels like nepotism."
Actually, it's not nepotism. And, there are no uniform laws regarding nepotism. It's potentially worse. Self-dealing, which is what this really smacks of, is covered in case law, judicial opinions, and some statutes.
I have been assured in countless places that "Wikia and the Wikimedia Foundation are complete separate organizations" and that there were "no business relationships" between the members of a past WMF Board that was 60% comprised of Wikia employees/owners. Considering the past Wikia/Wikipedia fiasco of Ryan "Essjay" Jordan, I would have thought the WMF would be hyper-sensitive to working in concert yet again with their neighbor down the street.
In summary:
We know Wikia was recently laying off workers in the economic downturn. Presumably, Wikia now has excess office space per employee. WMF gets a grant, presumably funded by tax-deductible dollars. Expending that grant on office space is served up to an ostensibly "open" and "fair" competitive search among 12 candidate landlords. A lowest bid is received. However, a bidder who happens to have strong personnel ties to the Board of WMF and the Advisory Board of WMF, is given the opportunity to match the lowest bid, which they do, since they have empty office space doing them no good empty.
Net result: Tax-advantaged dollars will be transferred to a for-profit corporation with an "inside track" to the decision-making body of the non-profit organization.
It strikes me as fishy, to use a gentle word.
-- Gregory Kohs Cell: 302.463.1354 _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
I'm glad someone is concerned about this issue. Wikia has always smacked of "they wouldn't let us show ads on Wikipedia, so here is the for-profit branch of Wikipedia with ads." There are potential conflicts of interest at nearly every level of the Wikia/Wikipedia relationship.
Wikia's content is nearly entirely orthogonal to Wikimedia Foundation projects. It's hosting community projects (for profit, using ads for revenue) which aren't encyclopedic or educational.
There's no more conflict of interest in what they're doing (as a business model) than a conflict with Google, Facebook, Myspace, etc.
The personnel overlaps are a potential conflict of interest. The board's job is to review and avoid actual conflicts of interest. If this was in fact the same cost as any other reasonable alternative, and had the additional proximity benefits with Wikia personnel doing the same general type of work, then the Board having reviewed it and OKed it is fine by me.
Leaping from "obviously needs scrutiny" to "assuming bad faith" is poor form, Brian. That is not helpful.
I do not assume bad faith - by assuming I assume bad faith you are assuming bad faith.
Your close critics are often your best friends. So long as they aren't threatening legal action or forwarding their criticisms to the press, they are forcing you to introspect and determine whether there really is a problem.
I believe I have been openly critical of Wikia since the idea was first presented. It's been several years since I commented on Wikia, and my attitudes on it haven't really changed. I believe the project would have been more successful if headed up by the Foundation. I could engage in a lively debate as to whether or not the content of those projects are educational. It's really a level of analysis fallacy that your making here.
Name a resource that hasn't been shared by the Foundation and Wikia.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 1:28 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
I'm glad someone is concerned about this issue. Wikia has always smacked
of
"they wouldn't let us show ads on Wikipedia, so here is the for-profit branch of Wikipedia with ads." There are potential conflicts of interest
at
nearly every level of the Wikia/Wikipedia relationship.
Wikia's content is nearly entirely orthogonal to Wikimedia Foundation projects. It's hosting community projects (for profit, using ads for revenue) which aren't encyclopedic or educational.
There's no more conflict of interest in what they're doing (as a business model) than a conflict with Google, Facebook, Myspace, etc.
The personnel overlaps are a potential conflict of interest. The board's job is to review and avoid actual conflicts of interest. If this was in fact the same cost as any other reasonable alternative, and had the additional proximity benefits with Wikia personnel doing the same general type of work, then the Board having reviewed it and OKed it is fine by me.
Leaping from "obviously needs scrutiny" to "assuming bad faith" is poor form, Brian. That is not helpful.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Mr. Mingus;
Wikia and wikimedia do the same thing for different reasons. It makes no sense to stovepipe development teams when collaboration (wiki's bread and butter) is in progress. Its a symbiotic relationship and good business in my humble opinion.
________________________________ From: Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 12:31:49 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikia leasing office space to WMF
I do not assume bad faith - by assuming I assume bad faith you are assuming bad faith.
Your close critics are often your best friends. So long as they aren't threatening legal action or forwarding their criticisms to the press, they are forcing you to introspect and determine whether there really is a problem.
I believe I have been openly critical of Wikia since the idea was first presented. It's been several years since I commented on Wikia, and my attitudes on it haven't really changed. I believe the project would have been more successful if headed up by the Foundation. I could engage in a lively debate as to whether or not the content of those projects are educational. It's really a level of analysis fallacy that your making here.
Name a resource that hasn't been shared by the Foundation and Wikia.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 1:28 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
I'm glad someone is concerned about this issue. Wikia has always smacked
of
"they wouldn't let us show ads on Wikipedia, so here is the for-profit branch of Wikipedia with ads." There are potential conflicts of interest
at
nearly every level of the Wikia/Wikipedia relationship.
Wikia's content is nearly entirely orthogonal to Wikimedia Foundation projects. It's hosting community projects (for profit, using ads for revenue) which aren't encyclopedic or educational.
There's no more conflict of interest in what they're doing (as a business model) than a conflict with Google, Facebook, Myspace, etc.
The personnel overlaps are a potential conflict of interest. The board's job is to review and avoid actual conflicts of interest. If this was in fact the same cost as any other reasonable alternative, and had the additional proximity benefits with Wikia personnel doing the same general type of work, then the Board having reviewed it and OKed it is fine by me.
Leaping from "obviously needs scrutiny" to "assuming bad faith" is poor form, Brian. That is not helpful.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 20:53, Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
I'm glad someone is concerned about this issue. Wikia has always smacked of "they wouldn't let us show ads on Wikipedia, so here is the for-profit branch of Wikipedia with ads." There are potential conflicts of interest at nearly every level of the Wikia/Wikipedia relationship.
I never thought I would say what comes next. As much as I have been a fierce defender of a clear cut between Wikia and Wikimedia, I must admit that I find this solution to be one of the best things that has happened to the usability project.
About space: been there, and yes, Wikia's headquarters are a street away, so really easy to plan meetings and make sure things happen in coordinated fashion between the Wikimedia office and the Usability project.
About working near Wikia: Wikia, as was said elsewhere, is one of the biggest Mediawiki users out there and therefore has, in my opinion, probably the best incentive to make sure that Mediawiki develops in a way that makes sense for the users. They already have a pretty big developper team, and having them at hand will definitely broaden the usability project vision on what a wiki can/should do to be more user friendly.
Who more than a commercial user of Mediawiki has an interest in its evolution _for the best_ of users?
I see absolutely no conflict of interest. Where? Seriously? Wikia is renting walls, tables and chairs to the Wikimedia Foundation, that's all. And on top of that, they bring to the coffee machine talks tons of ideas and experience in the daily use of the software.
And frankly, without this thread, everyone would have forgotten the move two days from now and seen nothing in it. Gee, it's time to grow up and stop seeing the cabal everywhere.
Cheers,
Delphine
This time next year I have no doubt Wikipedia will be much more usable. Delphine, this sentence is the first time I have ever typed the word 'cabal'.
I do hope people continue to express concern about the Wikipedia/Wikia relationship. The existence of Wikia doesn't make a whole lot of sense, except the $$$ kind.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 20:53, Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
I'm glad someone is concerned about this issue. Wikia has always smacked
of
"they wouldn't let us show ads on Wikipedia, so here is the for-profit branch of Wikipedia with ads." There are potential conflicts of interest
at
nearly every level of the Wikia/Wikipedia relationship.
I never thought I would say what comes next. As much as I have been a fierce defender of a clear cut between Wikia and Wikimedia, I must admit that I find this solution to be one of the best things that has happened to the usability project.
About space: been there, and yes, Wikia's headquarters are a street away, so really easy to plan meetings and make sure things happen in coordinated fashion between the Wikimedia office and the Usability project.
About working near Wikia: Wikia, as was said elsewhere, is one of the biggest Mediawiki users out there and therefore has, in my opinion, probably the best incentive to make sure that Mediawiki develops in a way that makes sense for the users. They already have a pretty big developper team, and having them at hand will definitely broaden the usability project vision on what a wiki can/should do to be more user friendly.
Who more than a commercial user of Mediawiki has an interest in its evolution _for the best_ of users?
I see absolutely no conflict of interest. Where? Seriously? Wikia is renting walls, tables and chairs to the Wikimedia Foundation, that's all. And on top of that, they bring to the coffee machine talks tons of ideas and experience in the daily use of the software.
And frankly, without this thread, everyone would have forgotten the move two days from now and seen nothing in it. Gee, it's time to grow up and stop seeing the cabal everywhere.
Cheers,
Delphine
~notafish
NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost. Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 00:35, Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
This time next year I have no doubt Wikipedia will be much more usable. Delphine, this sentence is the first time I have ever typed the word 'cabal'.
:D
To be fair, I didn't so mean the word cabal for your intervention as for other interventions in this thread, but yours was the shortest to answer to :P
I do hope people continue to express concern about the Wikipedia/Wikia relationship. The existence of Wikia doesn't make a whole lot of sense, except the $$$ kind.
Yes, as I pointed out, I am the first to have been concerned and I will be again when there is reason to be. I firmly believe this renting of offices isn't a reason.
Cheers,
Delphine
Delphine Ménard wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 00:35, Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
I do hope people continue to express concern about the Wikipedia/Wikia relationship. The existence of Wikia doesn't make a whole lot of sense, except the $$$ kind.
Yes, as I pointed out, I am the first to have been concerned and I will be again when there is reason to be. I firmly believe this renting of offices isn't a reason.
Likewise, I was not thrilled that we ended up reopening this can of worms, after the effort that had gone into removing all financial connections to Wikia. But I'm persuaded that it is the right choice for Wikimedia as a business decision, and our responsibility is to make such choices, not avoid them in deference to those who will believe the worst.
--Michael Snow
2009/1/24 Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net:
Delphine Ménard wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 00:35, Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
I do hope people continue to express concern about the Wikipedia/Wikia relationship. The existence of Wikia doesn't make a whole lot of sense, except the $$$ kind.
Yes, as I pointed out, I am the first to have been concerned and I will be again when there is reason to be. I firmly believe this renting of offices isn't a reason.
Likewise, I was not thrilled that we ended up reopening this can of worms, after the effort that had gone into removing all financial connections to Wikia. But I'm persuaded that it is the right choice for Wikimedia as a business decision, and our responsibility is to make such choices, not avoid them in deference to those who will believe the worst.
You need to strike a balance there - people thinking the worst is a bad thing for the foundation and does need to be weighed into determining whether something is a good business decision or not. The key thing is how you justify it to the community and the public, and I do think some numbers would help there - how much extra did you pay? How much time will be saved by being nearer to the WMF offices? That kind of thing.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.comwrote:
Wikia, as was said elsewhere, is one of the biggest Mediawiki users out there and therefore has, in my opinion, probably the best incentive to make sure that Mediawiki develops in a way that makes sense for the users.
And what better way to do that then to have people come down to the Wikia office and work on improving Wikia's software, while the Wikimedia Foundation pays for not only the developers, but rent on the space they use while developing!
2009/1/24 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.comwrote:
Wikia, as was said elsewhere, is one of the biggest Mediawiki users out there and therefore has, in my opinion, probably the best incentive to make sure that Mediawiki develops in a way that makes sense for the users.
And what better way to do that then to have people come down to the Wikia office and work on improving Wikia's software, while the Wikimedia Foundation pays for not only the developers, but rent on the space they use while developing!
Who cares if Wikia benefits? It's the benefit to WMF that matters. As long as it is an undeniably good business decision for WMF, the fact that it's also a good deal for Wikia doesn't factor into it. I've yet to see any numbers, though, so I don't know if it was undeniably good. (I think it was good, but that's not enough when you're a charity dealing with potential COIs.)
2009/1/23 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
2009/1/24 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.comwrote:
My reply isn't specific to what Thomas wrote; this is a general comment on this thread. I've been reading it with a lot of interest, and there are a couple of things I'd like to add to what's already been said.
First, I want to be clear – it was my decision to sublet the space from Wikia. I believe it's the right thing for Wikimedia :-)
It's the right decision from a practical standpoint, for the reasons outlined earlier by Erik and others. And beyond that, I also believe it is appropriate and reasonable for the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikia to have a normal working relationship – one that is neither overly entangled, nor exaggeratedly distant. Wikia does not do exactly what we do, but it does similar work. It makes sense for us to have a collegial, friendly relationship with Wikia, exactly as we do with dozens of other organizations who do work that is similar to ours, or aligned with it.
I would also say that I am happy we're talking about this, and I hope the people asking questions are finding the answers reasonably reassuring :-)
2009/1/24 Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org:
I would also say that I am happy we're talking about this, and I hope the people asking questions are finding the answers reasonably reassuring :-)
Depends. The wikia is a large user therefor we should work with them argument is somewhat worrying because well we know the CIA is also a large user.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 7:07 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/24 Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org:
I would also say that I am happy we're talking about this, and I hope the people asking questions are finding the answers reasonably reassuring :-)
Depends. The wikia is a large user therefor we should work with them argument is somewhat worrying because well we know the CIA is also a large user.
What the CIA has admitted doing to Mediawiki (adding in the classification levels and more robust audit trail stuff, etc) is consistent with increasing usability for some commercial environments, where current access control / management features are somewhat marginal.
Hoi, When the CIA or any other American governmental organisation has something to share that is of benefit to us, we should be gracious and thankful and accept and reflect what boon we have been given. Recently we accepted some advice from Apple. The people around the UNICEF usability extensions have worked to make their software functional on head. There is a lot of great work done outside of the WMF and it is at our collective loss when all this important work is ditched.
If you think the CIA is evil per definition, fine. It does not change one iota the effort that Brion will put into checking into their code or anyone else's code. In the end the code makes it obvious if the CIA is evil in this. Thanks, GerardM
2009/1/24 geni geniice@gmail.com
2009/1/24 Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org:
I would also say that I am happy we're talking about this, and I hope the people asking questions are finding the answers reasonably reassuring :-)
Depends. The wikia is a large user therefor we should work with them argument is somewhat worrying because well we know the CIA is also a large user.
-- geni
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Saturday 24 January 2009 08:48:56 Gerard Meijssen wrote:
When the CIA or any other American governmental organisation has something to share that is of benefit to us, we should be gracious and thankful and accept and reflect what boon we have been given. Recently we accepted some advice from Apple. The people around the UNICEF usability extensions have worked to make their software functional on head. There is a lot of great work done outside of the WMF and it is at our collective loss when all this important work is ditched.
If you think the CIA is evil per definition, fine. It does not change one iota the effort that Brion will put into checking into their code or anyone else's code. In the end the code makes it obvious if the CIA is evil in this.
CIA is evil by definition. If they offer you something, it will be something that may seem to be beneficial for you, but will in fact benefit them. Given that CIA has much more resources than you, you can never be sure if their help will in fact be detrimental to you.
Hoi, I am glad that I have left my paranoia to a guy who is good at assessing whatever it is we get in the sense of code. In the mean time we have been using the CIA fact book for years now. They indeed have more resources and we have been using them. You know what, when we get code from the CIA, you can review this sane code as well. Thanks, GerardM
2009/1/24 Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yu
On Saturday 24 January 2009 08:48:56 Gerard Meijssen wrote:
When the CIA or any other American governmental organisation has
something
to share that is of benefit to us, we should be gracious and thankful and accept and reflect what boon we have been given. Recently we accepted
some
advice from Apple. The people around the UNICEF usability extensions have worked to make their software functional on head. There is a lot of great work done outside of the WMF and it is at our collective loss when all
this
important work is ditched.
If you think the CIA is evil per definition, fine. It does not change one iota the effort that Brion will put into checking into their code or
anyone
else's code. In the end the code makes it obvious if the CIA is evil in this.
CIA is evil by definition. If they offer you something, it will be something that may seem to be beneficial for you, but will in fact benefit them. Given that CIA has much more resources than you, you can never be sure if their help will in fact be detrimental to you.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Saturday 24 January 2009 09:31:13 Gerard Meijssen wrote:
whatever it is we get in the sense of code. In the mean time we have been using the CIA fact book for years now. They indeed have more resources and
That is an excellent example, CIA fact book is full of CIA's propaganda and you can never be sure what is propaganda and what is a fact.
Hoi, Sorry, I stated a fact. The CIA fact book has been used for years now. It was obvious that you would find it an excellent example, but it does show how much removed you are from this daily practice. Thanks, GerardM
2009/1/24 Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yu
On Saturday 24 January 2009 09:31:13 Gerard Meijssen wrote:
whatever it is we get in the sense of code. In the mean time we have been using the CIA fact book for years now. They indeed have more resources
and
That is an excellent example, CIA fact book is full of CIA's propaganda and you can never be sure what is propaganda and what is a fact.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Saturday 24 January 2009 09:43:54 Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Sorry, I stated a fact. The CIA fact book has been used for years now. It was obvious that you would find it an excellent example, but it does show how much removed you are from this daily practice.
Sorry your fact is irrelevant to the argument at hand. The question is whether intelligence agencies such as CIA can be trusted, and the fact that a number of people are trusting them still doesn't show that they should be doing so.
2009/1/24 Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yu
On Saturday 24 January 2009 09:31:13 Gerard Meijssen wrote:
whatever it is we get in the sense of code. In the mean time we have been using the CIA fact book for years now. They indeed have more resources
and
That is an excellent example, CIA fact book is full of CIA's propaganda and you can never be sure what is propaganda and what is a fact.
On Jan 24, 2009, at 3:21 AM, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
On Saturday 24 January 2009 08:48:56 Gerard Meijssen wrote:
When the CIA or any other American governmental organisation has something to share that is of benefit to us, we should be gracious and thankful and accept and reflect what boon we have been given. Recently we accepted some advice from Apple. The people around the UNICEF usability extensions have worked to make their software functional on head. There is a lot of great work done outside of the WMF and it is at our collective loss when all this important work is ditched.
If you think the CIA is evil per definition, fine. It does not change one iota the effort that Brion will put into checking into their code or anyone else's code. In the end the code makes it obvious if the CIA is evil in this.
CIA is evil by definition. If they offer you something, it will be something that may seem to be beneficial for you, but will in fact benefit them. Given that CIA has much more resources than you, you can never be sure if their help will in fact be detrimental to you.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
And that's evil? That sounds like how any profit-seeking corporation ought to work as well. I fail to see how a governmental intelligence agency is evil by definition.
-Dan
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yu wrote:
On Saturday 24 January 2009 08:48:56 Gerard Meijssen wrote:
When the CIA or any other American governmental organisation has something to share that is of benefit to us, we should be gracious and thankful and accept and reflect what boon we have been given. Recently we accepted some advice from Apple. The people around the UNICEF usability extensions have worked to make their software functional on head. There is a lot of great work done outside of the WMF and it is at our collective loss when all this important work is ditched.
If you think the CIA is evil per definition, fine. It does not change one iota the effort that Brion will put into checking into their code or anyone else's code. In the end the code makes it obvious if the CIA is evil in this.
CIA is evil by definition. If they offer you something, it will be something that may seem to be beneficial for you, but will in fact benefit them. Given that CIA has much more resources than you, you can never be sure if their help will in fact be detrimental to you.
Is the NSA also evil, because the created selinux and gave it to the open source community?
open source is a non-zero sum game. In open source, an improvement is able to be beneficial to everyone even when the donator was being selfish and building it only for their own needs.
-- John Vandenberg
Hoi, So the fact that the CIA and the NSA are evil helps us understand why we are paying market prices to Wikia, why we are likely to benefit from the Wikia developed software and why people, all coding MediaWiki, meeting at a water cooler is a great idea.. and incidentally there is no music practice at the Wikia office.
Thank you, this will surely help in these deliberations.. GerardM
2009/1/24 Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yu
On Saturday 24 January 2009 09:34:32 John Vandenberg wrote:
Is the NSA also evil, because the created selinux and gave it to the open source community?
No, NSA is evil because it conducts massive illegal spying operations such as ECHELON.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Saturday 24 January 2009 09:54:41 Gerard Meijssen wrote:
So the fact that the CIA and the NSA are evil helps us understand why we are paying market prices to Wikia, why we are likely to benefit from the Wikia developed software and why people, all coding MediaWiki, meeting at a water cooler is a great idea.. and incidentally there is no music practice at the Wikia office.
I never said nor implied any of this. You just made that up. From everything I can see, the decision to lease this space from Wikia was completely reasonable.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yu wrote:
On Saturday 24 January 2009 09:34:32 John Vandenberg wrote:
Is the NSA also evil, because the created selinux and gave it to the open source community?
No, NSA is evil because it conducts massive illegal spying operations such as ECHELON.
And how does that relate to selinux, or how does the CIA activities relate to their contributions to MediaWiki ?
-- John Vandenberg Currently reading [[Guests of the Ayatollah]], which highlights the CIA intervention of [[Operation Ajax]], which results in an apology in 2000.
On Saturday 24 January 2009 10:02:17 John Vandenberg wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yu wrote:
On Saturday 24 January 2009 09:34:32 John Vandenberg wrote:
Is the NSA also evil, because the created selinux and gave it to the open source community?
No, NSA is evil because it conducts massive illegal spying operations such as ECHELON.
And how does that relate to selinux, or how does the CIA activities relate to their contributions to MediaWiki ?
Given that we know that NSA conducts massive illegal spying operations, there is possibility that selinux is altered in a fashion that will make it easier for NSA to spy on selinux' users. I don't know what are CIA's contributions to MediaWiki, but unless it is trivial to review them, I would not accept them.
Hoi, If it is trivial to review, it is probable trivial to code. Like all code that is of interest, it needs to be properly reviewed. As we are talking open source even you may review such code. If that is what it takes to have your paranoia get some rest ... Have a look at SELinux, and in the mean time I am interested to see some contributions from the CIA, or the NSA or their Serbian equivalents to MediaWiki. When they are of interest, I would like to see them localised at BetaWiki and yes, the translators of the CIA are welcome to localise at BetaWiki as well because in the end we all benefit, all in our own way. Thanks. GerardM
Can we please get some sanity ? Cooperation will help us forward, we all need to get along enough so that we can appreciate the good things that we share. It is in the sharing that the "other" becomes a friend or at least more friendly.
2009/1/24 Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yu
On Saturday 24 January 2009 10:02:17 John Vandenberg wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yu
wrote:
On Saturday 24 January 2009 09:34:32 John Vandenberg wrote:
Is the NSA also evil, because the created selinux and gave it to the open source community?
No, NSA is evil because it conducts massive illegal spying operations such as ECHELON.
And how does that relate to selinux, or how does the CIA activities relate to their contributions to MediaWiki ?
Given that we know that NSA conducts massive illegal spying operations, there is possibility that selinux is altered in a fashion that will make it easier for NSA to spy on selinux' users. I don't know what are CIA's contributions to MediaWiki, but unless it is trivial to review them, I would not accept them.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Nikola Smolenski wrote:
Given that we know that NSA conducts massive illegal spying operations, there is possibility that selinux is altered in a fashion that will make it easier for NSA to spy on selinux' users. I don't know what are CIA's contributions to MediaWiki, but unless it is trivial to review them, I would not accept them.
If the CIA were to hand you a improved-mediawiki binary, sure. You could very well be suspicious about it. But we're talking about open source. They would be providing the changes, which are to be reviewed, like any other code, or perhaps even more, due to coming from the CIA.
Take into account that CIA and NSA need good software, too. So if they add a backdoor, they would need to add it *and* at the same time make it easy to protect from it, as they wouldn't want their own systems spied by their own rootkit (and someone will end up forgetting to apply it).
Instead, contributing good fixes, make everything easier.
OTOH I encourage you to review selinux. That would make a great heading 'Nikola Smolenski discovers NSA backdoor on Linux code'
If the CIA were to hand you a improved-mediawiki binary, sure
PHP is an interpreted language. Surely you wouldn't use someone elses byte code.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 8:32 AM, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
Nikola Smolenski wrote:
Given that we know that NSA conducts massive illegal spying operations,
there
is possibility that selinux is altered in a fashion that will make it
easier
for NSA to spy on selinux' users. I don't know what are CIA's
contributions
to MediaWiki, but unless it is trivial to review them, I would not accept them.
If the CIA were to hand you a improved-mediawiki binary, sure. You could very well be suspicious about it. But we're talking about open source. They would be providing the changes, which are to be reviewed, like any other code, or perhaps even more, due to coming from the CIA.
Take into account that CIA and NSA need good software, too. So if they add a backdoor, they would need to add it *and* at the same time make it easy to protect from it, as they wouldn't want their own systems spied by their own rootkit (and someone will end up forgetting to apply it).
Instead, contributing good fixes, make everything easier.
OTOH I encourage you to review selinux. That would make a great heading 'Nikola Smolenski discovers NSA backdoor on Linux code'
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Brian wrote:
If the CIA were to hand you a improved-mediawiki binary, sure
PHP is an interpreted language. Surely you wouldn't use someone elses byte code.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 8:32 AM, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
Nikola Smolenski wrote:
Given that we know that NSA conducts massive illegal spying operations,
there
is possibility that selinux is altered in a fashion that will make it
easier
for NSA to spy on selinux' users. I don't know what are CIA's
contributions
to MediaWiki, but unless it is trivial to review them, I would not accept them.
If the CIA were to hand you a improved-mediawiki binary, sure. You could very well be suspicious about it. But we're talking about open source. They would be providing the changes, which are to be reviewed, like any other code, or perhaps even more, due to coming from the CIA.
Take into account that CIA and NSA need good software, too. So if they add a backdoor, they would need to add it *and* at the same time make it easy to protect from it, as they wouldn't want their own systems spied by their own rootkit (and someone will end up forgetting to apply it).
Instead, contributing good fixes, make everything easier.
OTOH I encourage you to review selinux. That would make a great heading 'Nikola Smolenski discovers NSA backdoor on Linux code'
This is getting rather off-topic, especially for this thread, and possibly for the list as well.
It was a clear factual error which I corrected. If you aren't going to criticize the original comment you have no basis for criticizing the correction. At any rate, what exactly is the topic of this thread, in your opinion?
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Alex mrzmanwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Brian wrote:
If the CIA were to hand you a improved-mediawiki binary, sure
PHP is an interpreted language. Surely you wouldn't use someone elses
byte
code.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 8:32 AM, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com
wrote:
Nikola Smolenski wrote:
Given that we know that NSA conducts massive illegal spying operations,
there
is possibility that selinux is altered in a fashion that will make it
easier
for NSA to spy on selinux' users. I don't know what are CIA's
contributions
to MediaWiki, but unless it is trivial to review them, I would not
accept
them.
If the CIA were to hand you a improved-mediawiki binary, sure. You could very well be suspicious about it. But we're talking about open source. They would be providing the changes, which are to be reviewed, like any other code, or perhaps even more, due to coming from the CIA.
Take into account that CIA and NSA need good software, too. So if they add a backdoor, they would need to add it *and* at the same time make it easy to protect from it, as they wouldn't want their own systems spied by their own rootkit (and someone will end up forgetting to apply it).
Instead, contributing good fixes, make everything easier.
OTOH I encourage you to review selinux. That would make a great heading 'Nikola Smolenski discovers NSA backdoor on Linux code'
This is getting rather off-topic, especially for this thread, and possibly for the list as well.
-- Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
It was a clear factual error which I corrected. If you aren't going to criticize the original comment you have no basis for criticizing the correction. At any rate, what exactly is the topic of this thread, in your opinion?
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Alex mrzmanwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Brian wrote:
If the CIA were to hand you a improved-mediawiki binary, sure
PHP is an interpreted language. Surely you wouldn't use someone elses
byte
code.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 8:32 AM, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com
wrote:
Nikola Smolenski wrote:
Given that we know that NSA conducts massive illegal spying
operations,
there
is possibility that selinux is altered in a fashion that will make it
easier
for NSA to spy on selinux' users. I don't know what are CIA's
contributions
to MediaWiki, but unless it is trivial to review them, I would not
accept
them.
If the CIA were to hand you a improved-mediawiki binary, sure. You
could
very well be suspicious about it. But we're talking about open source. They would be providing the changes, which are to be reviewed, like
any
other code, or perhaps even more, due to coming from the CIA.
Take into account that CIA and NSA need good software, too. So if they add a backdoor, they would need to add it *and* at the same time make
it
easy to protect from it, as they wouldn't want their own systems spied by their own rootkit (and someone will end up forgetting to apply it).
Instead, contributing good fixes, make everything easier.
OTOH I encourage you to review selinux. That would make a great
heading
'Nikola Smolenski discovers NSA backdoor on Linux code'
This is getting rather off-topic, especially for this thread, and possibly for the list as well.
-- Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
This thread is (supposedly) about Wikia leasing some office space to the WMF. How it degenerated into a conspiracy-fest about the CIA/NSA, I haven't figured out yet. In any case, Alex's comments echo my own: this back-and-forth has veered horribly off-topic.
-Chad
I'm criticizing the switch from "Wikia leasing office space to WMF" to "Is the CIA evil?" I just responded to the most recent email in my inbox; I thought that would be more appropriate than responding to all 17 CIA/NSA-related emails. I was not criticizing you in particular.
The topic of this thread is "Wikia leasing office space to WMF," that should be rather clear from the subject. And the topic of the list is "Wikimedia related issues." Its almost on topic for the list (MediaWiki is at least mentioned occasionally), its certainly not at all related to the topic of the thread.
Brian wrote:
It was a clear factual error which I corrected. If you aren't going to criticize the original comment you have no basis for criticizing the correction. At any rate, what exactly is the topic of this thread, in your opinion?
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Alex mrzmanwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Brian wrote:
If the CIA were to hand you a improved-mediawiki binary, sure
PHP is an interpreted language. Surely you wouldn't use someone elses
byte
code.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 8:32 AM, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com
wrote:
Nikola Smolenski wrote:
Given that we know that NSA conducts massive illegal spying operations,
there
is possibility that selinux is altered in a fashion that will make it
easier
for NSA to spy on selinux' users. I don't know what are CIA's
contributions
to MediaWiki, but unless it is trivial to review them, I would not
accept
them.
If the CIA were to hand you a improved-mediawiki binary, sure. You could very well be suspicious about it. But we're talking about open source. They would be providing the changes, which are to be reviewed, like any other code, or perhaps even more, due to coming from the CIA.
Take into account that CIA and NSA need good software, too. So if they add a backdoor, they would need to add it *and* at the same time make it easy to protect from it, as they wouldn't want their own systems spied by their own rootkit (and someone will end up forgetting to apply it).
Instead, contributing good fixes, make everything easier.
OTOH I encourage you to review selinux. That would make a great heading 'Nikola Smolenski discovers NSA backdoor on Linux code'
This is getting rather off-topic, especially for this thread, and possibly for the list as well.
-- Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Let me make my position clear: * Correcting factual errors is always appropriate. * This thread no longer has a clear topic.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 12:41 PM, Alex mrzmanwiki@gmail.com wrote:
I'm criticizing the switch from "Wikia leasing office space to WMF" to "Is the CIA evil?" I just responded to the most recent email in my inbox; I thought that would be more appropriate than responding to all 17 CIA/NSA-related emails. I was not criticizing you in particular.
The topic of this thread is "Wikia leasing office space to WMF," that should be rather clear from the subject. And the topic of the list is "Wikimedia related issues." Its almost on topic for the list (MediaWiki is at least mentioned occasionally), its certainly not at all related to the topic of the thread.
Brian wrote:
It was a clear factual error which I corrected. If you aren't going to criticize the original comment you have no basis for criticizing the correction. At any rate, what exactly is the topic of this thread, in your opinion?
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Alex mrzmanwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Brian wrote:
If the CIA were to hand you a improved-mediawiki binary, sure
PHP is an interpreted language. Surely you wouldn't use someone elses
byte
code.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 8:32 AM, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com
wrote:
Nikola Smolenski wrote:
Given that we know that NSA conducts massive illegal spying
operations,
there
is possibility that selinux is altered in a fashion that will make it
easier
for NSA to spy on selinux' users. I don't know what are CIA's
contributions
to MediaWiki, but unless it is trivial to review them, I would not
accept
them.
If the CIA were to hand you a improved-mediawiki binary, sure. You
could
very well be suspicious about it. But we're talking about open source. They would be providing the changes, which are to be reviewed, like
any
other code, or perhaps even more, due to coming from the CIA.
Take into account that CIA and NSA need good software, too. So if they add a backdoor, they would need to add it *and* at the same time make
it
easy to protect from it, as they wouldn't want their own systems spied by their own rootkit (and someone will end up forgetting to apply it).
Instead, contributing good fixes, make everything easier.
OTOH I encourage you to review selinux. That would make a great
heading
'Nikola Smolenski discovers NSA backdoor on Linux code'
This is getting rather off-topic, especially for this thread, and possibly for the list as well.
-- Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Jan 24, 2009, at 2:41 PM, Alex wrote:
I'm criticizing the switch from "Wikia leasing office space to WMF" to "Is the CIA evil?" I just responded to the most recent email in my inbox; I thought that would be more appropriate than responding to all 17 CIA/NSA-related emails. I was not criticizing you in particular.
The topic of this thread is "Wikia leasing office space to WMF," that should be rather clear from the subject. And the topic of the list is "Wikimedia related issues." Its almost on topic for the list (MediaWiki is at least mentioned occasionally), its certainly not at all related to the topic of the thread.
Brian wrote:
It was a clear factual error which I corrected. If you aren't going to criticize the original comment you have no basis for criticizing the correction. At any rate, what exactly is the topic of this thread, in your opinion?
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Alex mrzmanwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Brian wrote:
If the CIA were to hand you a improved-mediawiki binary, sure
PHP is an interpreted language. Surely you wouldn't use someone elses
byte
code.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 8:32 AM, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com
wrote:
Nikola Smolenski wrote:
Given that we know that NSA conducts massive illegal spying operations,
there
is possibility that selinux is altered in a fashion that will make it
easier
for NSA to spy on selinux' users. I don't know what are CIA's
contributions
to MediaWiki, but unless it is trivial to review them, I would not
accept
them.
If the CIA were to hand you a improved-mediawiki binary, sure. You could very well be suspicious about it. But we're talking about open source. They would be providing the changes, which are to be reviewed, like any other code, or perhaps even more, due to coming from the CIA.
Take into account that CIA and NSA need good software, too. So if they add a backdoor, they would need to add it *and* at the same time make it easy to protect from it, as they wouldn't want their own systems spied by their own rootkit (and someone will end up forgetting to apply it).
Instead, contributing good fixes, make everything easier.
OTOH I encourage you to review selinux. That would make a great heading 'Nikola Smolenski discovers NSA backdoor on Linux code'
This is getting rather off-topic, especially for this thread, and possibly for the list as well.
-- Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ foundation-l
-- Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man)
Yeah, agreed. While on-topic for the list, it's off-topic for this thread. U.S. intelligence agency involvement in the development of open source products, especially media wiki, however *IS* a topic I am very much interested in seeing further discussion about; to that end I would much rather fork this thread into a different title than see it be killed totally.
-dan
2009/1/25 Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com:
Yeah, agreed. While on-topic for the list, it's off-topic for this thread. U.S. intelligence agency involvement in the development of open source products, especially media wiki, however *IS* a topic I am very much interested in seeing further discussion about; to that end I would much rather fork this thread into a different title than see it be killed totally.
Well, SELinux is widely-available and no-one's found the s3kr1t code that funnels your keystrokes back to the NSA, and you bet they've looked. The main reason people know about SELinux in practice is how to switch it off, but anyway ...
Has anyone actually asked the CIA for MediaWiki extensions and enhancements? It'd be worth asking.
- d.
2009/1/25 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
Has anyone actually asked the CIA for MediaWiki extensions and enhancements? It'd be worth asking.
We don't know much about what they have done but most of their developments are more likely to be of interest to corporate wikis than wikipedia.
2009/1/25 geni geniice@gmail.com:
2009/1/25 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
Has anyone actually asked the CIA for MediaWiki extensions and enhancements? It'd be worth asking.
We don't know much about what they have done but most of their developments are more likely to be of interest to corporate wikis than wikipedia.
That'd still be damn fine for MediaWiki and its adoption.
- d.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 9:19 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/25 geni geniice@gmail.com:
2009/1/25 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
Has anyone actually asked the CIA for MediaWiki extensions and enhancements? It'd be worth asking.
I suspect any significant changes they have made will not be made available for release until long past the time they are useful to the MediaWiki developers. Keep in mind that Intellipedia is designed to contain, distribute in a limited manner and facilitate the analysis of classified information. Details on how it does that are unlikely to be forthcoming, right?
What I'd be most interested in is the improvements they've made to the many en.wp articles included in Intellipedia.
Nathan
That means I can clarify why my much hated factual correction was appropriate. Here was the original statement:
If the CIA were to hand you a improved-mediawiki binary, sure
Let's briefly suppose that there are binaries for mediawiki (which is false - but suppose they only gave you byte code for mediawiki) and that the CIA had "improved" mediawiki and given you one. There is a crucial difference between the CIA giving you that binary and giving you source code - you can see the diffs in the source code and you can see the diffs in the binaries, but you cannot understand the diffs in the binaries.
How the poster I replied to does not consider this distinction relevant is beyond me.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 5:44 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 24, 2009, at 2:41 PM, Alex wrote:
I'm criticizing the switch from "Wikia leasing office space to WMF" to "Is the CIA evil?" I just responded to the most recent email in my inbox; I thought that would be more appropriate than responding to all 17 CIA/NSA-related emails. I was not criticizing you in particular.
The topic of this thread is "Wikia leasing office space to WMF," that should be rather clear from the subject. And the topic of the list is "Wikimedia related issues." Its almost on topic for the list (MediaWiki is at least mentioned occasionally), its certainly not at all related to the topic of the thread.
Brian wrote:
It was a clear factual error which I corrected. If you aren't going to criticize the original comment you have no basis for criticizing the correction. At any rate, what exactly is the topic of this thread, in your opinion?
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Alex mrzmanwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Brian wrote:
If the CIA were to hand you a improved-mediawiki binary, sure
PHP is an interpreted language. Surely you wouldn't use someone elses
byte
code.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 8:32 AM, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com
wrote:
Nikola Smolenski wrote: > Given that we know that NSA conducts massive illegal spying > operations, there > is possibility that selinux is altered in a fashion that will > make it easier > for NSA to spy on selinux' users. I don't know what are CIA's contributions > to MediaWiki, but unless it is trivial to review them, I would > not
accept
> them. If the CIA were to hand you a improved-mediawiki binary, sure. You could very well be suspicious about it. But we're talking about open source. They would be providing the changes, which are to be reviewed, like any other code, or perhaps even more, due to coming from the CIA.
Take into account that CIA and NSA need good software, too. So if they add a backdoor, they would need to add it *and* at the same time make it easy to protect from it, as they wouldn't want their own systems spied by their own rootkit (and someone will end up forgetting to apply it).
Instead, contributing good fixes, make everything easier.
OTOH I encourage you to review selinux. That would make a great heading 'Nikola Smolenski discovers NSA backdoor on Linux code'
This is getting rather off-topic, especially for this thread, and possibly for the list as well.
-- Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ foundation-l
-- Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man)
Yeah, agreed. While on-topic for the list, it's off-topic for this thread. U.S. intelligence agency involvement in the development of open source products, especially media wiki, however *IS* a topic I am very much interested in seeing further discussion about; to that end I would much rather fork this thread into a different title than see it be killed totally.
-dan
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
This is a fairly silly topic, but I'll say two things:
1) If the CIA or NSA or whoever contributed source code, we would review them like any other patches. Period. If they're committing illegal activities or whatever, that's something for the courts to rule on, and is no business of ours. Our goal (of MediaWiki developers) is to make good software, nothing else. Someone working for Microsoft was trying to get commit access to work on MSSQL a while back, too, and we weren't going to hold it against him. As for adding subtle "tell the NSA about Wikipedians' browsing habits" stuff, I very much believe that anyone who would review the patches would be competent enough to spot deliberately malicious or obfuscated source code before committing it.
2) If the CIA or NSA were hypothetically distributing modified MediaWiki binaries to third parties (PHP compilers do exist), that would be illegal, since MediaWiki is only licensed under the GPL, and so they would have no legal right to distribute binaries without full accompanying source code. I'm sure they would immediately stop once this was pointed out to them, and either stop distributing the stuff outside their own organizations or provide the source code. Of course if you believe that they're illegally infringing everyone's rights left and right with no oversight, you might think they wouldn't stop and we would all disappear in the middle of the night if we tried to formally complain. I guess we'll see if it happens.
2009/1/25 Aryeh Gregor Simetrical+wikilist@gmail.com:
This is a fairly silly topic, but I'll say two things:
- If the CIA or NSA or whoever contributed source code, we would
review them like any other patches. Period. If they're committing illegal activities or whatever, that's something for the courts to rule on, and is no business of ours. Our goal (of MediaWiki developers) is to make good software, nothing else. Someone working for Microsoft was trying to get commit access to work on MSSQL a while back, too, and we weren't going to hold it against him. As for adding subtle "tell the NSA about Wikipedians' browsing habits" stuff, I very much believe that anyone who would review the patches would be competent enough to spot deliberately malicious or obfuscated source code before committing it.
I wouldn't bet on that but that wasn't the case being originally considered.
The case was the wikia case with the CIA replacing wikia. How close would we be prepared to let WMF people get to the CIA. In theory as long as the people in question don't have direct access to the WMF servers there can't be any issues but that is somewhat questionable.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 10:27 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
I wouldn't bet on that
No offense intended, but I'm curious: do you do any software development?
The case was the wikia case with the CIA replacing wikia. How close would we be prepared to let WMF people get to the CIA. In theory as long as the people in question don't have direct access to the WMF servers there can't be any issues but that is somewhat questionable.
Personally I would see no problem with any degree of association between Wikimedia and the CIA, as long as it didn't compromise transparency or anything. Then again, I'm a neocon and have no objections to the CIA whatsoever. I'm not sure if the CIA was meant to be an example of an indisputably evil organization, because it doesn't work for me.
2009/1/25 Aryeh Gregor Simetrical+wikilist@gmail.com:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 10:27 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
I wouldn't bet on that
No offense intended, but I'm curious: do you do any software development?
No. But we know that accidental security issues slip through. Betting you can beat the NSA's ability to hide deliberate flaws is not the safest of options. That said I doubt they would take the risk.
Personally I would see no problem with any degree of association between Wikimedia and the CIA, as long as it didn't compromise transparency or anything. Then again, I'm a neocon and have no objections to the CIA whatsoever. I'm not sure if the CIA was meant to be an example of an indisputably evil organization, because it doesn't work for me.
The CIA were meant as an example of an organisation who used mediawiki on a large scale that some people would be less than happy having dealings with.
We know that various governments are looking to influence wikipedia content (heh we've also been told that there is at least one article in wikipedia that one bit of the CIA thinks another bit of the CIA shouldn't know about). For the moment I have no reason to believe any of these attempts go beyond normal PR methods (oh with the exception of part of the US government dealing with illegal drugs but I don't think they realised what they were doing). We would like it to stay that way. It is understandable that people would be concerned if an organisation with influencing non US opinion as one of it's goals started getting too close to the WMF.
However this hasn't happened so not too many worries.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 7:51 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/25 Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+wikilist@gmail.comSimetrical%2Bwikilist@gmail.com
: On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 10:27 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
I wouldn't bet on that
No offense intended, but I'm curious: do you do any software development?
No. But we know that accidental security issues slip through. Betting you can beat the NSA's ability to hide deliberate flaws is not the safest of options. That said I doubt they would take the risk.
geni
But the code is right there!
You'll see something like:
--safeMethodforDoingStuff(): ++secretUnsafeCIAversionSHHHH():
--Falcorian
Brian wrote:
That means I can clarify why my much hated factual correction was appropriate. Here was the original statement:
If the CIA were to hand you a improved-mediawiki binary, sure
Let's briefly suppose that there are binaries for mediawiki (which is false
- but suppose they only gave you byte code for mediawiki) and that the CIA
had "improved" mediawiki and given you one. There is a crucial difference between the CIA giving you that binary and giving you source code - you can see the diffs in the source code and you can see the diffs in the binaries, but you cannot understand the diffs in the binaries.
How the poster I replied to does not consider this distinction relevant is beyond me.
I answered you privately on your reply to not feed the thread, but as you're continusly repeating it, I'm going to clarify it here.
The ability to provide a mediawiki binary wasn't relevant to the point. And yes, it can be done (Zend Guard, giving a PHP extension...).
My reply to Nikola was: You're right [in not trust it] if they handed you a "improved" binary, but they would provide *the source diff*, so there's no need to start being paranoic about the CIA "altering MediaWiki in a fashion that will make it easier to spy its users"
2009/1/24 geni geniice@gmail.com:
2009/1/24 Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org:
I would also say that I am happy we're talking about this, and I hope the people asking questions are finding the answers reasonably reassuring :-)
Depends. The wikia is a large user therefor we should work with them argument is somewhat worrying because well we know the CIA is also a large user.
If the CIA send their changes back and they're of suitable quality, I expect they'll go in. The NSA contributes lots to Linux!
- d.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 9:47 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2009/1/24 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Delphine Ménard <notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
Wikia, as was said elsewhere, is one of the biggest Mediawiki users out there and therefore has, in my opinion, probably the best incentive to make sure that Mediawiki develops in a way that makes sense for the users.
And what better way to do that then to have people come down to the Wikia office and work on improving Wikia's software, while the Wikimedia Foundation pays for not only the developers, but rent on the space they
use
while developing!
Who cares if Wikia benefits? It's the benefit to WMF that matters. As long as it is an undeniably good business decision for WMF, the fact that it's also a good deal for Wikia doesn't factor into it.
It doesn't factor into it? You'd make a terrible used car salesman!
Anyway, I think you're reading more into what I wrote than I intended.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Delphine Ménard <notafishz@gmail.com
wrote:
Wikia, as was said elsewhere, is one of the biggest Mediawiki users out there and therefore has, in my opinion, probably the best incentive to make sure that Mediawiki develops in a way that makes sense for the users.
And what better way to do that then to have people come down to the Wikia office and work on improving Wikia's software, while the Wikimedia Foundation pays for not only the developers, but rent on the space they use while developing!
This is a bizarre attitude. Mediawiki is an open source software package. Everyone should benefit from improvements, and we should take any opportunity to cooperate with any company willing to invest time and money into helping with that.
The suggestion that we should not cooperate with Wikia in this improvement is absurd.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 9:52 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Delphine Ménard <notafishz@gmail.com
wrote:
Wikia, as was said elsewhere, is one of the biggest Mediawiki users out there and therefore has, in my opinion, probably the best incentive to make sure that Mediawiki develops in a way that makes sense for the users.
And what better way to do that then to have people come down to the Wikia office and work on improving Wikia's software, while the Wikimedia Foundation pays for not only the developers, but rent on the space they
use
while developing!
This is a bizarre attitude. Mediawiki is an open source software package. Everyone should benefit from improvements, and we should take any opportunity to cooperate with any company willing to invest time and money into helping with that.
The suggestion that we should not cooperate with Wikia in this improvement is absurd.
The whole thing is absurd.
But I never suggested that you shouldn't cooperate with Wikia. Do whatever you want. It's not my money.
Its the same software for both parties, and its open source. Please just drop it.
________________________________ From: Anthony wikimail@inbox.org To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 6:41:34 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikia leasing office space to WMF
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.comwrote:
Wikia, as was said elsewhere, is one of the biggest Mediawiki users out there and therefore has, in my opinion, probably the best incentive to make sure that Mediawiki develops in a way that makes sense for the users.
And what better way to do that then to have people come down to the Wikia office and work on improving Wikia's software, while the Wikimedia Foundation pays for not only the developers, but rent on the space they use while developing! _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 12:23 AM, Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.comwrote:
Its the same software for both parties, and its open source. Please just drop it.
If you would please be so kind as to summarize your viewpoints in fewer messages. The past 10 to this thread have all been by you.
-Chad
Mr. Plourde,
I appreciate your interest in this topic, but did you really have to reply to ten different messages with individual one-line replies?
Love,
Your list administrator
Wikia is a way to utilize MediaWiki for profit. The United States is a capitalist society, and this should be encouraged. Also Wikia hosts many fansites and I don't hear them complaining about people playing ball.
________________________________ From: Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 11:53:59 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikia leasing office space to WMF
I'm glad someone is concerned about this issue. Wikia has always smacked of "they wouldn't let us show ads on Wikipedia, so here is the for-profit branch of Wikipedia with ads." There are potential conflicts of interest at nearly every level of the Wikia/Wikipedia relationship.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Gregory Kohs thekohser@gmail.com wrote:
I was very surprised to read on the Wikimedia blog a post from Naoko Komura, the WMF program manager heading up the Wikipedia Usability Initiative, funded by the Stanton Foundation.
Post:
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/01/21/a-note-on-the-wikipedia-usability-initi...
To quote Komura,
"On the space front, we had outgrown our current space in the South of Market area of San Francisco, and we were in search of space specifically for this project. I am happy to announce that Wikia has agreed to sublease two of their conference rooms to the Wikimedia Foundation for the project duration (Jan'09-Mar'10). Daniel [Phelps] collected a dozen bids for the space in SOMA, and Wikia matched the best offer."
I submitted a comment to the blog, but over seven hours later, it is still not published, and there is a history of my questions to that blog being ignored or censored. So, I'm going to ask here, and I'll also advise the list moderators that this message is being copied to members of the press.
Could we have more detail, please, on the note that "Wikia matched the best offer"? Were the other ten higher bidders also given the opportunity to match the best offer? Why was Wikia chosen on a "second and adjusted offer" basis, rather than choosing the good-faith firm that submitted the lowest offer initially? Was the first low bidder given the chance to further discount their rate? If so, what was their response? If not, why not?
I have to agree with Steven Walling's comment on the blog. He said, "I find the idea of the Foundation working that closely with Wikia, literally and figuratively, discomforting. We already have enough people confused about the difference between the two organizations, and to be honest, this feels like nepotism."
Actually, it's not nepotism. And, there are no uniform laws regarding nepotism. It's potentially worse. Self-dealing, which is what this really smacks of, is covered in case law, judicial opinions, and some statutes.
I have been assured in countless places that "Wikia and the Wikimedia Foundation are complete separate organizations" and that there were "no business relationships" between the members of a past WMF Board that was 60% comprised of Wikia employees/owners. Considering the past Wikia/Wikipedia fiasco of Ryan "Essjay" Jordan, I would have thought the WMF would be hyper-sensitive to working in concert yet again with their neighbor down the street.
In summary:
We know Wikia was recently laying off workers in the economic downturn. Presumably, Wikia now has excess office space per employee. WMF gets a grant, presumably funded by tax-deductible dollars. Expending that grant on office space is served up to an ostensibly "open" and "fair" competitive search among 12 candidate landlords. A lowest bid is received. However, a bidder who happens to have strong personnel ties to the Board of WMF and the Advisory Board of WMF, is given the opportunity to match the lowest bid, which they do, since they have empty office space doing them no good empty.
Net result: Tax-advantaged dollars will be transferred to a for-profit corporation with an "inside track" to the decision-making body of the non-profit organization.
It strikes me as fishy, to use a gentle word.
-- Gregory Kohs Cell: 302.463.1354 _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Gregory Kohs thekohser@gmail.com wrote:
I submitted a comment to the blog, but over seven hours later, it is still not published, and there is a history of my questions to that blog being ignored or censored. So, I'm going to ask here, and I'll also advise the list moderators that this message is being copied to members of the press.
I don't mean to be pugilistic here, but...so? A blog isn't really a publicly accessible forum, even if some people choose to open theirs as such. Also, which members of the press are you forwarding the traffic to?
Could we have more detail, please, on the note that "Wikia matched the best offer"? Were the other ten higher bidders also given the opportunity to match the best offer? Why was Wikia chosen on a "second and adjusted offer" basis, rather than choosing the good-faith firm that submitted the lowest offer initially? Was the first low bidder given the chance to further discount their rate? If so, what was their response? If not, why not?
I'm not sure it matters, the deal with Wikia provides an interesting opporty for a number of reasons, not just the bottom-line financial ones. Wikia has been doing a lot of work with MediaWiki, especially concerning usuability. Also, there is a location issue that's worth considering too. Close proximity to the WMF headquarters, an as-good-as-best cost, and an opportunity to work near other engineers on a similar project is quite a good package deal that isn't really worth second-guessing. Even if the next 10 closest bidders all matched or beat that same price when given a second chance, they probably could not have matched the other benefits of the Wikia offer.
Actually, it's not nepotism. And, there are no uniform laws regarding nepotism. It's potentially worse. Self-dealing, which is what this really smacks of, is covered in case law, judicial opinions, and some statutes.
It's like when companies hire new people, they like people with significant experience in the same industry. It's not nepotism to say that you want to work with, and to work near, people who are doing similar work as what you are doing. It's also not nepotism if you aren't showing undo favoritism: Wikia matched the best offer and brings additional value to the deal in a number of other ways that I doubt could be matched by any of the other bidders.
We know Wikia was recently laying off workers in the economic downturn. Presumably, Wikia now has excess office space per employee. WMF gets a grant, presumably funded by tax-deductible dollars. Expending that grant on office space is served up to an ostensibly "open" and "fair" competitive search among 12 candidate landlords. A lowest bid is received. However, a bidder who happens to have strong personnel ties to the Board of WMF and the Advisory Board of WMF, is given the opportunity to match the lowest bid, which they do, since they have empty office space doing them no good empty.
Net result: Tax-advantaged dollars will be transferred to a for-profit corporation with an "inside track" to the decision-making body of the non-profit organization.
It strikes me as fishy, to use a gentle word.
It's fishy that the WMF choose a bid that was equal to the best bid financially, and had additional non-financial value as well? That's not fishy, that's good business. Fishy would be if the WMF choose to accept Wikia's bid if it was not equal to the lowest bid on the table (and even then, it might still make sense considering the added value of the Wikia bid). That Wikia may be struggling financially is not surprising in this economy either, so I don't know why you even bring that up.
--Andrew Whitworth
The Foundation was searching for rooms because the current rooms are already quite crowded (everyone who had visited the office can confirm this) and because we will start the usability project we are going to hire three more developers.
Thus the Foundation has either to lease offices in the vincinity or have to move completely into a new, bigger site. The Foundation has set up a list of criterias in search: First of all, move to a new site is more costly than lease additional office. Second the office that are searched should be near the main office, for better communication and tech supports. Third the office must have sufficiant tech infrastructures. And naturally it should be of a convinient price.
After checking many possibilities at last the Foundation had decided to lease the offices from Wikia, mainly because all criterias above fills at best by the Wikia site. The lease contract is a standard contract with no additional terms. The lease price is average SF lease price. It is directly beside the main office and it provides the infrastructure we need.
That's all. There are no other things running here.
The board was informed about the searching of additional or new office while its October 2008 meeting and was informed about the leasing of the Wikia office in its January meeting. And if someone is interested in this: I am told that Jimmy is not involved in this matter, neither on the WMF side nor on the Wikia side.
Ting
Out of curiosity, will the cost of leasing the space be deducted from the usability grant funds?
Nathan
Nathan wrote:
Out of curiosity, will the cost of leasing the space be deducted from the usability grant funds?
Normal overhead costs were budgeted into the grant from the beginning. That's one of the reasons we're not using it to hire 30 developers at $30,000 a year, but setting more realistic goals for it. While I can't say exactly offhand what the accounting mechanics will be, the lease should have no negative effect, either on our ability to execute the usability grant as intended, or on the use of unrestricted donations for the normal purposes of the foundation.
--Michael Snow
Mr Kohs;
Some of your points have merit as there are many areas in which we can and should improve. However, I must respectfully note that your comments here serve only to divide a already fractured community even further. As a Californian, I disagree with your assertions of nepotism and favoritism most vehemently.
Since you live in Pennsylvania, you may not be aware of this but rents in California tend to be fairly exorbitant. San Francisco is no exception. Office space has always been at a premium. When looking at bids, I assume that our hard working staff took many factors into consideration, as price is one out of many important items. One major factor would be the working dynamic and utilization. Wikia and Wikimedia, although different types of corporations, utilize the same software for similar purposes. This means that the Wikia office space would be usable by Foundation staff, as it would already be designed for those working with wikis. With another landlord, the Foundation might need to reconfigure the space, which costs time and money. Also, Wikia staff would be competent enough to assist with problems and capable of making changes. Another landlord might be difficult to reach or unable to work with staff to alleviate problems. Also they might not be able to understand what staff would need and be difficult to work with. The real cost is never just the sticker price, its all the hidden surprises. Renting from a similar organization eliminates these hidden surprises and makes for a smooth transition.
You also make the assertion of nepotism and impropriety. I fail to see why this is improper. Big whoop, Jimbo owns Wikia. Everybody knows it and it has never been hidden. He isn't going to profit from a simple subletting deal. Wikia has bills too and I assume has to pay rent. This makes the transfer of money moot, as money goes into private coffers all the time to keep nonprofits going. There is nothing wrong with this agreement, and it in no way means that Wikia and Wikimedia are joined.
My final point is that you have made these allegations without access to Board and staff documents. You therefore do not have the whole picture and have no standing to criticize those who do. This attempt to create division has no place and distracts us from the Foundation's goal.
Sincerely;
Geoffrey Plourde
________________________________ From: Gregory Kohs thekohser@gmail.com To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 11:37:37 AM Subject: [Foundation-l] Wikia leasing office space to WMF
I was very surprised to read on the Wikimedia blog a post from Naoko Komura, the WMF program manager heading up the Wikipedia Usability Initiative, funded by the Stanton Foundation.
Post: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/01/21/a-note-on-the-wikipedia-usability-initi...
To quote Komura,
"On the space front, we had outgrown our current space in the South of Market area of San Francisco, and we were in search of space specifically for this project. I am happy to announce that Wikia has agreed to sublease two of their conference rooms to the Wikimedia Foundation for the project duration (Jan'09-Mar'10). Daniel [Phelps] collected a dozen bids for the space in SOMA, and Wikia matched the best offer."
I submitted a comment to the blog, but over seven hours later, it is still not published, and there is a history of my questions to that blog being ignored or censored. So, I'm going to ask here, and I'll also advise the list moderators that this message is being copied to members of the press.
Could we have more detail, please, on the note that "Wikia matched the best offer"? Were the other ten higher bidders also given the opportunity to match the best offer? Why was Wikia chosen on a "second and adjusted offer" basis, rather than choosing the good-faith firm that submitted the lowest offer initially? Was the first low bidder given the chance to further discount their rate? If so, what was their response? If not, why not?
I have to agree with Steven Walling's comment on the blog. He said, "I find the idea of the Foundation working that closely with Wikia, literally and figuratively, discomforting. We already have enough people confused about the difference between the two organizations, and to be honest, this feels like nepotism."
Actually, it's not nepotism. And, there are no uniform laws regarding nepotism. It's potentially worse. Self-dealing, which is what this really smacks of, is covered in case law, judicial opinions, and some statutes.
I have been assured in countless places that "Wikia and the Wikimedia Foundation are complete separate organizations" and that there were "no business relationships" between the members of a past WMF Board that was 60% comprised of Wikia employees/owners. Considering the past Wikia/Wikipedia fiasco of Ryan "Essjay" Jordan, I would have thought the WMF would be hyper-sensitive to working in concert yet again with their neighbor down the street.
In summary:
We know Wikia was recently laying off workers in the economic downturn. Presumably, Wikia now has excess office space per employee. WMF gets a grant, presumably funded by tax-deductible dollars. Expending that grant on office space is served up to an ostensibly "open" and "fair" competitive search among 12 candidate landlords. A lowest bid is received. However, a bidder who happens to have strong personnel ties to the Board of WMF and the Advisory Board of WMF, is given the opportunity to match the lowest bid, which they do, since they have empty office space doing them no good empty.
Net result: Tax-advantaged dollars will be transferred to a for-profit corporation with an "inside track" to the decision-making body of the non-profit organization.
It strikes me as fishy, to use a gentle word.
Geoffrey,
I mostly agree with you that there's nothing wrong per se with the Wikimedia Foundation sharing office space with Wikia. From Erik's description of the bidding process, I think the WMF is overpaying, though. I think the "used car salesman" analogy is appropriate. There are lots of price points where the WMF and Wikia both benefit. The WMF seems to have gone out of its way to help Wikia come up with the maximum such price point, while they should have played harder to get. Why wasn't Wikia made part of the bidding process exactly like all the others? Why were they given a suggested rate which was then accepted? How much of the process was explained to Wikia, or known by anyone affiliated with Wikia, before the deal was accepted? Why does the press release describe the process one way (Wikia matched the lowest bid) but Erik describe it another way (Wikia was offered the average bid)? From the descriptions provided it looks like the WMF decided to rent space from Wikia, and then they took a bunch of bids to figure out a market price.
This said, there are others who have in the past expressed very different opinions about this sort of thing. When the announcement was made that the Wikimedia Foundation was moving to San Francisco, I asked whether or not Wikia might be willing to donate some office space to the WMF ( http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-September/033264.html). Florence Devouard quickly answered saying that even if they were, the WMF shouldn't accept it ( http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-September/033276.html). In Florence's mind, the potential for conflicts and appearance of conflicts was so great that the Wikimedia Foundation shouldn't even accept office space from Wikia *for free* ( http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-September/033279.html ).
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen also responded, stating that he completely agreed with Florence ( http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-September/033281.html). "Being perceived as tied at the hip to Wikia could potentially be disastrous." Then Angela chimed in, with the following:
"Wikia's donations towards the Foundation would be better spent elsewhere rather than causing further confusion about the relationship between the two companies by sharing an address. Added to that, Wikia is in San Mateo which is not ideal and not where Wikimedia is planning to be, and there is very limited space in Wikia's office." ( http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-September/033321.html )
Not sure if these three still feel this way, and are just keeping quiet about it, or if they've changed their minds. At least some of the details of Angela's view have changed, and sharing some space is of course different from sharing all of it. But each of the three cited as one of the major detriments to Wikia *donating* office space to the WMF, that it would be perceived as a conflict of interest.
Anthony
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:58 PM, Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.comwrote:
Mr Kohs;
Some of your points have merit as there are many areas in which we can and should improve. However, I must respectfully note that your comments here serve only to divide a already fractured community even further. As a Californian, I disagree with your assertions of nepotism and favoritism most vehemently.
Since you live in Pennsylvania, you may not be aware of this but rents in California tend to be fairly exorbitant. San Francisco is no exception. Office space has always been at a premium. When looking at bids, I assume that our hard working staff took many factors into consideration, as price is one out of many important items. One major factor would be the working dynamic and utilization. Wikia and Wikimedia, although different types of corporations, utilize the same software for similar purposes. This means that the Wikia office space would be usable by Foundation staff, as it would already be designed for those working with wikis. With another landlord, the Foundation might need to reconfigure the space, which costs time and money. Also, Wikia staff would be competent enough to assist with problems and capable of making changes. Another landlord might be difficult to reach or unable to work with staff to alleviate problems. Also they might not be able to understand what staff would need and be difficult to work with. The real cost is never just the sticker price, its all the hidden surprises. Renting from a similar organization eliminates these hidden surprises and makes for a smooth transition.
You also make the assertion of nepotism and impropriety. I fail to see why this is improper. Big whoop, Jimbo owns Wikia. Everybody knows it and it has never been hidden. He isn't going to profit from a simple subletting deal. Wikia has bills too and I assume has to pay rent. This makes the transfer of money moot, as money goes into private coffers all the time to keep nonprofits going. There is nothing wrong with this agreement, and it in no way means that Wikia and Wikimedia are joined.
My final point is that you have made these allegations without access to Board and staff documents. You therefore do not have the whole picture and have no standing to criticize those who do. This attempt to create division has no place and distracts us from the Foundation's goal.
Sincerely;
Geoffrey Plourde
From: Gregory Kohs thekohser@gmail.com To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 11:37:37 AM Subject: [Foundation-l] Wikia leasing office space to WMF
I was very surprised to read on the Wikimedia blog a post from Naoko Komura, the WMF program manager heading up the Wikipedia Usability Initiative, funded by the Stanton Foundation.
Post:
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/01/21/a-note-on-the-wikipedia-usability-initi...
To quote Komura,
"On the space front, we had outgrown our current space in the South of Market area of San Francisco, and we were in search of space specifically for this project. I am happy to announce that Wikia has agreed to sublease two of their conference rooms to the Wikimedia Foundation for the project duration (Jan'09-Mar'10). Daniel [Phelps] collected a dozen bids for the space in SOMA, and Wikia matched the best offer."
I submitted a comment to the blog, but over seven hours later, it is still not published, and there is a history of my questions to that blog being ignored or censored. So, I'm going to ask here, and I'll also advise the list moderators that this message is being copied to members of the press.
Could we have more detail, please, on the note that "Wikia matched the best offer"? Were the other ten higher bidders also given the opportunity to match the best offer? Why was Wikia chosen on a "second and adjusted offer" basis, rather than choosing the good-faith firm that submitted the lowest offer initially? Was the first low bidder given the chance to further discount their rate? If so, what was their response? If not, why not?
I have to agree with Steven Walling's comment on the blog. He said, "I find the idea of the Foundation working that closely with Wikia, literally and figuratively, discomforting. We already have enough people confused about the difference between the two organizations, and to be honest, this feels like nepotism."
Actually, it's not nepotism. And, there are no uniform laws regarding nepotism. It's potentially worse. Self-dealing, which is what this really smacks of, is covered in case law, judicial opinions, and some statutes.
I have been assured in countless places that "Wikia and the Wikimedia Foundation are complete separate organizations" and that there were "no business relationships" between the members of a past WMF Board that was 60% comprised of Wikia employees/owners. Considering the past Wikia/Wikipedia fiasco of Ryan "Essjay" Jordan, I would have thought the WMF would be hyper-sensitive to working in concert yet again with their neighbor down the street.
In summary:
We know Wikia was recently laying off workers in the economic downturn. Presumably, Wikia now has excess office space per employee. WMF gets a grant, presumably funded by tax-deductible dollars. Expending that grant on office space is served up to an ostensibly "open" and "fair" competitive search among 12 candidate landlords. A lowest bid is received. However, a bidder who happens to have strong personnel ties to the Board of WMF and the Advisory Board of WMF, is given the opportunity to match the lowest bid, which they do, since they have empty office space doing them no good empty.
Net result: Tax-advantaged dollars will be transferred to a for-profit corporation with an "inside track" to the decision-making body of the non-profit organization.
It strikes me as fishy, to use a gentle word.
-- Gregory Kohs Cell: 302.463.1354 _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Geoffrey Plourde said:
"Why should a taco stand use a dry cleaning shop when it can get another taco shop?"
Gregory Kohs responds:
I might be able to give a better answer if you could tell us whether it is Taco Stand A or it is Taco Stand B in your analogy that is the non-profit charity, funded with tax-deductible dollars, whose donors probably fully expected that their money would NOT be used to pay rent to the other, decidedly *for-profit* taco stand.
Geoffrey Plourde also said (twice) that he disagrees with my assertion of nepotism.
Gregory Kohs responds:
I have never said that this situation is nepotism, and in fact I corrected someone else that it was *not* nepotism. I am of the understanding that none of the members of the WMF Board or staff are related by blood or marriage to any of the owners or staff of Wikia, Inc. I did say (either here or elsewhere) that at one time 60% of the WMF Board were all employed by Wikia, Inc., but that's not a family thing, as far as I know.
Let me just ask here... are any of the participants on this list expert in the legal statutes that surround the issue of "self-dealing"? For example, has anyone who has commented thus far actually read: 26 U.S.C.A. § 4941 (1969)?
Self-dealing includes sale or exchange, or leasing, of property between a private foundation and a disqualified person; and a disqualified person may be a foundation manager or an owner of more than 20 percent of either (i) the total combined voting power of a corporation, or (ii) the profits interest of a partnership. I don't know whether Jimmy Wales retains 20% of the voting power or profits interest of Wikia, Inc., and I am not asking that, but he could certainly be considered a foundation manager, no?
Please, in your rush to judgment about the character of my "attacks" here, take some time to actually explore and learn about United States law. The Foundation could be in serious trouble here, and you're spending an awful lot of energy railing against the messenger.
Greg
As a Board trustee, I don't believe that Jimmy would fall under the manager scheme. If this were the case, a Foundation could be barred from buying Apple computers from Apple, if Steve jobs were on their board.
________________________________ From: Gregory Kohs thekohser@gmail.com To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 12:53:51 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikia leasing office space to WMF
Geoffrey Plourde said:
"Why should a taco stand use a dry cleaning shop when it can get another taco shop?"
Gregory Kohs responds:
I might be able to give a better answer if you could tell us whether it is Taco Stand A or it is Taco Stand B in your analogy that is the non-profit charity, funded with tax-deductible dollars, whose donors probably fully expected that their money would NOT be used to pay rent to the other, decidedly *for-profit* taco stand.
Geoffrey Plourde also said (twice) that he disagrees with my assertion of nepotism.
Gregory Kohs responds:
I have never said that this situation is nepotism, and in fact I corrected someone else that it was *not* nepotism. I am of the understanding that none of the members of the WMF Board or staff are related by blood or marriage to any of the owners or staff of Wikia, Inc. I did say (either here or elsewhere) that at one time 60% of the WMF Board were all employed by Wikia, Inc., but that's not a family thing, as far as I know.
Let me just ask here... are any of the participants on this list expert in the legal statutes that surround the issue of "self-dealing"? For example, has anyone who has commented thus far actually read: 26 U.S.C.A. § 4941 (1969)?
Self-dealing includes sale or exchange, or leasing, of property between a private foundation and a disqualified person; and a disqualified person may be a foundation manager or an owner of more than 20 percent of either (i) the total combined voting power of a corporation, or (ii) the profits interest of a partnership. I don't know whether Jimmy Wales retains 20% of the voting power or profits interest of Wikia, Inc., and I am not asking that, but he could certainly be considered a foundation manager, no?
Please, in your rush to judgment about the character of my "attacks" here, take some time to actually explore and learn about United States law. The Foundation could be in serious trouble here, and you're spending an awful lot of energy railing against the messenger.
Greg
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
*Kohser wrote:
I might be able to give a better answer if you could tell us whether it is Taco Stand A or it is Taco Stand B in your analogy that is the non-profit charity, funded with tax-deductible dollars, whose donors probably fully expected that their money would NOT be used to pay rent to the other, decidedly *for-profit* taco stand.*
---
Wow, really? Personally, I had no expectation that the Foundation would decline to do business with for profit entities when I made my donation. If they need more space, then they will probably have to pay to rent it (not paying presents much more serious problems, I'm sure you'd agree). Favoring a non-profit landlord makes no sense to me. All the other reasons cited in this thread for favoring an average bid from Wikia over others apply. I do know that some posters to this list have a strong aversion to anything that makes money, but that sort of fanaticism is safely ignored.
Also, the Foundation has a lawyer. You are not a lawyer. It would be an error to take your legal analysis as authoritative.
Nathan
2009/1/24 Gregory Kohs thekohser@gmail.com:
Please, in your rush to judgment about the character of my "attacks" here, take some time to actually explore and learn about United States law. The Foundation could be in serious trouble here, and you're spending an awful lot of energy railing against the messenger.
You're a troll. You spend tremendous time and effort around the blogosphere posting attacks on Wikipedia and Wikimedia wherever you can. Your comments get deleted from the WMF blog when they're trolling, and it so happens they almost always are. You're *still* furiously sockpuppeting on en:wp as well.
Given this, of course I'll assume you're trolling here as well, because, well, you are.
- d.
How was this message constructive? If you think he's a troll, don't respond to him. I happen to think he raised some interesting issues.
Mark
2009/1/24 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2009/1/24 Gregory Kohs thekohser@gmail.com:
Please, in your rush to judgment about the character of my "attacks" here, take some time to actually explore and learn about United States law. The Foundation could be in serious trouble here, and you're spending an awful lot of energy railing against the messenger.
You're a troll. You spend tremendous time and effort around the blogosphere posting attacks on Wikipedia and Wikimedia wherever you can. Your comments get deleted from the WMF blog when they're trolling, and it so happens they almost always are. You're *still* furiously sockpuppeting on en:wp as well.
Given this, of course I'll assume you're trolling here as well, because, well, you are.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org