Greetings,
I'm happy to tell you a little more about myself and the scope of this short-term research project I'm undertaking, and I'm as happy to assume that you fully intended for your messages to come across as decorous and rational.
I've been on the Advisory Board of the Wikimedia Foundation for some time now, and there have been large periods where I've done nothing, and many periods when I've done a lot. This, I suspect, is the case for many fellow Advisory Board members; overall, I can say for myself that it's been a rewarding and interesting experience. I'm involved in various aspects of the Wikimedia movement - from helping to organise communities in India and South Africa to looking at broader, more global questions around the work of the Chapters Committee and the possibility of other kinds of affiliation that might usefully exist within our world. All of this work, as it should be, is completely open and transparent, and is in no way forced or mandated.
Funnily enough, I wasn't very involved with the strategic 5-year plan; I started off trying to look at what community members from India might want to do, but the exercise didn't get very far, and I sort of gave up in between. I'm glad it went forward with the help of a whole lot of others from India, and I'm glad it exists, but I haven't even read what it says yet. So I'm forced to confess (like Shaw almost said) that reports of my influence are greatly exaggerated. I am, however, involved on a daily basis with all kinds of work that is related to the movement, and I'm delighted to be of use to you.
As for me, I work on intellectual property rights as a researcher, and I also write. I've worked in India, Guyana and South Africa, mostly as an activist on access to medicines and access to knowledge; I am now engaged in writing a larger piece of work that is unrelated to intellectual property.
Now to the project. I see that neither of you gentlemen has any thoughts on it, and I welcome your engagement. The problem with oral knowledge vs. published knowledge is an old one, and there are many interesting ways in which the sum of published material in the world reflects the order of the world. For us, unfortunately, it also means that in some cases, to make Wikipedias work in languages where scholarly publishing is not that strong is a difficult task. This problem applies not just to languages with a primarily oral tradition (such as many of those in circulation in sub-Saharan Africa today) but also for those with a non-Latin written tradition but with a lower output of published material (like many South Asian languages today). What excites me about this is that I am interested in the idea of 'legitimate' knowledge - and the manner in which our ideas of authenticity, reliability and certification can be shaped and changed in our own lifetimes. This spirit of consistent reinvention, I think, is central to the idea of Wikipedia and everything else that comes under the umbrella of our movement.
I have a fairly good understanding of the academic literature on this subject; I've had excellent discussions with Wikipedians working in languages across India and South Africa where this is a tangible problem; and working together with them, I think we can make a useful contribution to this topic, or at least mark a starting point from which to make this movement truly inclusive, plural and global.
I'm looking forward to it very much. As I am certain you are too.
Fondest wishes, etc. Achal
-------------------------------------------- *whothis* whothith at gmail.com mailto:foundation-l%40lists.wikimedia.org?Subject=%5BFoundation-l%5D%20Questions%20about%20new%20Fellow&In-Reply-To=C95D4616.EA35%25z%40mzmcbride.com /Thu Jan 20 08:46:08 UTC 2011/
* Previous message: [Foundation-l] Questions about new Fellow http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-January/063500.html * *Messages sorted by:* [ date ] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-January/date.html#63501 [ thread ] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-January/thread.html#63501 [ subject ] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-January/subject.html#63501 [ author ] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-January/author.html#63501
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with what he said.
After looking him up, the only qualification I can find of this person is that he's on the advisory board, No idea, how he got there and for how long is his "term", makes me think that maybe there is a Cabal. Most places mirror his description on the Advisory Board page. I am tired of seeing the same names, doing the rounds over and over again, from groups to committees to fellowships to whatever that comes next.
Will anyone else from the Advisory board or maybe even the board, past or present members included, going to receive a "fellowship" now? Does it matter that they are mostly unknown by the community, obviously not.
E. Forrester
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 12:23 PM, MZMcBride<z at mzmcbride.com https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l> wrote:
/ Hi.
/>/ />/ As Daniel noted in his earlier e-mail to the list, Achal Prabhala is now a />/ Wikimedia Fellow.[1] I actually missed this announcement as it didn't hit />/ wikimediaannounce-l or this list (foundation-l), it apparently only got />/ posted to the blog, but that's not really here nor there. />/ />/ There have been rumblings about some of the surrounding circumstances that />/ I />/ think warrant consideration and discussion. Achal is a member of the />/ Advisory Board[2] but isn't very active in wikis/open source. A few />/ questions pop up in my head. Is there a concern about such an individual />/ being a Wikimedia Fellow? That is, someone who's not particularly attached />/ to wikis/open source? All of the other Wikimedia Fellows have fairly strong />/ editing backgrounds. The edits by Achal seem to be rather sparse: />/ http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?user=Aprabhala http://toolserver.org/%7Evvv/sulutil.php?user=Aprabhala />/ />/ More importantly, is there a concern about an Advisory Board member being />/ chosen as a Wikimedia Fellow? Is there a conflict of interest there? Is />/ there a concern about the appearance of impropriety? />/ />/ Achal has a growing influence on Wikimedia, particularly its new operations />/ in India. This has included being part of the hiring decisions, etc. This />/ is />/ more of a consultant role, making his selection as a Wikimedia Fellow even />/ stranger. And his growing influence and power in such a big part of />/ Wikimedia's five-year strategy is making people wary. I think conversation />/ and engagement (on this list and elsewhere) would be very good in a number />/ of ways. />/ />/ MZMcBride />/ />/ [1]http://blog.wikimedia.org/?p=2748 />/ [2]http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Advisory_Board />/ />/ />/ />/ _______________________________________________ />/ foundation-l mailing list />/ foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l />/ Unsubscribe:https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l />/ /
Thanks Achal :-)
In addition to what Achal said, it's important to note that this fellowship was processed as a grant, and is transparently documented at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:WM_Fellowships/Oral_Citations consistent with the principles of the grantmaking process. It's a short-term engagement, and the total budget includes a strong focus on documentation so that whatever lessons are learned can be easily accessed by any member of the community. Money not spent will be returned.
In the same way that the usability videos showing the experiences of real users editing Wikipedia helped the community to have conversations about the editing interface, we hope that the film documentation that Achal will create will help the community have conversations about citations and sources, and offer practical approaches to deal with lack of published materials in many of the languages in which Wikipedia is available. Given our desire to help foster healthy Wikimedia projects e.g. in the languages spoken in India, this isn't a theoretical but very practical issue. As always, a public report will document the deliverables and results.
The fellowship program is intended to leverage great opportunities for volunteers with a proven track record to help us accomplish extraordinary things. Whether that volunteerism is in the form of editing, engineering, event organizing, chapters development, cat herding, evangelism, etc. shouldn't really matter. They can all be things that greatly advance the movement's goals. Achal has put countless hours into efforts to help get Wikimedia India and Wikimedia South Africa off the ground, and his proven track record through this and other volunteering was key to our decision to engage him.
With all that said, as we scale up the fellowship program, it would be good to have more open conversations about the criteria and process through which fellowships (but also Wikimedia Foundation grants) are awarded. While WMF will always need to exercise judgment and discretion when money changes hands, I do think it's important to give the community more of a voice in both proposing and selecting individuals and projects, perhaps through some form of review committee which makes a preliminary recommendation, and which strongly interfaces with WMF to align the program with our strategic priorities.
On 20 January 2011 11:00, Achal Prabhala aprabhala@gmail.com wrote:
Now to the project. I see that neither of you gentlemen has any thoughts on it, and I welcome your engagement. The problem with oral knowledge vs. published knowledge is an old one, and there are many interesting ways in which the sum of published material in the world reflects the order of the world. For us, unfortunately, it also means that in some cases, to make Wikipedias work in languages where scholarly publishing is not that strong is a difficult task. This problem applies not just to languages with a primarily oral tradition (such as many of those in circulation in sub-Saharan Africa today) but also for those with a non-Latin written tradition but with a lower output of published material (like many South Asian languages today). What excites me about this is that I am interested in the idea of 'legitimate' knowledge - and the manner in which our ideas of authenticity, reliability and certification can be shaped and changed in our own lifetimes. This spirit of consistent reinvention, I think, is central to the idea of Wikipedia and everything else that comes under the umbrella of our movement.
This will be *fantastic*.
English Wikipedia's verifiability rules start from a simple good idea but have accreted into a disastrous mess in many ways, even for things that there are in fact documentation for. They're ideally suited to history (mostly written), science (mostly written) or current affairs (mostly written), but are disastrously awful even in the Western world for the arts, for example. There's a lot of knowledge in fields which everyone assumes, and which are transmitted academically, but not in a format that teenage en:wp admins can grasp in five seconds.
It's exactly like having to compress the knowledge of ontologies and weighing of evidence that people do four-year degrees to learn, into three or four paragraphs.
Progress in the areas of how to write about oral knowledge will help with the vast spectrum of knowledge between oral knowledge and academic writing.
- d.
Achal Prabhala wrote:
Greetings,
I'm happy to tell you a little more about myself and the scope of this short-term research project I'm undertaking, and I'm as happy to assume that you fully intended for your messages to come across as decorous and rational.
Hi. I appreciate you taking the time to reply to my post. However, you seem to have only replied, not responded.
I am, however, involved on a daily basis with all kinds of work that is related to the movement, and I'm delighted to be of use to you.
What kind of daily involvement? Is this work in your capacity as a volunteer, as a member of the Advisory Board, or as a Wikimedia Fellow?
Now to the project. I see that neither of you gentlemen has any thoughts on it, and I welcome your engagement.
I'll admit that I don't particularly care what you're working on. That's approximately my attitude toward what the other Wikimedia Fellows are working on as well. I do care if you received the Fellowship for different reasons than the other Fellows, though. I do care if there's the appearance of impropriety or a conflict of interest (or worse, actual impropriety or conflicts of interest).
I'll repeat the questions I feel you haven't answered. You're obviously free to not answer them ever, but I do want to make sure that your reply to the opening thread isn't viewed as a response to most of the questions asked about/to you.
MZMcBride wrote:
More importantly, is there a concern about an Advisory Board member being chosen as a Wikimedia Fellow? Is there a conflict of interest there? Is there a concern about the appearance of impropriety?
Achal has a growing influence on Wikimedia, particularly its new operations in India. This has included being part of the hiring decisions, etc. This is more of a consultant role, making his selection as a Wikimedia Fellow even stranger. And his growing influence and power in such a big part of Wikimedia's five-year strategy is making people wary.
If you could answer some of these questions, particularly about what your specific role has been in hiring in India, I'd really appreciate it (as would many members of this list, I imagine). In your reply, you say that you're involved "on a daily basis with all kinds of work that is related to the movement," but also "that reports of my influence are greatly exaggerated" [in the context of the strategy report]. These statements don't seem to reconcile with me currently. And I never meant to suggest that you were deeply involved with the strategy _report_, but with the strategy _implementation_. There's a world of difference.
If you've been involved with the hiring process in India, you should say so outright as someone who's committed to openness and transparency. If you've been involved with site selection in India or whatever else, you should say so. These are the things I'm hearing, but I've no idea what level of truth there is to them. That's why I started this thread and that's why I'm glad you've replied (though I'd be more glad if you responded). As E. Forrester noted, there is a wariness among some Wikimedia participants that an inner circle exists, but I think you might be able dispel some of this notion with more candid responses.
MZMcBride
On Friday 21 January 2011 07:26 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
Achal Prabhala wrote:
Greetings,
I'm happy to tell you a little more about myself and the scope of this short-term research project I'm undertaking, and I'm as happy to assume that you fully intended for your messages to come across as decorous and rational.
Hi. I appreciate you taking the time to reply to my post. However, you seem to have only replied, not responded.
I am, however, involved on a daily basis with all kinds of work that is related to the movement, and I'm delighted to be of use to you.
What kind of daily involvement? Is this work in your capacity as a volunteer, as a member of the Advisory Board, or as a Wikimedia Fellow?
In all these capacities and more.
Now to the project. I see that neither of you gentlemen has any thoughts on it, and I welcome your engagement.
I'll admit that I don't particularly care what you're working on. That's approximately my attitude toward what the other Wikimedia Fellows are working on as well.
That's the spirit. And I've always felt that a waste is a terrible thing to mind.
I do care if you received the Fellowship for different reasons than the other Fellows, though. I do care if there's the appearance of impropriety or a conflict of interest (or worse, actual impropriety or conflicts of interest).
I'll repeat the questions I feel you haven't answered. You're obviously free to not answer them ever, but I do want to make sure that your reply to the opening thread isn't viewed as a response to most of the questions asked about/to you.
MZMcBride wrote:
More importantly, is there a concern about an Advisory Board member being chosen as a Wikimedia Fellow? Is there a conflict of interest there? Is there a concern about the appearance of impropriety?
Achal has a growing influence on Wikimedia, particularly its new operations in India. This has included being part of the hiring decisions, etc. This is more of a consultant role, making his selection as a Wikimedia Fellow even stranger. And his growing influence and power in such a big part of Wikimedia's five-year strategy is making people wary.
If you could answer some of these questions, particularly about what your specific role has been in hiring in India, I'd really appreciate it (as would many members of this list, I imagine). In your reply, you say that you're involved "on a daily basis with all kinds of work that is related to the movement," but also "that reports of my influence are greatly exaggerated" [in the context of the strategy report]. These statements don't seem to reconcile with me currently. And I never meant to suggest that you were deeply involved with the strategy _report_, but with the strategy _implementation_. There's a world of difference.
If you've been involved with the hiring process in India, you should say so outright as someone who's committed to openness and transparency.
You're right. I should. But somehow, I assumed it was perfectly clear - not to mention open and transparent - after this report (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Report,_November_2010#In...) and this one (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Report,_December_2010#In...), as well as countless other conversations that were had on the subject.
If you've been involved with site selection in India or whatever else, you should say so. These are the things I'm hearing, but I've no idea what level of truth there is to them. That's why I started this thread and that's why I'm glad you've replied (though I'd be more glad if you responded). As E. Forrester noted, there is a wariness among some Wikimedia participants that an inner circle exists, but I think you might be able dispel some of this notion with more candid responses.
Settle down, my friend...going around in circles will make us all dizzy. Personally, I recommend half an hour of Pranayama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pranayama) every morning: it makes one feel calm and loving.
MZMcBride
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Thanks for introducing yourself Achal after so many years on the Advisory Board. Dare I suggest, you add part of that introduction to your Advisory Board page on one of the wikis. About the 5 year plan, dare I suggest you get around to reading that one of these days, you're on the Advisory Board after all.
Let me clarify something, the page thats being linked to by Erik Moeller is a grant page, you are appointed as a fellow. I might be wrong on this but none of the other fellows had to apply for grants or the majority of them did not. Even the existence of such a process was unknown to most. The grant in question, I have no issue with, you are more than welcome to pursue any research you want, its your position as the fellow that I am concerned about. You can't be on an advisory board and tell a non-profit organization what to do as a pro-bono advisor to the board and then get paid by the said foundation as a fellow a few years into your tenure, serving both positions at the same time. This I believe, wreaks of impropriety, none of the other Advisory Board members ever had or will have the same privilege I assume, which is why I replied to this thread in the first place.
This is something that the Foundation should have checked and announced before your appointment. In my opinion, you can have one or the other, you can either be a paid staff member/researcher for as long as the foundation employs you or you can be on the board as an advisor.
Also, from your and Erik's admission above, the scope of your involvement seems to be far larger than I previously thought, encompassing the board, chapters and "other kinds of affiliation that might usefully exist within our world", this only heightens my concerns even more.
I hope others reading this realize the implication of your appointment. I had no idea who you were before this, and still don't, its nothing personal against you. Its the foundation I am bringing this up to, which I hope realizes, is for their own benefit.
E. Forrester
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Achal Prabhala aprabhala@gmail.comwrote:
On Friday 21 January 2011 07:26 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
Achal Prabhala wrote:
Greetings,
I'm happy to tell you a little more about myself and the scope of this short-term research project I'm undertaking, and I'm as happy to assume that you fully intended for your messages to come across as decorous and rational.
Hi. I appreciate you taking the time to reply to my post. However, you
seem
to have only replied, not responded.
I am, however, involved on a daily basis with all kinds of work that is related to the movement, and I'm delighted to be of use to you.
What kind of daily involvement? Is this work in your capacity as a volunteer, as a member of the Advisory Board, or as a Wikimedia Fellow?
In all these capacities and more.
Now to the project. I see that neither of you gentlemen has any thoughts on it, and I welcome your engagement.
I'll admit that I don't particularly care what you're working on. That's approximately my attitude toward what the other Wikimedia Fellows are working on as well.
That's the spirit. And I've always felt that a waste is a terrible thing to mind.
I do care if you received the Fellowship for different reasons than the other Fellows, though. I do care if there's the
appearance
of impropriety or a conflict of interest (or worse, actual impropriety or conflicts of interest).
I'll repeat the questions I feel you haven't answered. You're obviously
free
to not answer them ever, but I do want to make sure that your reply to
the
opening thread isn't viewed as a response to most of the questions asked about/to you.
MZMcBride wrote:
More importantly, is there a concern about an Advisory Board member
being
chosen as a Wikimedia Fellow? Is there a conflict of interest there? Is there a concern about the appearance of impropriety?
Achal has a growing influence on Wikimedia, particularly its new
operations
in India. This has included being part of the hiring decisions, etc.
This is
more of a consultant role, making his selection as a Wikimedia Fellow
even
stranger. And his growing influence and power in such a big part of Wikimedia's five-year strategy is making people wary.
If you could answer some of these questions, particularly about what your specific role has been in hiring in India, I'd really appreciate it (as would many members of this list, I imagine). In your reply, you say that you're involved "on a daily basis with all kinds of work that is related
to
the movement," but also "that reports of my influence are greatly exaggerated" [in the context of the strategy report]. These statements
don't
seem to reconcile with me currently. And I never meant to suggest that
you
were deeply involved with the strategy _report_, but with the strategy _implementation_. There's a world of difference.
If you've been involved with the hiring process in India, you should say
so
outright as someone who's committed to openness and transparency.
You're right. I should. But somehow, I assumed it was perfectly clear - not to mention open and transparent - after this report ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Report,_November_2010#In... ) and this one ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Report,_December_2010#In... ), as well as countless other conversations that were had on the subject.
If you've been involved with site selection in India or whatever else, you should
say
so. These are the things I'm hearing, but I've no idea what level of
truth
there is to them. That's why I started this thread and that's why I'm
glad
you've replied (though I'd be more glad if you responded). As E.
Forrester
noted, there is a wariness among some Wikimedia participants that an
inner
circle exists, but I think you might be able dispel some of this notion
with
more candid responses.
Settle down, my friend...going around in circles will make us all dizzy. Personally, I recommend half an hour of Pranayama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pranayama) every morning: it makes one feel calm and loving.
MZMcBride
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 21/01/2011 03:36, whothis wrote:
Thanks for introducing yourself Achal after so many years on the Advisory Board. Dare I suggest, you add part of that introduction to your Advisory Board page on one of the wikis. About the 5 year plan, dare I suggest you get around to reading that one of these days, you're on the Advisory Board after all.
Let me clarify something, the page thats being linked to by Erik Moeller is a grant page, you are appointed as a fellow. I might be wrong on this but none of the other fellows had to apply for grants or the majority of them did not. Even the existence of such a process was unknown to most. The grant in question, I have no issue with, you are more than welcome to pursue any research you want, its your position as the fellow that I am concerned about. You can't be on an advisory board and tell a non-profit organization what to do as a pro-bono advisor to the board and then get paid by the said foundation as a fellow a few years into your tenure, serving both positions at the same time. This I believe, wreaks of impropriety, none of the other Advisory Board members ever had or will have the same privilege I assume, which is why I replied to this thread in the first place.
This is something that the Foundation should have checked and announced before your appointment. In my opinion, you can have one or the other, you can either be a paid staff member/researcher for as long as the foundation employs you or you can be on the board as an advisor.
Also, from your and Erik's admission above, the scope of your involvement seems to be far larger than I previously thought, encompassing the board, chapters and "other kinds of affiliation that might usefully exist within our world", this only heightens my concerns even more.
I hope others reading this realize the implication of your appointment. I had no idea who you were before this, and still don't, its nothing personal against you. Its the foundation I am bringing this up to, which I hope realizes, is for their own benefit.
E. Forrester
Welcome Achal!
Well, it seems you were already there for longer than I was, so "welcome" feels strange to say. But anyway, it's good to have someone important coming out of the shadow to receive a well deserved grant. Speaking of which, I feel merrier when I know why I'm applauding, so don't be modest and tell us in full detail about your merits!
To the people who are "wary": come on my friends, it's only power and money. Assume good faith from the people who are handling it and go back to a quiet mode as usual. Keep positive vibes like edits and donations coming, though.
Achal even tossed a solution to your *emotional* problems: "half an hour of Pranayama every morning: it makes one feel calm and loving." That was very considered from his part, given how busy he is. You can also try some pills.
Cheers.
On 21 January 2011 06:36, whothis whothith@gmail.com wrote:
You can't be on an advisory board and tell a non-profit organization what to do as a pro-bono advisor to the board and then get paid by the said foundation as a fellow a few years into your tenure, serving both positions at the same time.
I think you are over-estimating the influence of the Advisory Board. It's a loose collection of people that support the movement and have useful experience that get asked occasional questions by the Board and get invited to Wikimania every year. They don't have any power. I don't see a conflict of interest here.
Achal could easily give up his position on the Advisory Board and it wouldn't change anything - the board could still ask him questions if they wanted to, he could still get a ticket to Wikimania through any one of several routes (normal scholarship, foundation staff, guest of the foundation, etc.). Being on the Advisory Board doesn't really mean anything, it's just an honorarium given to people to thank them for their advice and to make things more convenient administratively. I don't see how an honorarium can give rise to a conflict of interest.
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 4:24 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
On 21 January 2011 06:36, whothis whothith@gmail.com wrote:
You can't be on an advisory board and tell a non-profit organization what to do as a pro-bono advisor to the board and then get paid by the
said
foundation as a fellow a few years into your tenure, serving both
positions
at the same time.
I think you are over-estimating the influence of the Advisory Board. It's a loose collection of people that support the movement and have useful experience that get asked occasional questions by the Board and get invited to Wikimania every year. They don't have any power. I don't see a conflict of interest here.
That's exactly right. An advisory board for most organizations is merely a way to try to coax some labor out of valuable people with needed expertise who are very busy with their own projects and careers. There is absolutely no power held by the advisory board. Hence the "Advisory" label.
We're lucky when we can get members to find time to help us in significant ways, and in this case even luckier that we have Achal working on an intensive project for a time.
2011/1/20 whothis whothith@gmail.com:
I hope others reading this realize the implication of your appointment. I had no idea who you were before this, and still don't
I had no idea who you were before this. Then I checked my mail archives and saw that the only other thread you've been engaged in was a different set of accusations about the existence of a cabal and the impropriety thereof.
This is not a constructive conversation, because it confuses and conflates a bunch of very complex issues (questions of NPO governance and ethics, which you clearly have a very limited understanding of, vs. questions of effective and transparent operations, vs. community participation, etc.), and has from the beginning taken the tone of prosecutorial questioning. If you're interested in having a constructive conversation e.g. about the grants process and the fellowships program without attacking individuals, I'll be happy to join it, here or on Meta.
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 11:56 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
2011/1/20 whothis whothith@gmail.com:
I hope others reading this realize the implication of your appointment. I had no idea who you were before this, and still don't
I had no idea who you were before this. Then I checked my mail archives and saw that the only other thread you've been engaged in was a different set of accusations about the existence of a cabal and the impropriety thereof.
Thats a fair assessment, let me first say that I respect your opinion to a certain degree Erik. But as an unknown poster on this list, I have the exact same qualification as Mr. Prabhala does, perhaps even more, the only difference is I am not on the Advisory Board. Second, Let me refresh your memory I posted on a thread a while ago, complaining about the Movement roles "steering committee", composed of 5 people from the chapter committee, a board member and an employee. I made a comment in passing that add Achal or Florence to the mix and you have the Advisory Board Cabal. Maybe I was the only one who saw a pattern.
This is not a constructive conversation, because it confuses and conflates a bunch of very complex issues (questions of NPO governance and ethics, which you clearly have a very limited understanding of, vs. questions of effective and transparent operations, vs. community participation, etc.), and has from the beginning taken the tone of prosecutorial questioning. If you're interested in having a constructive conversation e.g. about the grants process and the fellowships program without attacking individuals, I'll be happy to join it, here or on Meta.
Clearly, without even knowing who I am, you can easily write me off as someone with a very limited understanding of NPO governance and ethics. That is one thing you are apparently sure about in all of this, I would say something about your own Hubris but I think that's just the way it is. Anyway, I didn't raise the questions, the other person did, I made the point about a possible appearance of impropriety and was planning on fading away until the jibe about "Pranayama" and the patronizing tone. I don't care for his grant or "fellowship", he might as well be researching farts for all I care, researchers and consultants come and go, but Advisory Board members they are forever.
I unfortunately, have a life to live and bills to pay instead of engaging in a "constructive" and drawn-out conversation, we can't all be lifetime appointed Advisory Board members. Apologies if it got too personal, I took offense to one of the statements earlier and had to resort to polemics.
Kind Regards
Elizabeth
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 1:26 AM, Achal Prabhala aprabhala@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday 21 January 2011 07:26 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
Achal Prabhala wrote:
Greetings,
I'm happy to tell you a little more about myself and the scope of this short-term research project I'm undertaking, and I'm as happy to assume that you fully intended for your messages to come across as decorous and rational.
Hi. I appreciate you taking the time to reply to my post. However, you seem to have only replied, not responded.
I am, however, involved on a daily basis with all kinds of work that is related to the movement, and I'm delighted to be of use to you.
What kind of daily involvement? Is this work in your capacity as a volunteer, as a member of the Advisory Board, or as a Wikimedia Fellow?
In all these capacities and more.
Now to the project. I see that neither of you gentlemen has any thoughts on it, and I welcome your engagement.
I'll admit that I don't particularly care what you're working on. That's approximately my attitude toward what the other Wikimedia Fellows are working on as well.
That's the spirit. And I've always felt that a waste is a terrible thing to mind.
I do care if you received the Fellowship for different reasons than the other Fellows, though. I do care if there's the appearance of impropriety or a conflict of interest (or worse, actual impropriety or conflicts of interest).
I'll repeat the questions I feel you haven't answered. You're obviously free to not answer them ever, but I do want to make sure that your reply to the opening thread isn't viewed as a response to most of the questions asked about/to you.
MZMcBride wrote:
More importantly, is there a concern about an Advisory Board member being chosen as a Wikimedia Fellow? Is there a conflict of interest there? Is there a concern about the appearance of impropriety?
Achal has a growing influence on Wikimedia, particularly its new operations in India. This has included being part of the hiring decisions, etc. This is more of a consultant role, making his selection as a Wikimedia Fellow even stranger. And his growing influence and power in such a big part of Wikimedia's five-year strategy is making people wary.
If you could answer some of these questions, particularly about what your specific role has been in hiring in India, I'd really appreciate it (as would many members of this list, I imagine). In your reply, you say that you're involved "on a daily basis with all kinds of work that is related to the movement," but also "that reports of my influence are greatly exaggerated" [in the context of the strategy report]. These statements don't seem to reconcile with me currently. And I never meant to suggest that you were deeply involved with the strategy _report_, but with the strategy _implementation_. There's a world of difference.
If you've been involved with the hiring process in India, you should say so outright as someone who's committed to openness and transparency.
You're right. I should. But somehow, I assumed it was perfectly clear - not to mention open and transparent - after this report (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Report,_November_2010#In...) and this one (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Report,_December_2010#In...), as well as countless other conversations that were had on the subject.
If you've been involved with site selection in India or whatever else, you should say so. These are the things I'm hearing, but I've no idea what level of truth there is to them. That's why I started this thread and that's why I'm glad you've replied (though I'd be more glad if you responded). As E. Forrester noted, there is a wariness among some Wikimedia participants that an inner circle exists, but I think you might be able dispel some of this notion with more candid responses.
Settle down, my friend...going around in circles will make us all dizzy. Personally, I recommend half an hour of Pranayama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pranayama) every morning: it makes one feel calm and loving.
MZMcBride
Oh, I like it. Glad to see you're one of us, Achal ;-)
Achal Prabhala wrote:
In all these capacities and more.
33
That's the spirit. And I've always felt that a waste is a terrible thing to mind.
81
[links shortened]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=2284834#India_planning http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=2284834#India_planning
First link: 231 Second link: 285
Settle down, my friend...going around in circles will make us all dizzy.
72
Personally, I recommend half an hour of Pranayama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pranayama) every morning: it makes one feel calm and loving.
140!
Your commitment to openness and transparency is ready to be transferred to a Twitter account. You'll have to work with Erik to make all of his openness and transparency fit. (In all seriousness, thank you, Erik, for the reports.)
I don't know why anyone would be interested (in more than 500 characters) about one of the biggest portions of Wikimedia's five-year plan (which you didn't help write, I get it!). But your snide answers to legitimate questions only serves to highlight the exact problems and concerns that most people have been quietly observing in you. Good work.
MZMcBride
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 12:36 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Achal Prabhala wrote:
In all these capacities and more.
33
That's the spirit. And I've always felt that a waste is a terrible thing to mind.
81
[links shortened]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=2284834#India_planning http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=2284834#India_planning
First link: 231 Second link: 285
Settle down, my friend...going around in circles will make us all dizzy.
72
Personally, I recommend half an hour of Pranayama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pranayama) every morning: it makes one feel calm and loving.
140!
Your commitment to openness and transparency is ready to be transferred to a Twitter account. You'll have to work with Erik to make all of his openness and transparency fit. (In all seriousness, thank you, Erik, for the reports.)
I don't know why anyone would be interested (in more than 500 characters) about one of the biggest portions of Wikimedia's five-year plan (which you didn't help write, I get it!). But your snide answers to legitimate questions only serves to highlight the exact problems and concerns that most people have been quietly observing in you. Good work.
MZMcBride
Honestly, I don't see how you could expect a better set of answers given your approach. You're not a prosecutor, and you have no right to interrogate him about whatever "improprieties" you and your supposedly like-minded (but anonymous and uncounted) associates perceive. You're also not a shareholder, an auditor, or in any other fashion entitled to receive polite replies to snide implications of corruption.
Nathan
Nathan, I understand you don't know me, but can''t you see he is exactly the same as me, an anonymous and uncounted associate, who is as much a shareholder, auditor as I am. The only difference is I don't lead the Movement, I supposedly am lead by anonymous unknowns like him.
E.
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 12:36 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Achal Prabhala wrote:
In all these capacities and more.
33
That's the spirit. And I've always felt that a waste is a terrible thing to mind.
81
[links shortened]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=2284834#India_planning http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=2284834#India_planning
First link: 231 Second link: 285
Settle down, my friend...going around in circles will make us all dizzy.
72
Personally, I recommend half an hour of Pranayama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pranayama) every morning: it makes one feel calm and loving.
140!
Your commitment to openness and transparency is ready to be transferred
to a
Twitter account. You'll have to work with Erik to make all of his
openness
and transparency fit. (In all seriousness, thank you, Erik, for the reports.)
I don't know why anyone would be interested (in more than 500 characters) about one of the biggest portions of Wikimedia's five-year plan (which
you
didn't help write, I get it!). But your snide answers to legitimate questions only serves to highlight the exact problems and concerns that
most
people have been quietly observing in you. Good work.
MZMcBride
Honestly, I don't see how you could expect a better set of answers given your approach. You're not a prosecutor, and you have no right to interrogate him about whatever "improprieties" you and your supposedly like-minded (but anonymous and uncounted) associates perceive. You're also not a shareholder, an auditor, or in any other fashion entitled to receive polite replies to snide implications of corruption.
Nathan
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Nathan wrote:
Honestly, I don't see how you could expect a better set of answers given your approach. You're not a prosecutor, and you have no right to interrogate him about whatever "improprieties" you and your supposedly like-minded (but anonymous and uncounted) associates perceive. You're also not a shareholder, an auditor, or in any other fashion entitled to receive polite replies to snide implications of corruption.
You're perfectly correct. Or at least what you write sounds good. I can only ask questions and hope that they get answered (I said this in some reply of mine). If they're not answered, oh well. At least the questions are out there. In this case, Achal's responses seem to have highlighted some of the concerns that people are having (I also said this in some reply of mine).
You, like David, seem to be focusing more on my tone (or perceived tone) than the underlying questions being asked, but perhaps that's a predictable (albeit unfortunate) response.
MZMcBride
----- Original Message ----
From: MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, January 21, 2011 12:15:43 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Questions about new Fellow
Nathan wrote:
Honestly, I don't see how you could expect a better set of answers given your approach. You're not a prosecutor, and you have no right to interrogate him about whatever "improprieties" you and your supposedly like-minded (but anonymous and uncounted) associates perceive. You're also not a shareholder, an auditor, or in any other fashion entitled to receive polite replies to snide implications of corruption.
You're perfectly correct. Or at least what you write sounds good. I can only ask questions and hope that they get answered (I said this in some reply of mine). If they're not answered, oh well. At least the questions are out there. In this case, Achal's responses seem to have highlighted some of the concerns that people are having (I also said this in some reply of mine).
You, like David, seem to be focusing more on my tone (or perceived tone) than the underlying questions being asked, but perhaps that's a predictable (albeit unfortunate) response.
This isn't the first time someone who perceived your tone negatively has written about it seeking a remedy. Perhaps the fault is not with David's nor Nathan's perception skills.
Perhaps you might find more success if you change your approach in the following ways.
1) Don't ask questions you already know the answer to. It seems as if you expect people to lie and is perceived as both insulting and insincere.
2) Do state what your concerns are point-blank. Are you concerned WMF fellowships are too numerous or too generous? Are you concerned that Foo who is better qualified was not given the fellowship instead? Do you have a grievance with this particular fellow or some work he has done in the past? Are you concerned that the work being done as part of the fellowship is not useful? Or do do you think the fellowship itself turned out decently, but are concerned that your input was not solicited when it was in the proposal stage? After reading all your questions which seem to assume some general knowledge that I don't have (i.e. what "people" have been saying), I haven't a clue what your concern actually is.
Birgitte SB
Birgitte SB wrote:
This isn't the first time someone who perceived your tone negatively has written about it seeking a remedy. Perhaps the fault is not with David's nor Nathan's perception skills.
Perhaps you might find more success if you change your approach in the following ways.
- Don't ask questions you already know the answer to. It seems as if you
expect people to lie and is perceived as both insulting and insincere.
There's a difference between knowing the answer and thinking I know the answer. It's generally better not to assume and to instead ask questions, in my opinion. I could've easily formed an opinion about Achal's Wikimedia-related work in India without ever having posted to this list (or spoken to him), but I don't think that'd be a fair (or necessarily accurate) assessment. Asking questions allows me to gain information and insight (in theory, anyway).
- Do state what your concerns are point-blank. Are you concerned WMF
fellowships are too numerous or too generous? Are you concerned that Foo who is better qualified was not given the fellowship instead? Do you have a grievance with this particular fellow or some work he has done in the past? Are you concerned that the work being done as part of the fellowship is not useful? Or do do you think the fellowship itself turned out decently, but are concerned that your input was not solicited when it was in the proposal stage? After reading all your questions which seem to assume some general knowledge that I don't have (i.e. what "people" have been saying), I haven't a clue what your concern actually is.
I've tried both approaches. Being direct generally comes across as rude. Being leading or making casual suggestions generally comes across as ... indirect and rude. It seems like a no-win situation from where I'm sitting. I'm asking questions about people's motives and actions; people generally don't like that, even ones who say they like openness and transparency. As Nathan and others have said, nobody is obligated to answer my questions (or even read my posts). But when there are questions that I think need to be raised that aren't being raised, I'll take the time to write something coherent.
With all due respect, you not understanding the questions I'm asking doesn't particularly concern me. The questions weren't directed toward you and I wasn't seeking your input, so it's natural for you not to really know what I'm talking about or understand my concerns. I don't mean that in any rude way, I really don't.
Thank you for your feedback. I appreciate it.
MZMcBride
On 21 January 2011 21:11, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
To try to answer your concern, somewhat, as I understand it, rather than just tut at your tone (which is of course an annoying thing to do):
The Advisory Board is basically specialist volunteers who’ve signed up to be bothered about stuff if the board wants help with something. It’s not a “board” with actual power, like the Board of Trustees.
So as a staff member, it’s now his job to be bothered about stuff instead of volunteering to be bothered about stuff, so his staff duties are pretty much a superset of his volunteer ones :-)
As such, it's not something I can see a conflict of interest in - there's no power being exercised in the Advisory Board role to corrupt; no streams to cross.
I speak only as a long-term en:wp, WMF and WMUK volunteer, not authoritatively as staff of anyone in any way. Others could probably clarify.
Speaking as an en:wp volunteer: if he can make a start on cracking the horrible problem of what to do with important oral knowledge in written encyclopedias, I think that could be one of the hugest innovations yet seen in the quest to sum human knowledge. This is REALLY IMPORTANT STUFF, and IMO an excellent and on-mission thing for WMF to spend money on. Whether he's the ideal person for the job is a matter for WMF, and although WMF's hiring has not necessarily been perfect in the past I think it's generally worked out pretty well. We have a lot of WMF employees who are former volunteers in one capacity or another, and who got recruited to staff by becoming known for their volunteer work. The Fellows are pretty much volunteers who are now being paid to do whatever valuable thing they were doing as volunteers.
As I said, if my understanding is amiss, I'm sure others will clarify.
- d.
A few things to add to this thread:
1. Achal has been a very helpful advisor (among several) to me as I've launched WMF's work in India. In addition, he has been helpful in the formation of the chapter in India, the chapter formation process in South Africa and has shared some perspectives with ChapCom, where he was invited to advise them by the committee. He has done so as a volunteer who has dedicated valuable time (like all contributors to the movement) to support our collective goals in India and around the world. He has not received nor expected any special power or remuneration for this help. I, personally, have found him to be an excellent advisor and not someone who expects anything in return. As it relates to hiring in India, I invited him to advise me (along with Bishakha) because I have come to value his perspectives on the merits. We were clear that the role was advisory and while I took some of his advice, we differed on some questions. Note: WMF staff other than myself also interview candidates and ultimately the decision is made based on the recommendation of the hiring manager with Sue's approval (she meets all candidates).
2. I would not characterize the Fellowship as a staff position. Achal proposed a very specific project for which he was provided a grant. He is responsible for the successful completion of the task and will not have other responsibilities or privileges associated with employment. This is why it was handled like a grant, as the same expectations for carrying out the proposed activities rest on all grantees - whether an individual, chapter or other group. We evaluated the grant based on the potential for contribution to the movement.
3. There is room for improvement in our processes at WMF as Erik suggests earlier. For one, we have used the title of Fellowship for different types of activities e.g., hiring someone on a contract for general staff-like purposes, providing a grant to someone for a specific activity. We should figure out how to distinguish between these (and other roles) more clearly. In addition, I am planning on introducing a community input mechanism into the grant process for 2011/12. We have piloted grantmaking over the past two years and I think it is a valuable tool for the community to secure funding for work that requires money. It will be valuable to have input from the community on grants before we make decisions on them. This will improve the quality of grantmaking across the board - expect to hear more about this in the coming weeks.
Thanks, Barry P.S. Sorry if I don't respond to follow up questions quickly, I'm actually on vacation ;)
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 1:11 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Birgitte SB wrote:
This isn't the first time someone who perceived your tone negatively has written about it seeking a remedy. Perhaps the fault is not with David's
nor
Nathan's perception skills.
Perhaps you might find more success if you change your approach in the following ways.
- Don't ask questions you already know the answer to. It seems as if
you
expect people to lie and is perceived as both insulting and insincere.
There's a difference between knowing the answer and thinking I know the answer. It's generally better not to assume and to instead ask questions, in my opinion. I could've easily formed an opinion about Achal's Wikimedia-related work in India without ever having posted to this list (or spoken to him), but I don't think that'd be a fair (or necessarily accurate) assessment. Asking questions allows me to gain information and insight (in theory, anyway).
- Do state what your concerns are point-blank. Are you concerned WMF
fellowships are too numerous or too generous? Are you concerned that Foo
who
is better qualified was not given the fellowship instead? Do you have a grievance with this particular fellow or some work he has done in the
past?
Are you concerned that the work being done as part of the fellowship is
not
useful? Or do do you think the fellowship itself turned out decently, but
are
concerned that your input was not solicited when it was in the proposal
stage?
After reading all your questions which seem to assume some general
knowledge
that I don't have (i.e. what "people" have been saying), I haven't a clue
what
your concern actually is.
I've tried both approaches. Being direct generally comes across as rude. Being leading or making casual suggestions generally comes across as ... indirect and rude. It seems like a no-win situation from where I'm sitting. I'm asking questions about people's motives and actions; people generally don't like that, even ones who say they like openness and transparency. As Nathan and others have said, nobody is obligated to answer my questions (or even read my posts). But when there are questions that I think need to be raised that aren't being raised, I'll take the time to write something coherent.
With all due respect, you not understanding the questions I'm asking doesn't particularly concern me. The questions weren't directed toward you and I wasn't seeking your input, so it's natural for you not to really know what I'm talking about or understand my concerns. I don't mean that in any rude way, I really don't.
Thank you for your feedback. I appreciate it.
MZMcBride
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 21 January 2011 17:36, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Your commitment to openness and transparency is ready to be transferred to a Twitter account. You'll have to work with Erik to make all of his openness and transparency fit. (In all seriousness, thank you, Erik, for the reports.)
You started in attack mode and continued in attack mode. This is not a good way to get anyone to bother talking to you.
No-one is in fact obliged to respond to you on foundation-l, indeed many WMF employees and WMF and chapter volunteers don't read it, referring instead to it as troll-l. It would be nice if this weren't the case.
Approaches such as yours, which merely makes you look like you're out for a fight, are why. Please reconsider.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
You started in attack mode and continued in attack mode. This is not a good way to get anyone to bother talking to you.
I made an effort to not start in attack mode, as it were. I asked questions and hoped that out of all the noise that would come in the replies, there might be a few responses. And there have been one or two responses, but the major questions remain unanswered.
No-one is in fact obliged to respond to you on foundation-l, indeed many WMF employees and WMF and chapter volunteers don't read it, referring instead to it as troll-l. It would be nice if this weren't the case.
Completely agreed. Does that mean that nobody should use foundation-l as a venue to ask Wikimedia Foundation-related questions? Do you have an alternate venue that would be better? If people working for Wikimedia don't read this list, it's to their detriment, in my opinion. But it's not as though it's ever going to be mandatory reading.
Approaches such as yours, which merely makes you look like you're out for a fight, are why. Please reconsider.
I'm really not out for a fight, not being a person looking for a job at Wikimedia in India. I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I do try my best to express the concerns of others and myself, particularly when others feel that they do have something to lose by interjecting themselves.
You (David) seem to biting around the edges here, but looking past the nobility of Achal's research project or my tone, there might be more serious issues to address and examine here.
MZMcBride
On 1/21/11 5:46 PM, David Gerard wrote:
No-one is in fact obliged to respond to you on foundation-l, indeed many WMF employees and WMF and chapter volunteers don't read it, referring instead to it as troll-l. It would be nice if this weren't the case.
I know a good way to help achieve that. Ban the trolls. It's what we do on the wiki, and it works.
--Jimbo
On 26 January 2011 07:24, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia-inc.com wrote:
On 1/21/11 5:46 PM, David Gerard wrote:
No-one is in fact obliged to respond to you on foundation-l, indeed many WMF employees and WMF and chapter volunteers don't read it, referring instead to it as troll-l. It would be nice if this weren't the case.
I know a good way to help achieve that. Ban the trolls. It's what we do on the wiki, and it works.
I think MZ has a reasonable misunderstanding, and was just horribly unpleasant in his phrasing. Hence my attempt to address his concerns properly, even speaking just as any old volunteer.
The trouble with trolls is that there's a grey area of "inept" between "polite" and "trolling".
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 26 January 2011 07:24, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia-inc.com wrote:
On 1/21/11 5:46 PM, David Gerard wrote:
No-one is in fact obliged to respond to you on foundation-l, indeed many WMF employees and WMF and chapter volunteers don't read it, referring instead to it as troll-l. It would be nice if this weren't the case.
I know a good way to help achieve that. Ban the trolls. It's what we do on the wiki, and it works.
I think MZ has a reasonable misunderstanding, and was just horribly unpleasant in his phrasing. Hence my attempt to address his concerns properly, even speaking just as any old volunteer.
I don't think Jimmy was calling _me_ a troll. I assume (in good faith) that he was speaking generally.
Jimmy has previously made way too many off-the-cuff remarks that have gotten him into hot water to repeat that mistake again, surely.
MZMcBride
On 26 January 2011 22:54, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Jimmy has previously made way too many off-the-cuff remarks that have gotten him into hot water to repeat that mistake again, surely.
*cough*Sarah Palin*cough*
- d.
On 26 January 2011 23:41, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 January 2011 22:54, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Jimmy has previously made way too many off-the-cuff remarks that have gotten him into hot water to repeat that mistake again, surely.
*cough*Sarah Palin*cough*
Comparing Jimmy to Sarah Palin is taking it too far - he's not even close to being that bad!
On 27 January 2011 20:30, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 January 2011 23:41, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 January 2011 22:54, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Jimmy has previously made way too many off-the-cuff remarks that have gotten him into hot water to repeat that mistake again, surely.
*cough*Sarah Palin*cough*
Comparing Jimmy to Sarah Palin is taking it too far - he's not even close to being that bad!
Sorry, being excessively oblique. I was referring to this interview:
http://www.newstatesman.com/technology/2011/01/wikipedia-party-vote-view
Fortunately the Tea Party haven't been round with signs and upset chanting. But even highly experienced media people can occasionally fail to speak only in perfectly rounded soundbites ;-)
- d.
I was going to drop this and fade away until your patronizing comments. First, I am not a gentleman, I would be a lady, according to the pseudo-chivalrous, patronizing tone you used in your last response.
/>/That's the spirit. And I've always felt that a waste is a terrible thing to mind.
/>/Settle down, my friend...going around in circles will make us all dizzy. />/Personally, I recommend half an hour of Pranayama />/(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pranayama) every morning: it makes one />/feel calm and loving.
Now, I took offense to this, Antagonizing the only two people who asked a direct and straightforward question about your position and conflicting interests while the rest of the list remains quiet. We are taught to assume good faith, thats one of the founding principles of the organization that you supposedly lead. Now, if I were to make an ad hominem attack in response along those lines, I might say something like, you have an atrocious command of the English Language, you know ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language). Invoking Shaw, and mis-attributing a quote implies nothing about your literary prowess, just the lack of it.
/>/In all these capacities and more.
On to the point, You are very actively involved in the hiring process from the last two reports that you linked to, you have been interviewing the potential hires. Perhaps you're the only member on the Advisory Board who has ever been this involved in the hiring decisions. I assume you probably had some say in selecting the current Board Member from India since you announced his appointment, you helped form the Indian chapter and started with the south African one by your own admission. Now, for someone who knows so little about the 5 year plan, our ethos and the community you are none the less leading, thats an awful lot of control to exert. Incidentally, the two areas that you are representing are also the focus according to the 5 year plan, which you were allegedly not actively involved in formulating. All of this could be looked at as payoff or reward from the outside, with opportunities for more down the road, but that would be assuming Bad faith, and we certainly don't do that.
I fear that I have gone too far, Maybe its time for someone from the cabal to place me on moderation. More comments below for your entertainment:
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Achal Prabhala aprabhala@gmail.com wrote:
Greetings,
I'm happy to tell you a little more about myself and the scope of this short-term research project I'm undertaking, and I'm as happy to assume that you fully intended for your messages to come across as decorous and rational.
Believe me if my intention was to be anything less that decorous or rational, you wouldn't have had to assume anything.
I've been on the Advisory Board of the Wikimedia Foundation for some time now, and there have been large periods where I've done nothing, and many periods when I've done a lot. This, I suspect, is the case for many fellow Advisory Board members; overall, I can say for myself that it's been a rewarding and interesting experience. I'm involved in various aspects of the Wikimedia movement - from helping to organise communities in India and South Africa to looking at broader, more global questions around the work of the Chapters Committee and the possibility of other kinds of affiliation that might usefully exist within our world. All of this work, as it should be, is completely open and transparent, and is in no way forced or mandated.
So it was a ceremonial position as we thought and you have gotten more involved of recent. The scope however of your involvement seems to be ever expanding- India and Africa, the chapters and possibly "other kinds of affiliation that might usefully exist within our world." Yes, your work has been open and transparent, like how and when you were appointed, what exactly you do and when does your supposed term end, if ever. I think this thread has more information about you than any profile I have read so far.
Funnily enough, I wasn't very involved with the strategic 5-year plan; I started off trying to look at what community members from India might want to do, but the exercise didn't get very far, and I sort of gave up in between. I'm glad it went forward with the help of a whole lot of others from India, and I'm glad it exists, but I haven't even read what it says yet. So I'm forced to confess (like Shaw almost said) that reports of my influence are greatly exaggerated. I am, however, involved on a daily basis with all kinds of work that is related to the movement, and I'm delighted to be of use to you.
Exactly as we thought, you haven't been involved with Wikimedia policy work. The claims above are in direct conflict with the statements earlier, either "reports of my influence are greatly exaggerated" or "you're involved on a daily basis with all kinds of work that is related to the movement." Second, I don't think Shaw ever said that, you're either confusing a Quote by Mark Twain or referring to someone we don't know about, we have a project called Wikiquote.com you might want to check out one of these days before quoting someone.
As for me, I work on intellectual property rights as a researcher, and I also write. I've worked in India, Guyana and South Africa, mostly as an activist on access to medicines and access to knowledge; I am now engaged in writing a larger piece of work that is unrelated to intellectual property.
Again, this introduction should have came before any of this. It should have been on the advisory board page.
Now to the project. I see that neither of you gentlemen has any thoughts on it, and I welcome your engagement. The problem with oral knowledge vs. published knowledge is an old one, and there are many interesting ways in which the sum of published material in the world reflects the order of the world. For us, unfortunately, it also means that in some cases, to make Wikipedias work in languages where scholarly publishing is not that strong is a difficult task. This problem applies not just to languages with a primarily oral tradition (such as many of those in circulation in sub-Saharan Africa today) but also for those with a non-Latin written tradition but with a lower output of published material (like many South Asian languages today). What excites me about this is that I am interested in the idea of 'legitimate' knowledge - and the manner in which our ideas of authenticity, reliability and certification can be shaped and changed in our own lifetimes. This spirit of consistent reinvention, I think, is central to the idea of Wikipedia and everything else that comes under the umbrella of our movement.
A rather verbose way of saying, you wanna research "Oral knowledge" for Wikipedia. As for "neither of you gentlemen has any thoughts on it" I do, in fact. What you're talking about is, I believe called Oral Traditions, the same ones that became the basis for the Talmud and the Gospel. There is already a large body of work available in that very discipline, to some extent I agree that your research might be interesting given its target demographic and language. Would you consider yourself a unitarian or an analyst in your field.
I have a fairly good understanding of the academic literature on this subject; I've had excellent discussions with Wikipedians working in languages across India and South Africa where this is a tangible problem; and working together with them, I think we can make a useful contribution to this topic, or at least mark a starting point from which to make this movement truly inclusive, plural and global.
Again, you might not be aware of this, but the majority of people on this list are Academicians and Scholars but above all Wikipedians.
I'm looking forward to it very much. As I am certain you are too.
Certainly, the entire community awaits your research.
Fondest wishes, etc. Achal
Same
E. Forrester
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 11:21 PM, whothis whothith@gmail.com wrote:
I assume you probably had some say in selecting the current Board Member from India since you announced his appointment
Even though this is tangential to the main discussion, let me explain the process through which I was appointed to the Board of Trustees in March 2010.
As I understand it, several names were given to the board committee dealing with this appointment, including mine.
I then went through the following six interviews in this order:
1)Headhunter/recruitment firm from San Francisco (phone - I live in India)
2)Michael Snow, then WMF board chair (in person in SF)
3)Kat Walsh, WMF board member (in person)
4)Stu West, WMF board member (in person)
5)Sue Gardner, ED, WMF (in person)
6)Jimmy Wales, board member (Skype)
I was then offered a position on the board.
Achal did not announce my appointment on the Foundation list, Michael Snow did. (Also, I'm a woman: 'her' appointment)
Achal mentored me into the India part of the role, introducing me to the community via the India list and offlist, and the chapter board via a separate list - and did some serious handholding in the first three months. I am truly grateful for that - it helped me find my feet much more quickly than I would have had I been trying to fit the pieces together on my own.
Best Bishakha
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org