Hello Wikimedia community,
It’s our delight to inform you that we received a US$3,015,000 grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_P._Sloan_Foundation [1] to expedite development of structured data on Commons. The grant will be given over the course of three years, and will allow us to develop a team, in collaboration with the Wikidata team at Wikimedia Deutschland, that can focus on integrating the structured data features of Wikidata into describing the media files on Commons.
This work will allow us to expedite features both on the Wikidata development roadmap, and in other products supported by the Wikimedia Foundation. The grant also provides funding to ensure that movement stakeholders, like Wiki Loves Monuments and GLAM-Wiki program leaders, and external partners who contribute heavily to Commons, such as GLAMs, can be involved in the development.
We have drafted a high level overview of the grant and its scope, available on Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Sloan_Grant [2]. A blog post about the grant is also available on the Wikimedia blog https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/01/09/sloan-foundation-structured-data [3].
We are currently in the process of identifying the technical lead for the project. If you have questions, Alex Stinson, the Foundation’s GLAM-Wiki strategist, will be leading the community engagement and communications for the project until we hire a community liaison as part of the grant. Stay tuned for more details about the project in the coming months.
We’re excited to be able to support this project, and look forward to your participation in its development.
Thank you,
Wes Moran and Maggie Dennis
*Wes Moran, Vice President of Product* *Maggie Dennis, Interim Chief of Community Engagement * *Wikimedia Foundation*
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_P._Sloan_Foundation [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Sloan_Grant [3] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/01/09/sloan-foundation-structured-data
This is great news. Very excited for the future :-)
Thanks!
Aubrey
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 8:48 PM, Wes Moran wmoran@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello Wikimedia community,
It’s our delight to inform you that we received a US$3,015,000 grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_P._Sloan_Foundation [1] to expedite development of structured data on Commons. The grant will be given over the course of three years, and will allow us to develop a team, in collaboration with the Wikidata team at Wikimedia Deutschland, that can focus on integrating the structured data features of Wikidata into describing the media files on Commons.
This work will allow us to expedite features both on the Wikidata development roadmap, and in other products supported by the Wikimedia Foundation. The grant also provides funding to ensure that movement stakeholders, like Wiki Loves Monuments and GLAM-Wiki program leaders, and external partners who contribute heavily to Commons, such as GLAMs, can be involved in the development.
We have drafted a high level overview of the grant and its scope, available on Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Sloan_Grant [2]. A blog post about the grant is also available on the Wikimedia blog https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/01/09/sloan-foundation-structured-data [3].
We are currently in the process of identifying the technical lead for the project. If you have questions, Alex Stinson, the Foundation’s GLAM-Wiki strategist, will be leading the community engagement and communications for the project until we hire a community liaison as part of the grant. Stay tuned for more details about the project in the coming months.
We’re excited to be able to support this project, and look forward to your participation in its development.
Thank you,
Wes Moran and Maggie Dennis
*Wes Moran, Vice President of Product* *Maggie Dennis, Interim Chief of Community Engagement * *Wikimedia Foundation*
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_P._Sloan_Foundation [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Sloan_Grant [3] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/01/09/sloan-foundation-structured-data _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
This is indeed a great opportunity to develop structured environment in Commons as well as its allied projects!
Regards, Tanweer
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 1:49 AM, Andrea Zanni zanni.andrea84@gmail.com wrote:
This is great news. Very excited for the future :-)
Thanks!
Aubrey
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 8:48 PM, Wes Moran wmoran@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello Wikimedia community,
It’s our delight to inform you that we received a US$3,015,000 grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_P._Sloan_Foundation [1] to
expedite
development of structured data on Commons. The grant will be given over
the
course of three years, and will allow us to develop a team, in collaboration with the Wikidata team at Wikimedia Deutschland, that can focus on integrating the structured data features of Wikidata into describing the media files on Commons.
This work will allow us to expedite features both on the Wikidata development roadmap, and in other products supported by the Wikimedia Foundation. The grant also provides funding to ensure that movement stakeholders, like Wiki Loves Monuments and GLAM-Wiki program leaders,
and
external partners who contribute heavily to Commons, such as GLAMs, can
be
involved in the development.
We have drafted a high level overview of the grant and its scope,
available
on Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Sloan_Grant [2]. A blog post about the grant is also available on the Wikimedia blog https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/01/09/sloan-foundation-structured-data [3].
We are currently in the process of identifying the technical lead for the project. If you have questions, Alex Stinson, the Foundation’s GLAM-Wiki strategist, will be leading the community engagement and communications
for
the project until we hire a community liaison as part of the grant. Stay tuned for more details about the project in the coming months.
We’re excited to be able to support this project, and look forward to
your
participation in its development.
Thank you,
Wes Moran and Maggie Dennis
*Wes Moran, Vice President of Product* *Maggie Dennis, Interim Chief of Community Engagement * *Wikimedia Foundation*
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_P._Sloan_Foundation [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/
Sloan_Grant
structured-data
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Structured data on Commons is a huge and important area -- for one thing, the whole Media Viewer project would have gone much more smoothly if there were underlying structured data to rely on. Kudos to WMF and Sloan for the focus on this issue!
If I'm not mistaken, this is by far the most extravagant restricted grant in the history of the WMF. I believe the Stanton Foundation's usability grant ($890k in 2008)[1] and Public Policy Initiative grant ($1.2 million in 2010)[2] are the only ones that comes close. In the past, WMF board members have expressed great skepticism about -- specifically -- the Sloan Foundation's influence, when it sought to place an observer in WMF board meetings. A former WMF Executive Director has written at length about the dangers of restricted grants.
It appears there is a new theory in play around restricted grants. Will somebody be expressing it publicly? Will the past practice of publishing the details of the grant expectations be followed?[3]
-Pete -- [[User:Peteforsyth]]
[1] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2008/12/03/improved-usability-in-our-future/ [2] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/May_2010_Wikimedia_Found... [3] https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Public_Policy_Initiative_project_details
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Wes Moran wmoran@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello Wikimedia community,
It’s our delight to inform you that we received a US$3,015,000 grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_P._Sloan_Foundation [1] to expedite development of structured data on Commons. The grant will be given over the course of three years, and will allow us to develop a team, in collaboration with the Wikidata team at Wikimedia Deutschland, that can focus on integrating the structured data features of Wikidata into describing the media files on Commons.
This work will allow us to expedite features both on the Wikidata development roadmap, and in other products supported by the Wikimedia Foundation. The grant also provides funding to ensure that movement stakeholders, like Wiki Loves Monuments and GLAM-Wiki program leaders, and external partners who contribute heavily to Commons, such as GLAMs, can be involved in the development.
We have drafted a high level overview of the grant and its scope, available on Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Sloan_Grant [2]. A blog post about the grant is also available on the Wikimedia blog https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/01/09/sloan-foundation-structured-data [3].
We are currently in the process of identifying the technical lead for the project. If you have questions, Alex Stinson, the Foundation’s GLAM-Wiki strategist, will be leading the community engagement and communications for the project until we hire a community liaison as part of the grant. Stay tuned for more details about the project in the coming months.
We’re excited to be able to support this project, and look forward to your participation in its development.
Thank you,
Wes Moran and Maggie Dennis
*Wes Moran, Vice President of Product* *Maggie Dennis, Interim Chief of Community Engagement * *Wikimedia Foundation*
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_P._Sloan_Foundation [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Sloan_Grant [3] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/01/09/sloan-foundation-structured-data _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, Maybe restricted but the subject matter is exactly what we want anyway. Where I have my reservations is that Wikidata will be set in stone and stuff that just is not right will be with us for forever. With more money it does not need to be a huge problem because it makes it more manageable. Thanks, GerardM
On 9 January 2017 at 21:52, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Structured data on Commons is a huge and important area -- for one thing, the whole Media Viewer project would have gone much more smoothly if there were underlying structured data to rely on. Kudos to WMF and Sloan for the focus on this issue!
If I'm not mistaken, this is by far the most extravagant restricted grant in the history of the WMF. I believe the Stanton Foundation's usability grant ($890k in 2008)[1] and Public Policy Initiative grant ($1.2 million in 2010)[2] are the only ones that comes close. In the past, WMF board members have expressed great skepticism about -- specifically -- the Sloan Foundation's influence, when it sought to place an observer in WMF board meetings. A former WMF Executive Director has written at length about the dangers of restricted grants.
It appears there is a new theory in play around restricted grants. Will somebody be expressing it publicly? Will the past practice of publishing the details of the grant expectations be followed?[3]
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
[1] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2008/12/03/improved-usability- in-our-future/ [2] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/May_ 2010_Wikimedia_Foundation_will_engage_academic_experts_ and_students_to_improve_public_policy_information [3] https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Public_Policy_ Initiative_project_details
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Wes Moran wmoran@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello Wikimedia community,
It’s our delight to inform you that we received a US$3,015,000 grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_P._Sloan_Foundation [1] to
expedite
development of structured data on Commons. The grant will be given over
the
course of three years, and will allow us to develop a team, in collaboration with the Wikidata team at Wikimedia Deutschland, that can focus on integrating the structured data features of Wikidata into describing the media files on Commons.
This work will allow us to expedite features both on the Wikidata development roadmap, and in other products supported by the Wikimedia Foundation. The grant also provides funding to ensure that movement stakeholders, like Wiki Loves Monuments and GLAM-Wiki program leaders,
and
external partners who contribute heavily to Commons, such as GLAMs, can
be
involved in the development.
We have drafted a high level overview of the grant and its scope,
available
on Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Sloan_Grant [2]. A blog post about the grant is also available on the Wikimedia blog https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/01/09/sloan-foundation-structured-data [3].
We are currently in the process of identifying the technical lead for the project. If you have questions, Alex Stinson, the Foundation’s GLAM-Wiki strategist, will be leading the community engagement and communications
for
the project until we hire a community liaison as part of the grant. Stay tuned for more details about the project in the coming months.
We’re excited to be able to support this project, and look forward to
your
participation in its development.
Thank you,
Wes Moran and Maggie Dennis
*Wes Moran, Vice President of Product* *Maggie Dennis, Interim Chief of Community Engagement * *Wikimedia Foundation*
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_P._Sloan_Foundation [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/
Sloan_Grant
structured-data
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi Pete and Gerard-
I just wanted to give my thoughts on restricted gifts. Like most things, there are both good and bad restricted gifts. They can be bad if a funder is making a well-intentioned gift that none-the-less pulls the organization in direction that they were not planning to go. Or even worse, when a funder pays for something outside of an org's plans that has ongoing maintenance cost that are not covered in the grant.
This is why the WMF board reviews all restricted grants per our gift policy https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Gift_policy. Those are the types of dynamics that the board considers when they review a restricted grant.
Structured Data on Commons was in our product roadmap, so this grant is not diverting our attention. The grant simply enables us to accelerate the work we were planning to do. In terms of restrictions, we have to follow through with the plan we submitted. In other words, do what we said we are going to do. I think that accountability is a good thing. And the Sloan Foundation is a great long-term funder of WMF. If something changes as the work progress, I have no doubt we could have a reasonable conversation with them about adjusting the plan.
Best, Lisa
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Maybe restricted but the subject matter is exactly what we want anyway. Where I have my reservations is that Wikidata will be set in stone and stuff that just is not right will be with us for forever. With more money it does not need to be a huge problem because it makes it more manageable. Thanks, GerardM
On 9 January 2017 at 21:52, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Structured data on Commons is a huge and important area -- for one thing, the whole Media Viewer project would have gone much more smoothly if
there
were underlying structured data to rely on. Kudos to WMF and Sloan for
the
focus on this issue!
If I'm not mistaken, this is by far the most extravagant restricted grant in the history of the WMF. I believe the Stanton Foundation's usability grant ($890k in 2008)[1] and Public Policy Initiative grant ($1.2 million in 2010)[2] are the only ones that comes close. In the past, WMF board members have expressed great skepticism about -- specifically -- the
Sloan
Foundation's influence, when it sought to place an observer in WMF board meetings. A former WMF Executive Director has written at length about the dangers of restricted grants.
It appears there is a new theory in play around restricted grants. Will somebody be expressing it publicly? Will the past practice of publishing the details of the grant expectations be followed?[3]
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
[1] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2008/12/03/improved-usability- in-our-future/ [2] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/May_ 2010_Wikimedia_Foundation_will_engage_academic_experts_ and_students_to_improve_public_policy_information [3] https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Public_Policy_ Initiative_project_details
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Wes Moran wmoran@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello Wikimedia community,
It’s our delight to inform you that we received a US$3,015,000 grant
from
the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_P._Sloan_Foundation [1] to
expedite
development of structured data on Commons. The grant will be given over
the
course of three years, and will allow us to develop a team, in collaboration with the Wikidata team at Wikimedia Deutschland, that can focus on integrating the structured data features of Wikidata into describing the media files on Commons.
This work will allow us to expedite features both on the Wikidata development roadmap, and in other products supported by the Wikimedia Foundation. The grant also provides funding to ensure that movement stakeholders, like Wiki Loves Monuments and GLAM-Wiki program leaders,
and
external partners who contribute heavily to Commons, such as GLAMs, can
be
involved in the development.
We have drafted a high level overview of the grant and its scope,
available
on Commons <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_
data/Sloan_Grant>
[2]. A blog post about the grant is also available on the Wikimedia
blog
structured-data>
[3].
We are currently in the process of identifying the technical lead for
the
project. If you have questions, Alex Stinson, the Foundation’s
GLAM-Wiki
strategist, will be leading the community engagement and communications
for
the project until we hire a community liaison as part of the grant.
Stay
tuned for more details about the project in the coming months.
We’re excited to be able to support this project, and look forward to
your
participation in its development.
Thank you,
Wes Moran and Maggie Dennis
*Wes Moran, Vice President of Product* *Maggie Dennis, Interim Chief of Community Engagement * *Wikimedia Foundation*
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_P._Sloan_Foundation [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/
Sloan_Grant
structured-data
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Also, to add, for this particular grant I can really only look positively at the openness surrounding the writing of the grant. There have been emails on this list inviting input and discussion when the grant proposal was underway, a lot of content was available on-wiki, and an effort was made to ensure that the project was not only aligned with the planning of the Foundation but also with the community - which is indeed particularly important given the restricted nature of the funding.
I congratulate everyone involved for securing this grant, for the process with its improved transparency, and I am very much looking forward to see the project implemented!
Denny
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 3:01 PM Lisa Gruwell lgruwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Pete and Gerard-
I just wanted to give my thoughts on restricted gifts. Like most things, there are both good and bad restricted gifts. They can be bad if a funder is making a well-intentioned gift that none-the-less pulls the organization in direction that they were not planning to go. Or even worse, when a funder pays for something outside of an org's plans that has ongoing maintenance cost that are not covered in the grant.
This is why the WMF board reviews all restricted grants per our gift policy https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Gift_policy. Those are the types of dynamics that the board considers when they review a restricted grant.
Structured Data on Commons was in our product roadmap, so this grant is not diverting our attention. The grant simply enables us to accelerate the work we were planning to do. In terms of restrictions, we have to follow through with the plan we submitted. In other words, do what we said we are going to do. I think that accountability is a good thing. And the Sloan Foundation is a great long-term funder of WMF. If something changes as the work progress, I have no doubt we could have a reasonable conversation with them about adjusting the plan.
Best, Lisa
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Maybe restricted but the subject matter is exactly what we want anyway. Where I have my reservations is that Wikidata will be set in stone and stuff that just is not right will be with us for forever. With more money it does not need to be a huge problem because it makes it more manageable. Thanks, GerardM
On 9 January 2017 at 21:52, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Structured data on Commons is a huge and important area -- for one
thing,
the whole Media Viewer project would have gone much more smoothly if
there
were underlying structured data to rely on. Kudos to WMF and Sloan for
the
focus on this issue!
If I'm not mistaken, this is by far the most extravagant restricted
grant
in the history of the WMF. I believe the Stanton Foundation's usability grant ($890k in 2008)[1] and Public Policy Initiative grant ($1.2
million
in 2010)[2] are the only ones that comes close. In the past, WMF board members have expressed great skepticism about -- specifically -- the
Sloan
Foundation's influence, when it sought to place an observer in WMF board meetings. A former WMF Executive Director has written at length about
the
dangers of restricted grants.
It appears there is a new theory in play around restricted grants. Will somebody be expressing it publicly? Will the past practice of publishing the details of the grant expectations be followed?[3]
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
[1] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2008/12/03/improved-usability- in-our-future/ [2] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/May_ 2010_Wikimedia_Foundation_will_engage_academic_experts_ and_students_to_improve_public_policy_information [3] https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Public_Policy_ Initiative_project_details
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Wes Moran wmoran@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello Wikimedia community,
It’s our delight to inform you that we received a US$3,015,000 grant
from
the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_P._Sloan_Foundation [1] to
expedite
development of structured data on Commons. The grant will be given
over
the
course of three years, and will allow us to develop a team, in collaboration with the Wikidata team at Wikimedia Deutschland, that
can
focus on integrating the structured data features of Wikidata into describing the media files on Commons.
This work will allow us to expedite features both on the Wikidata development roadmap, and in other products supported by the Wikimedia Foundation. The grant also provides funding to ensure that movement stakeholders, like Wiki Loves Monuments and GLAM-Wiki program leaders,
and
external partners who contribute heavily to Commons, such as GLAMs,
can
be
involved in the development.
We have drafted a high level overview of the grant and its scope,
available
on Commons <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_
data/Sloan_Grant>
[2]. A blog post about the grant is also available on the Wikimedia
blog
structured-data>
[3].
We are currently in the process of identifying the technical lead for
the
project. If you have questions, Alex Stinson, the Foundation’s
GLAM-Wiki
strategist, will be leading the community engagement and
communications
for
the project until we hire a community liaison as part of the grant.
Stay
tuned for more details about the project in the coming months.
We’re excited to be able to support this project, and look forward to
your
participation in its development.
Thank you,
Wes Moran and Maggie Dennis
*Wes Moran, Vice President of Product* *Maggie Dennis, Interim Chief of Community Engagement * *Wikimedia Foundation*
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_P._Sloan_Foundation [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/
Sloan_Grant
structured-data
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Thanks Wes and Lisa, this is really wonderful news. Just the sort of area where Commons can and should point the way forward for all the world's archives.
And thanks to Sloan for the support and Commonists for maintaining one of the quiet, consistent wonders of theodern Web.
Sam
This is great news and look forward to seeing some good outcomes.
I have a concern around the use of language as most people english a very dynamic language and what can hav eone meaning in one place doesnt necessarily hold true for everywhere simple uses like monuments when translated differs. I would like to see caution taken to ensure the uniqueness of each locations use of isnt lost due a great scheme being fixed to one specific language use and spelling. As contributors we have already experienced that on en:WP with the standardisation of info boxes where local varients have been lost.
As Wikimedia community influence on language and connectivity grows, and is strengthened by projects like WikiData we have to allow greater consideration into the moral, cultural, and linguistic impact we are having on communities and languages its potentially no longer just a technical advancement that we are leading.
On 10 January 2017 at 07:12, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Wes and Lisa, this is really wonderful news. Just the sort of area where Commons can and should point the way forward for all the world's archives.
And thanks to Sloan for the support and Commonists for maintaining one of the quiet, consistent wonders of theodern Web.
Sam _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
it was time. Good luck.
Il Martedì 10 Gennaio 2017 4:59, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com ha scritto:
This is great news and look forward to seeing some good outcomes.
I have a concern around the use of language as most people english a very dynamic language and what can hav eone meaning in one place doesnt necessarily hold true for everywhere simple uses like monuments when translated differs. I would like to see caution taken to ensure the uniqueness of each locations use of isnt lost due a great scheme being fixed to one specific language use and spelling. As contributors we have already experienced that on en:WP with the standardisation of info boxes where local varients have been lost.
As Wikimedia community influence on language and connectivity grows, and is strengthened by projects like WikiData we have to allow greater consideration into the moral, cultural, and linguistic impact we are having on communities and languages its potentially no longer just a technical advancement that we are leading.
On 10 January 2017 at 07:12, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Wes and Lisa, this is really wonderful news. Just the sort of area where Commons can and should point the way forward for all the world's archives.
And thanks to Sloan for the support and Commonists for maintaining one of the quiet, consistent wonders of theodern Web.
Sam _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, You are right that this will be a concern. There are people that insist that Wikipedia is the fount of all wisdom and that its labels are "correct" even for Wikidata. When you observe Wikidata for as long as I do, I find that many of what some people elevate to collective wisdom is faulty at best. It makes your concern worse.
Technically there are two decisions that are detrimental to what we have. One is that labels are "simple by design". The problem is that when labels change as they often do, it is not possible to account for it. The other thing is that while we need descriptions, the descriptions we have are worse in quality than automated descriptions. Automated descriptions work in any language and are updated based on the availability of statements. Automated descriptions exist for over three years and when I need to disambiguate in Wikidata I add labels and as a result I have my disambiguation.
My point is that these concerns are not entertained. We are stuck with decisions past that will haunt us as we move on. It is easy to have the current automated and manual descriptions side by side and with Wiktionary to be a next project it is worthwhile to consider that any and all labels in Wikidata need at least conjugation. Thanks, GerardM
On 10 January 2017 at 04:58, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
This is great news and look forward to seeing some good outcomes.
I have a concern around the use of language as most people english a very dynamic language and what can hav eone meaning in one place doesnt necessarily hold true for everywhere simple uses like monuments when translated differs. I would like to see caution taken to ensure the uniqueness of each locations use of isnt lost due a great scheme being fixed to one specific language use and spelling. As contributors we have already experienced that on en:WP with the standardisation of info boxes where local varients have been lost.
As Wikimedia community influence on language and connectivity grows, and is strengthened by projects like WikiData we have to allow greater consideration into the moral, cultural, and linguistic impact we are having on communities and languages its potentially no longer just a technical advancement that we are leading.
On 10 January 2017 at 07:12, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Wes and Lisa, this is really wonderful news. Just the sort of
area
where Commons can and should point the way forward for all the world's archives.
And thanks to Sloan for the support and Commonists for maintaining one
of
the quiet, consistent wonders of theodern Web.
Sam _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Lisa
You say that "Structured Data on Commons was in our product roadmap, so this grant is not diverting our attention. The grant simply enables us to accelerate the work we were planning to do". Please would you publish, or point to, a version of that product roadmap that can inform the community's participation in such planning exercises as the 2017 Wikimedia Movement Strategy and other more tactical product planning processes.
Thanks in advance "Rogol"
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:01 PM, Lisa Gruwell lgruwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Pete and Gerard-
I just wanted to give my thoughts on restricted gifts. Like most things, there are both good and bad restricted gifts. They can be bad if a funder is making a well-intentioned gift that none-the-less pulls the organization in direction that they were not planning to go. Or even worse, when a funder pays for something outside of an org's plans that has ongoing maintenance cost that are not covered in the grant.
This is why the WMF board reviews all restricted grants per our gift policy https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Gift_policy. Those are the types of dynamics that the board considers when they review a restricted grant.
Structured Data on Commons was in our product roadmap, so this grant is not diverting our attention. The grant simply enables us to accelerate the work we were planning to do. In terms of restrictions, we have to follow through with the plan we submitted. In other words, do what we said we are going to do. I think that accountability is a good thing. And the Sloan Foundation is a great long-term funder of WMF. If something changes as the work progress, I have no doubt we could have a reasonable conversation with them about adjusting the plan.
Best, Lisa
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, Maybe restricted but the subject matter is exactly what we want anyway. Where I have my reservations is that Wikidata will be set in stone and stuff that just is not right will be with us for forever. With more money it does not need to be a huge problem because it makes it more
manageable.
Thanks, GerardM
On 9 January 2017 at 21:52, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Structured data on Commons is a huge and important area -- for one
thing,
the whole Media Viewer project would have gone much more smoothly if
there
were underlying structured data to rely on. Kudos to WMF and Sloan for
the
focus on this issue!
If I'm not mistaken, this is by far the most extravagant restricted
grant
in the history of the WMF. I believe the Stanton Foundation's usability grant ($890k in 2008)[1] and Public Policy Initiative grant ($1.2
million
in 2010)[2] are the only ones that comes close. In the past, WMF board members have expressed great skepticism about -- specifically -- the
Sloan
Foundation's influence, when it sought to place an observer in WMF
board
meetings. A former WMF Executive Director has written at length about
the
dangers of restricted grants.
It appears there is a new theory in play around restricted grants. Will somebody be expressing it publicly? Will the past practice of
publishing
the details of the grant expectations be followed?[3]
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
[1] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2008/12/03/improved-usability- in-our-future/ [2] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/May_ 2010_Wikimedia_Foundation_will_engage_academic_experts_ and_students_to_improve_public_policy_information [3] https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Public_Policy_ Initiative_project_details
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Wes Moran wmoran@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hello Wikimedia community,
It’s our delight to inform you that we received a US$3,015,000 grant
from
the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_P._Sloan_Foundation [1] to
expedite
development of structured data on Commons. The grant will be given
over
the
course of three years, and will allow us to develop a team, in collaboration with the Wikidata team at Wikimedia Deutschland, that
can
focus on integrating the structured data features of Wikidata into describing the media files on Commons.
This work will allow us to expedite features both on the Wikidata development roadmap, and in other products supported by the Wikimedia Foundation. The grant also provides funding to ensure that movement stakeholders, like Wiki Loves Monuments and GLAM-Wiki program
leaders,
and
external partners who contribute heavily to Commons, such as GLAMs,
can
be
involved in the development.
We have drafted a high level overview of the grant and its scope,
available
on Commons <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_
data/Sloan_Grant>
[2]. A blog post about the grant is also available on the Wikimedia
blog
structured-data>
[3].
We are currently in the process of identifying the technical lead for
the
project. If you have questions, Alex Stinson, the Foundation’s
GLAM-Wiki
strategist, will be leading the community engagement and
communications
for
the project until we hire a community liaison as part of the grant.
Stay
tuned for more details about the project in the coming months.
We’re excited to be able to support this project, and look forward to
your
participation in its development.
Thank you,
Wes Moran and Maggie Dennis
*Wes Moran, Vice President of Product* *Maggie Dennis, Interim Chief of Community Engagement * *Wikimedia Foundation*
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_P._Sloan_Foundation [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/
Sloan_Grant
structured-data
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Rogol,
this was the link previously provided on this project: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Overview including links to previous documents.
Cheers, Denny
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:32 AM Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
Lisa
You say that "Structured Data on Commons was in our product roadmap, so this grant is not diverting our attention. The grant simply enables us to accelerate the work we were planning to do". Please would you publish, or point to, a version of that product roadmap that can inform the community's participation in such planning exercises as the 2017 Wikimedia Movement Strategy and other more tactical product planning processes.
Thanks in advance "Rogol"
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:01 PM, Lisa Gruwell lgruwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Pete and Gerard-
I just wanted to give my thoughts on restricted gifts. Like most things, there are both good and bad restricted gifts. They can be bad if a
funder
is making a well-intentioned gift that none-the-less pulls the
organization
in direction that they were not planning to go. Or even worse, when a funder pays for something outside of an org's plans that has ongoing maintenance cost that are not covered in the grant.
This is why the WMF board reviews all restricted grants per our gift
policy
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Gift_policy. Those are the types of dynamics that the board considers when they review a restricted grant.
Structured Data on Commons was in our product roadmap, so this grant is
not
diverting our attention. The grant simply enables us to accelerate the work we were planning to do. In terms of restrictions, we have to follow through with the plan we submitted. In other words, do what we said we
are
going to do. I think that accountability is a good thing. And the Sloan Foundation is a great long-term funder of WMF. If something changes as
the
work progress, I have no doubt we could have a reasonable conversation
with
them about adjusting the plan.
Best, Lisa
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, Maybe restricted but the subject matter is exactly what we want anyway. Where I have my reservations is that Wikidata will be set in stone and stuff that just is not right will be with us for forever. With more
money
it does not need to be a huge problem because it makes it more
manageable.
Thanks, GerardM
On 9 January 2017 at 21:52, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com
wrote:
Structured data on Commons is a huge and important area -- for one
thing,
the whole Media Viewer project would have gone much more smoothly if
there
were underlying structured data to rely on. Kudos to WMF and Sloan
for
the
focus on this issue!
If I'm not mistaken, this is by far the most extravagant restricted
grant
in the history of the WMF. I believe the Stanton Foundation's
usability
grant ($890k in 2008)[1] and Public Policy Initiative grant ($1.2
million
in 2010)[2] are the only ones that comes close. In the past, WMF
board
members have expressed great skepticism about -- specifically -- the
Sloan
Foundation's influence, when it sought to place an observer in WMF
board
meetings. A former WMF Executive Director has written at length about
the
dangers of restricted grants.
It appears there is a new theory in play around restricted grants.
Will
somebody be expressing it publicly? Will the past practice of
publishing
the details of the grant expectations be followed?[3]
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
[1] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2008/12/03/improved-usability- in-our-future/ [2] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/May_ 2010_Wikimedia_Foundation_will_engage_academic_experts_ and_students_to_improve_public_policy_information [3] https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Public_Policy_ Initiative_project_details
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Wes Moran wmoran@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hello Wikimedia community,
It’s our delight to inform you that we received a US$3,015,000
grant
from
the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_P._Sloan_Foundation [1] to
expedite
development of structured data on Commons. The grant will be given
over
the
course of three years, and will allow us to develop a team, in collaboration with the Wikidata team at Wikimedia Deutschland, that
can
focus on integrating the structured data features of Wikidata into describing the media files on Commons.
This work will allow us to expedite features both on the Wikidata development roadmap, and in other products supported by the
Wikimedia
Foundation. The grant also provides funding to ensure that movement stakeholders, like Wiki Loves Monuments and GLAM-Wiki program
leaders,
and
external partners who contribute heavily to Commons, such as GLAMs,
can
be
involved in the development.
We have drafted a high level overview of the grant and its scope,
available
on Commons <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_
data/Sloan_Grant>
[2]. A blog post about the grant is also available on the Wikimedia
blog
structured-data>
[3].
We are currently in the process of identifying the technical lead
for
the
project. If you have questions, Alex Stinson, the Foundation’s
GLAM-Wiki
strategist, will be leading the community engagement and
communications
for
the project until we hire a community liaison as part of the grant.
Stay
tuned for more details about the project in the coming months.
We’re excited to be able to support this project, and look forward
to
your
participation in its development.
Thank you,
Wes Moran and Maggie Dennis
*Wes Moran, Vice President of Product* *Maggie Dennis, Interim Chief of Community Engagement * *Wikimedia Foundation*
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_P._Sloan_Foundation [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/
Sloan_Grant
structured-data
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Denny
Thank you but the link you provide appears to be to be "Our high-level roadmap for developing the project", namely the Structured Data in Commons project. Since Lisa wrote "Structured Data on Commons was in our product roadmap" I was referring to the product roadmap on which the Structured Data in Commons project is included -- that is, I was asking for a pointer to the roadmap for "features both on the Wikidata development roadmap, and in other products supported by the Wikimedia Foundation" referred to in Wes Moran's initial post on this topic:
But I appreciate the speed of your reply.
"Rogol"
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 5:46 PM, Denny Vrandečić vrandecic@gmail.com wrote:
Rogol,
this was the link previously provided on this project: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Overview including links to previous documents.
Cheers, Denny
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:32 AM Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
Lisa
You say that "Structured Data on Commons was in our product roadmap, so this grant is not diverting our attention. The grant simply enables us
to
accelerate the work we were planning to do". Please would you publish,
or
point to, a version of that product roadmap that can inform the
community's
participation in such planning exercises as the 2017 Wikimedia Movement Strategy and other more tactical product planning processes.
Thanks in advance "Rogol"
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:01 PM, Lisa Gruwell lgruwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Pete and Gerard-
I just wanted to give my thoughts on restricted gifts. Like most
things,
there are both good and bad restricted gifts. They can be bad if a
funder
is making a well-intentioned gift that none-the-less pulls the
organization
in direction that they were not planning to go. Or even worse, when a funder pays for something outside of an org's plans that has ongoing maintenance cost that are not covered in the grant.
This is why the WMF board reviews all restricted grants per our gift
policy
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Gift_policy. Those are the
types
of dynamics that the board considers when they review a restricted grant.
Structured Data on Commons was in our product roadmap, so this grant is
not
diverting our attention. The grant simply enables us to accelerate the work we were planning to do. In terms of restrictions, we have to
follow
through with the plan we submitted. In other words, do what we said we
are
going to do. I think that accountability is a good thing. And the
Sloan
Foundation is a great long-term funder of WMF. If something changes as
the
work progress, I have no doubt we could have a reasonable conversation
with
them about adjusting the plan.
Best, Lisa
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, Maybe restricted but the subject matter is exactly what we want
anyway.
Where I have my reservations is that Wikidata will be set in stone
and
stuff that just is not right will be with us for forever. With more
money
it does not need to be a huge problem because it makes it more
manageable.
Thanks, GerardM
On 9 January 2017 at 21:52, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com
wrote:
Structured data on Commons is a huge and important area -- for one
thing,
the whole Media Viewer project would have gone much more smoothly
if
there
were underlying structured data to rely on. Kudos to WMF and Sloan
for
the
focus on this issue!
If I'm not mistaken, this is by far the most extravagant restricted
grant
in the history of the WMF. I believe the Stanton Foundation's
usability
grant ($890k in 2008)[1] and Public Policy Initiative grant ($1.2
million
in 2010)[2] are the only ones that comes close. In the past, WMF
board
members have expressed great skepticism about -- specifically --
the
Sloan
Foundation's influence, when it sought to place an observer in WMF
board
meetings. A former WMF Executive Director has written at length
about
the
dangers of restricted grants.
It appears there is a new theory in play around restricted grants.
Will
somebody be expressing it publicly? Will the past practice of
publishing
the details of the grant expectations be followed?[3]
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
[1] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2008/12/03/improved-usability- in-our-future/ [2] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/May_ 2010_Wikimedia_Foundation_will_engage_academic_experts_ and_students_to_improve_public_policy_information [3] https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Public_Policy_ Initiative_project_details
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Wes Moran wmoran@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hello Wikimedia community,
It’s our delight to inform you that we received a US$3,015,000
grant
from
the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_P._Sloan_Foundation [1]
to
expedite
development of structured data on Commons. The grant will be
given
over
the
course of three years, and will allow us to develop a team, in collaboration with the Wikidata team at Wikimedia Deutschland,
that
can
focus on integrating the structured data features of Wikidata
into
describing the media files on Commons.
This work will allow us to expedite features both on the Wikidata development roadmap, and in other products supported by the
Wikimedia
Foundation. The grant also provides funding to ensure that
movement
stakeholders, like Wiki Loves Monuments and GLAM-Wiki program
leaders,
and
external partners who contribute heavily to Commons, such as
GLAMs,
can
be
involved in the development.
We have drafted a high level overview of the grant and its scope,
available
on Commons <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_
data/Sloan_Grant>
[2]. A blog post about the grant is also available on the
Wikimedia
blog
structured-data>
[3].
We are currently in the process of identifying the technical lead
for
the
project. If you have questions, Alex Stinson, the Foundation’s
GLAM-Wiki
strategist, will be leading the community engagement and
communications
for
the project until we hire a community liaison as part of the
grant.
Stay
tuned for more details about the project in the coming months.
We’re excited to be able to support this project, and look
forward
to
your
participation in its development.
Thank you,
Wes Moran and Maggie Dennis
*Wes Moran, Vice President of Product* *Maggie Dennis, Interim Chief of Community Engagement * *Wikimedia Foundation*
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_P._Sloan_Foundation [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/
Sloan_Grant
structured-data
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 7:00 PM, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
Denny
Thank you but the link you provide appears to be to be "Our high-level roadmap for developing the project", namely the Structured Data in Commons project. Since Lisa wrote "Structured Data on Commons was in our product roadmap" I was referring to the product roadmap on which the Structured Data in Commons project is included -- that is, I was asking for a pointer to the roadmap for "features both on the Wikidata development roadmap, and in other products supported by the Wikimedia Foundation" referred to in Wes Moran's initial post on this topic:
But I appreciate the speed of your reply.
For Wikidata please see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Development_plan (I really need to update this page...)
Cheers Lydia
Hi Rogol,
that is why I pointed you to the links in that document, which go all the way back to 2004 discussions of such a project, and further discussions over the years. These pretty much establish for me that this item has been a topic for commons for more than a decade now. But it seems I am misunderstanding you, and you are not looking for a documentation of the shared understanding of the roadmap for Commons and other Wikimedia products, but for a singular Foundation-written document that fixes the Wikimedia product roadmap over several years instead?
Cheers, Denny
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:00 AM Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
Denny
Thank you but the link you provide appears to be to be "Our high-level roadmap for developing the project", namely the Structured Data in Commons project. Since Lisa wrote "Structured Data on Commons was in our product roadmap" I was referring to the product roadmap on which the Structured Data in Commons project is included -- that is, I was asking for a pointer to the roadmap for "features both on the Wikidata development roadmap, and in other products supported by the Wikimedia Foundation" referred to in Wes Moran's initial post on this topic:
But I appreciate the speed of your reply.
"Rogol"
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 5:46 PM, Denny Vrandečić vrandecic@gmail.com wrote:
Rogol,
this was the link previously provided on this project: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Overview including links to previous documents.
Cheers, Denny
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:32 AM Rogol Domedonfors <domedonfors@gmail.com
wrote:
Lisa
You say that "Structured Data on Commons was in our product roadmap, so this grant is not diverting our attention. The grant simply enables us
to
accelerate the work we were planning to do". Please would you publish,
or
point to, a version of that product roadmap that can inform the
community's
participation in such planning exercises as the 2017 Wikimedia Movement Strategy and other more tactical product planning processes.
Thanks in advance "Rogol"
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:01 PM, Lisa Gruwell lgruwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Pete and Gerard-
I just wanted to give my thoughts on restricted gifts. Like most
things,
there are both good and bad restricted gifts. They can be bad if a
funder
is making a well-intentioned gift that none-the-less pulls the
organization
in direction that they were not planning to go. Or even worse, when
a
funder pays for something outside of an org's plans that has ongoing maintenance cost that are not covered in the grant.
This is why the WMF board reviews all restricted grants per our gift
policy
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Gift_policy. Those are the
types
of dynamics that the board considers when they review a restricted
grant.
Structured Data on Commons was in our product roadmap, so this grant
is
not
diverting our attention. The grant simply enables us to accelerate
the
work we were planning to do. In terms of restrictions, we have to
follow
through with the plan we submitted. In other words, do what we said
we
are
going to do. I think that accountability is a good thing. And the
Sloan
Foundation is a great long-term funder of WMF. If something changes
as
the
work progress, I have no doubt we could have a reasonable
conversation
with
them about adjusting the plan.
Best, Lisa
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, Maybe restricted but the subject matter is exactly what we want
anyway.
Where I have my reservations is that Wikidata will be set in stone
and
stuff that just is not right will be with us for forever. With more
money
it does not need to be a huge problem because it makes it more
manageable.
Thanks, GerardM
On 9 January 2017 at 21:52, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com
wrote:
Structured data on Commons is a huge and important area -- for
one
thing,
the whole Media Viewer project would have gone much more smoothly
if
there
were underlying structured data to rely on. Kudos to WMF and
Sloan
for
the
focus on this issue!
If I'm not mistaken, this is by far the most extravagant
restricted
grant
in the history of the WMF. I believe the Stanton Foundation's
usability
grant ($890k in 2008)[1] and Public Policy Initiative grant ($1.2
million
in 2010)[2] are the only ones that comes close. In the past, WMF
board
members have expressed great skepticism about -- specifically --
the
Sloan
Foundation's influence, when it sought to place an observer in
WMF
board
meetings. A former WMF Executive Director has written at length
about
the
dangers of restricted grants.
It appears there is a new theory in play around restricted
grants.
Will
somebody be expressing it publicly? Will the past practice of
publishing
the details of the grant expectations be followed?[3]
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
[1] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2008/12/03/improved-usability- in-our-future/ [2] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/May_ 2010_Wikimedia_Foundation_will_engage_academic_experts_ and_students_to_improve_public_policy_information [3] https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Public_Policy_ Initiative_project_details
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Wes Moran <wmoran@wikimedia.org
wrote:
> Hello Wikimedia community, > > It’s our delight to inform you that we received a US$3,015,000
grant
from
> the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_P._Sloan_Foundation [1]
to
expedite > development of structured data on Commons. The grant will be
given
over
the > course of three years, and will allow us to develop a team, in > collaboration with the Wikidata team at Wikimedia Deutschland,
that
can
> focus on integrating the structured data features of Wikidata
into
> describing the media files on Commons. > > This work will allow us to expedite features both on the
Wikidata
> development roadmap, and in other products supported by the
Wikimedia
> Foundation. The grant also provides funding to ensure that
movement
> stakeholders, like Wiki Loves Monuments and GLAM-Wiki program
leaders,
and > external partners who contribute heavily to Commons, such as
GLAMs,
can
be > involved in the development. > > We have drafted a high level overview of the grant and its
scope,
available > on Commons > <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_
data/Sloan_Grant>
> [2]. A blog post about the grant is also available on the
Wikimedia
blog
structured-data>
> [3]. > > We are currently in the process of identifying the technical
lead
for
the
> project. If you have questions, Alex Stinson, the Foundation’s
GLAM-Wiki
> strategist, will be leading the community engagement and
communications
for > the project until we hire a community liaison as part of the
grant.
Stay
> tuned for more details about the project in the coming months. > > We’re excited to be able to support this project, and look
forward
to
your > participation in its development. > > Thank you, > > Wes Moran and Maggie Dennis > > *Wes Moran, Vice President of Product* > *Maggie Dennis, Interim Chief of Community Engagement * > *Wikimedia Foundation* > > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_P._Sloan_Foundation > [2]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/
Sloan_Grant > [3] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/01/09/sloan-foundation- structured-data > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Thanks to both Lydia and Denny for these further replies. I assume that the WMF has a clear stable and unified view of where it is taking its various products and the dependencies, which is what I understand by the phrase product roadmap. "A single document" would be nice, but whatever it is, I am asking for it to be shared with the community.
"Rogol"
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 6:12 PM, Denny Vrandečić vrandecic@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Rogol,
that is why I pointed you to the links in that document, which go all the way back to 2004 discussions of such a project, and further discussions over the years. These pretty much establish for me that this item has been a topic for commons for more than a decade now. But it seems I am misunderstanding you, and you are not looking for a documentation of the shared understanding of the roadmap for Commons and other Wikimedia products, but for a singular Foundation-written document that fixes the Wikimedia product roadmap over several years instead?
Cheers, Denny
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:00 AM Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
Denny
Thank you but the link you provide appears to be to be "Our high-level roadmap for developing the project", namely the Structured Data in
Commons
project. Since Lisa wrote "Structured Data on Commons was in our product roadmap" I was referring to the product roadmap on which the Structured Data in Commons project is included -- that is, I was asking for a
pointer
to the roadmap for "features both on the Wikidata development roadmap,
and
in other products supported by the Wikimedia Foundation" referred to in
Wes
Moran's initial post on this topic:
But I appreciate the speed of your reply.
"Rogol"
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 5:46 PM, Denny Vrandečić vrandecic@gmail.com wrote:
Rogol,
this was the link previously provided on this project: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Overview including links to previous documents.
Cheers, Denny
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:32 AM Rogol Domedonfors <
domedonfors@gmail.com
wrote:
Lisa
You say that "Structured Data on Commons was in our product roadmap,
so
this grant is not diverting our attention. The grant simply enables
us
to
accelerate the work we were planning to do". Please would you
publish,
or
point to, a version of that product roadmap that can inform the
community's
participation in such planning exercises as the 2017 Wikimedia
Movement
Strategy and other more tactical product planning processes.
Thanks in advance "Rogol"
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:01 PM, Lisa Gruwell <
lgruwell@wikimedia.org>
wrote:
Hi Pete and Gerard-
I just wanted to give my thoughts on restricted gifts. Like most
things,
there are both good and bad restricted gifts. They can be bad if a
funder
is making a well-intentioned gift that none-the-less pulls the
organization
in direction that they were not planning to go. Or even worse,
when
a
funder pays for something outside of an org's plans that has
ongoing
maintenance cost that are not covered in the grant.
This is why the WMF board reviews all restricted grants per our
gift
policy
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Gift_policy. Those are the
types
of dynamics that the board considers when they review a restricted
grant.
Structured Data on Commons was in our product roadmap, so this
grant
is
not
diverting our attention. The grant simply enables us to accelerate
the
work we were planning to do. In terms of restrictions, we have to
follow
through with the plan we submitted. In other words, do what we
said
we
are
going to do. I think that accountability is a good thing. And the
Sloan
Foundation is a great long-term funder of WMF. If something
changes
as
the
work progress, I have no doubt we could have a reasonable
conversation
with
them about adjusting the plan.
Best, Lisa
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, Maybe restricted but the subject matter is exactly what we want
anyway.
Where I have my reservations is that Wikidata will be set in
stone
and
stuff that just is not right will be with us for forever. With
more
money
it does not need to be a huge problem because it makes it more
manageable.
Thanks, GerardM
On 9 January 2017 at 21:52, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com
wrote:
> Structured data on Commons is a huge and important area -- for
one
thing,
> the whole Media Viewer project would have gone much more
smoothly
if
there > were underlying structured data to rely on. Kudos to WMF and
Sloan
for
the > focus on this issue! > > If I'm not mistaken, this is by far the most extravagant
restricted
grant
> in the history of the WMF. I believe the Stanton Foundation's
usability
> grant ($890k in 2008)[1] and Public Policy Initiative grant
($1.2
million
> in 2010)[2] are the only ones that comes close. In the past,
WMF
board
> members have expressed great skepticism about -- specifically
--
the
Sloan > Foundation's influence, when it sought to place an observer in
WMF
board
> meetings. A former WMF Executive Director has written at length
about
the
> dangers of restricted grants. > > It appears there is a new theory in play around restricted
grants.
Will
> somebody be expressing it publicly? Will the past practice of
publishing
> the details of the grant expectations be followed?[3] > > -Pete > -- > [[User:Peteforsyth]] > > [1] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2008/12/03/improved-usability- > in-our-future/ > [2] > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/May_ > 2010_Wikimedia_Foundation_will_engage_academic_experts_ > and_students_to_improve_public_policy_information > [3] > https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Public_Policy_ > Initiative_project_details > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Wes Moran <
wmoran@wikimedia.org
wrote:
> > > Hello Wikimedia community, > > > > It’s our delight to inform you that we received a
US$3,015,000
grant
from > > the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_P._Sloan_Foundation
[1]
to
> expedite > > development of structured data on Commons. The grant will be
given
over
> the > > course of three years, and will allow us to develop a team,
in
> > collaboration with the Wikidata team at Wikimedia
Deutschland,
that
can
> > focus on integrating the structured data features of Wikidata
into
> > describing the media files on Commons. > > > > This work will allow us to expedite features both on the
Wikidata
> > development roadmap, and in other products supported by the
Wikimedia
> > Foundation. The grant also provides funding to ensure that
movement
> > stakeholders, like Wiki Loves Monuments and GLAM-Wiki program
leaders,
> and > > external partners who contribute heavily to Commons, such as
GLAMs,
can
> be > > involved in the development. > > > > We have drafted a high level overview of the grant and its
scope,
> available > > on Commons > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_ data/Sloan_Grant > > [2]. A blog post about the grant is also available on the
Wikimedia
blog > > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/01/09/sloan-foundation- structured-data > > [3]. > > > > We are currently in the process of identifying the technical
lead
for
the > > project. If you have questions, Alex Stinson, the
Foundation’s
GLAM-Wiki > > strategist, will be leading the community engagement and
communications
> for > > the project until we hire a community liaison as part of the
grant.
Stay > > tuned for more details about the project in the coming
months.
> > > > We’re excited to be able to support this project, and look
forward
to
> your > > participation in its development. > > > > Thank you, > > > > Wes Moran and Maggie Dennis > > > > *Wes Moran, Vice President of Product* > > *Maggie Dennis, Interim Chief of Community Engagement * > > *Wikimedia Foundation* > > > > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_P._Sloan_Foundation > > [2]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/
> Sloan_Grant > > [3] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/01/09/sloan-foundation- > structured-data > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hello Rogol,
Thanks for the question. The Annual Plan we follow and share with the community for review before we begin our work is available on Meta [1]. We update specific plans on a quarterly basis on our goals pages [2] as they may evolve over the year. We also provide a number of links for the specific teams on our Product page and welcome participation, discussion or connection through those pathways and directly with the feature teams [3].
Specifically the Wikidata, Community Tech, Editing and Discovery teams have specific objectives and goals in this years annual plan.
Hope this answers your question and certainly engage in the ongoing discussion around the work on the Commons page [4].
Thanks, Wes
Wes Moran Vice President of Product Wikimedia Foundation
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2016-2017/F... [2] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Engineering/2016-17_Goals [3] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Product [4] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Overview
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks to both Lydia and Denny for these further replies. I assume that the WMF has a clear stable and unified view of where it is taking its various products and the dependencies, which is what I understand by the phrase product roadmap. "A single document" would be nice, but whatever it is, I am asking for it to be shared with the community.
"Rogol"
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 6:12 PM, Denny Vrandečić vrandecic@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Rogol,
that is why I pointed you to the links in that document, which go all the way back to 2004 discussions of such a project, and further discussions over the years. These pretty much establish for me that this item has
been
a topic for commons for more than a decade now. But it seems I am misunderstanding you, and you are not looking for a documentation of the shared understanding of the roadmap for Commons and other Wikimedia products, but for a singular Foundation-written document that fixes the Wikimedia product roadmap over several years instead?
Cheers, Denny
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:00 AM Rogol Domedonfors <
domedonfors@gmail.com>
wrote:
Denny
Thank you but the link you provide appears to be to be "Our high-level roadmap for developing the project", namely the Structured Data in
Commons
project. Since Lisa wrote "Structured Data on Commons was in our
product
roadmap" I was referring to the product roadmap on which the Structured Data in Commons project is included -- that is, I was asking for a
pointer
to the roadmap for "features both on the Wikidata development roadmap,
and
in other products supported by the Wikimedia Foundation" referred to in
Wes
Moran's initial post on this topic:
But I appreciate the speed of your reply.
"Rogol"
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 5:46 PM, Denny Vrandečić vrandecic@gmail.com wrote:
Rogol,
this was the link previously provided on this project: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Overview including links to previous documents.
Cheers, Denny
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:32 AM Rogol Domedonfors <
domedonfors@gmail.com
wrote:
Lisa
You say that "Structured Data on Commons was in our product
roadmap,
so
this grant is not diverting our attention. The grant simply
enables
us
to
accelerate the work we were planning to do". Please would you
publish,
or
point to, a version of that product roadmap that can inform the
community's
participation in such planning exercises as the 2017 Wikimedia
Movement
Strategy and other more tactical product planning processes.
Thanks in advance "Rogol"
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:01 PM, Lisa Gruwell <
lgruwell@wikimedia.org>
wrote:
Hi Pete and Gerard-
I just wanted to give my thoughts on restricted gifts. Like most
things,
there are both good and bad restricted gifts. They can be bad
if a
funder
is making a well-intentioned gift that none-the-less pulls the
organization
in direction that they were not planning to go. Or even worse,
when
a
funder pays for something outside of an org's plans that has
ongoing
maintenance cost that are not covered in the grant.
This is why the WMF board reviews all restricted grants per our
gift
policy
the
types
of dynamics that the board considers when they review a restricted
grant.
Structured Data on Commons was in our product roadmap, so this
grant
is
not
diverting our attention. The grant simply enables us to
accelerate
the
work we were planning to do. In terms of restrictions, we have
to
follow
through with the plan we submitted. In other words, do what we
said
we
are
going to do. I think that accountability is a good thing. And
the
Sloan
Foundation is a great long-term funder of WMF. If something
changes
as
the
work progress, I have no doubt we could have a reasonable
conversation
with
them about adjusting the plan.
Best, Lisa
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
> wrote:
> Hoi, > Maybe restricted but the subject matter is exactly what we want
anyway.
> Where I have my reservations is that Wikidata will be set in
stone
and
> stuff that just is not right will be with us for forever. With
more
money
> it does not need to be a huge problem because it makes it more manageable. > Thanks, > GerardM > > On 9 January 2017 at 21:52, Pete Forsyth <
peteforsyth@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > Structured data on Commons is a huge and important area --
for
one
thing, > > the whole Media Viewer project would have gone much more
smoothly
if
> there > > were underlying structured data to rely on. Kudos to WMF and
Sloan
for
> the > > focus on this issue! > > > > If I'm not mistaken, this is by far the most extravagant
restricted
grant > > in the history of the WMF. I believe the Stanton Foundation's
usability
> > grant ($890k in 2008)[1] and Public Policy Initiative grant
($1.2
million > > in 2010)[2] are the only ones that comes close. In the past,
WMF
board
> > members have expressed great skepticism about -- specifically
--
the
> Sloan > > Foundation's influence, when it sought to place an observer
in
WMF
board > > meetings. A former WMF Executive Director has written at
length
about
the > > dangers of restricted grants. > > > > It appears there is a new theory in play around restricted
grants.
Will
> > somebody be expressing it publicly? Will the past practice of publishing > > the details of the grant expectations be followed?[3] > > > > -Pete > > -- > > [[User:Peteforsyth]] > > > > [1] https://blog.wikimedia.org/
2008/12/03/improved-usability-
> > in-our-future/ > > [2] > > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/May_ > > 2010_Wikimedia_Foundation_will_engage_academic_experts_ > > and_students_to_improve_public_policy_information > > [3] > > https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Public_Policy_ > > Initiative_project_details > > > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Wes Moran <
wmoran@wikimedia.org
wrote: > > > > > Hello Wikimedia community, > > > > > > It’s our delight to inform you that we received a
US$3,015,000
grant
> from > > > the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_P._Sloan_Foundation
[1]
to
> > expedite > > > development of structured data on Commons. The grant will
be
given
over > > the > > > course of three years, and will allow us to develop a team,
in
> > > collaboration with the Wikidata team at Wikimedia
Deutschland,
that
can > > > focus on integrating the structured data features of
Wikidata
into
> > > describing the media files on Commons. > > > > > > This work will allow us to expedite features both on the
Wikidata
> > > development roadmap, and in other products supported by the
Wikimedia
> > > Foundation. The grant also provides funding to ensure that
movement
> > > stakeholders, like Wiki Loves Monuments and GLAM-Wiki
program
leaders, > > and > > > external partners who contribute heavily to Commons, such
as
GLAMs,
can > > be > > > involved in the development. > > > > > > We have drafted a high level overview of the grant and its
scope,
> > available > > > on Commons > > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_ data/Sloan_Grant> > > > [2]. A blog post about the grant is also available on the
Wikimedia
> blog > > > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/01/09/sloan-foundation- structured-data> > > > [3]. > > > > > > We are currently in the process of identifying the
technical
lead
for
> the > > > project. If you have questions, Alex Stinson, the
Foundation’s
> GLAM-Wiki > > > strategist, will be leading the community engagement and communications > > for > > > the project until we hire a community liaison as part of
the
grant.
> Stay > > > tuned for more details about the project in the coming
months.
> > > > > > We’re excited to be able to support this project, and look
forward
to
> > your > > > participation in its development. > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > Wes Moran and Maggie Dennis > > > > > > *Wes Moran, Vice President of Product* > > > *Maggie Dennis, Interim Chief of Community Engagement * > > > *Wikimedia Foundation* > > > > > > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Alfred_P._Sloan_Foundation
> > > [2]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/
> > Sloan_Grant > > > [3] https://blog.wikimedia.org/
2017/01/09/sloan-foundation-
> > structured-data > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Dear Wes
Thank you for yet another prompt response. It seems almost churlish to say that unfortunately that is not what I have been asking for -- I must be very bad at expressing myself to have given so many different people so many different mistaken impressions of my request. To me a product roadmap would be a quite high-level view of the new products and major deveopments and their linkages looking out on a time scale significantly in excess of a single year, and at a level of detail significantly less than the aggregation of all the teams' quarterly plans. The roadmap would have the level of abstraction, interconnection and timscale that allows you to say that a three-year project such as the one you have just announced will expedite features on your roadmap and that the grant enabled accelerating the already started work on Structured Commons into a quicker three-year time frame: so a roadmap on which you can locate a project with a time frame that was previously beyond three years let alone one. It is also known that there are long-term projects such as parser unification, new editors and discussion systems which look out well beyond the current year. Are there others -- we do not (yet) know.
So again, my request is that you share this higher-level, longer-term, if not completely definitve roadmap with the community in the interests of transparency not only as an abstract objective but in order to maximise the benefits of early engagement, discussion and co-creation.
Yours "Rogol"
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:29 PM, Wes Moran wmoran@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello Rogol,
Thanks for the question. The Annual Plan we follow and share with the community for review before we begin our work is available on Meta [1]. We update specific plans on a quarterly basis on our goals pages [2] as they may evolve over the year. We also provide a number of links for the specific teams on our Product page and welcome participation, discussion or connection through those pathways and directly with the feature teams [3].
Specifically the Wikidata, Community Tech, Editing and Discovery teams have specific objectives and goals in this years annual plan.
Hope this answers your question and certainly engage in the ongoing discussion around the work on the Commons page [4].
Thanks, Wes
Wes Moran Vice President of Product Wikimedia Foundation
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_ Annual_Plan/2016-2017/Final#Product [2] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Engineering/2016-17_Goals [3] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Product [4] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Overview
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Rogol Domedonfors <domedonfors@gmail.com
wrote:
Thanks to both Lydia and Denny for these further replies. I assume that the WMF has a clear stable and unified view of where it is taking its various products and the dependencies, which is what I understand by the phrase product roadmap. "A single document" would be nice, but whatever
it
is, I am asking for it to be shared with the community.
"Rogol"
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 6:12 PM, Denny Vrandečić vrandecic@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Rogol,
that is why I pointed you to the links in that document, which go all
the
way back to 2004 discussions of such a project, and further discussions over the years. These pretty much establish for me that this item has
been
a topic for commons for more than a decade now. But it seems I am misunderstanding you, and you are not looking for a documentation of
the
shared understanding of the roadmap for Commons and other Wikimedia products, but for a singular Foundation-written document that fixes the Wikimedia product roadmap over several years instead?
Cheers, Denny
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:00 AM Rogol Domedonfors <
domedonfors@gmail.com>
wrote:
Denny
Thank you but the link you provide appears to be to be "Our
high-level
roadmap for developing the project", namely the Structured Data in
Commons
project. Since Lisa wrote "Structured Data on Commons was in our
product
roadmap" I was referring to the product roadmap on which the
Structured
Data in Commons project is included -- that is, I was asking for a
pointer
to the roadmap for "features both on the Wikidata development
roadmap,
and
in other products supported by the Wikimedia Foundation" referred to
in
Wes
Moran's initial post on this topic:
But I appreciate the speed of your reply.
"Rogol"
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 5:46 PM, Denny Vrandečić <
vrandecic@gmail.com>
wrote:
Rogol,
this was the link previously provided on this project: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/
Overview
including links to previous documents.
Cheers, Denny
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:32 AM Rogol Domedonfors <
domedonfors@gmail.com
wrote:
Lisa
You say that "Structured Data on Commons was in our product
roadmap,
so
this grant is not diverting our attention. The grant simply
enables
us
to
accelerate the work we were planning to do". Please would you
publish,
or
point to, a version of that product roadmap that can inform the
community's
participation in such planning exercises as the 2017 Wikimedia
Movement
Strategy and other more tactical product planning processes.
Thanks in advance "Rogol"
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:01 PM, Lisa Gruwell <
lgruwell@wikimedia.org>
wrote:
> Hi Pete and Gerard- > > I just wanted to give my thoughts on restricted gifts. Like
most
things,
> there are both good and bad restricted gifts. They can be bad
if a
funder > is making a well-intentioned gift that none-the-less pulls the organization > in direction that they were not planning to go. Or even worse,
when
a
> funder pays for something outside of an org's plans that has
ongoing
> maintenance cost that are not covered in the grant. > > This is why the WMF board reviews all restricted grants per our
gift
policy > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Gift_policy. Those are
the
types
> of > dynamics that the board considers when they review a restricted
grant.
> > Structured Data on Commons was in our product roadmap, so this
grant
is
not > diverting our attention. The grant simply enables us to
accelerate
the
> work we were planning to do. In terms of restrictions, we have
to
follow
> through with the plan we submitted. In other words, do what we
said
we
are > going to do. I think that accountability is a good thing. And
the
Sloan
> Foundation is a great long-term funder of WMF. If something
changes
as
the > work progress, I have no doubt we could have a reasonable
conversation
with > them about adjusting the plan. > > Best, > Lisa > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > Hoi, > > Maybe restricted but the subject matter is exactly what we
want
anyway.
> > Where I have my reservations is that Wikidata will be set in
stone
and
> > stuff that just is not right will be with us for forever.
With
more
money > > it does not need to be a huge problem because it makes it
more
> manageable. > > Thanks, > > GerardM > > > > On 9 January 2017 at 21:52, Pete Forsyth <
peteforsyth@gmail.com>
wrote: > > > > > Structured data on Commons is a huge and important area --
for
one
> thing, > > > the whole Media Viewer project would have gone much more
smoothly
if
> > there > > > were underlying structured data to rely on. Kudos to WMF
and
Sloan
for > > the > > > focus on this issue! > > > > > > If I'm not mistaken, this is by far the most extravagant
restricted
> grant > > > in the history of the WMF. I believe the Stanton
Foundation's
usability > > > grant ($890k in 2008)[1] and Public Policy Initiative grant
($1.2
> million > > > in 2010)[2] are the only ones that comes close. In the
past,
WMF
board > > > members have expressed great skepticism about --
specifically
--
the
> > Sloan > > > Foundation's influence, when it sought to place an observer
in
WMF
> board > > > meetings. A former WMF Executive Director has written at
length
about
> the > > > dangers of restricted grants. > > > > > > It appears there is a new theory in play around restricted
grants.
Will > > > somebody be expressing it publicly? Will the past practice
of
> publishing > > > the details of the grant expectations be followed?[3] > > > > > > -Pete > > > -- > > > [[User:Peteforsyth]] > > > > > > [1] https://blog.wikimedia.org/
2008/12/03/improved-usability-
> > > in-our-future/ > > > [2] > > > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/May_ > > > 2010_Wikimedia_Foundation_will_engage_academic_experts_ > > > and_students_to_improve_public_policy_information > > > [3] > > > https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Public_Policy_ > > > Initiative_project_details > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Wes Moran <
wmoran@wikimedia.org
> wrote: > > > > > > > Hello Wikimedia community, > > > > > > > > It’s our delight to inform you that we received a
US$3,015,000
grant > > from > > > > the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation > > > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_P._Sloan_
Foundation>
[1]
to
> > > expedite > > > > development of structured data on Commons. The grant will
be
given
> over > > > the > > > > course of three years, and will allow us to develop a
team,
in
> > > > collaboration with the Wikidata team at Wikimedia
Deutschland,
that
> can > > > > focus on integrating the structured data features of
Wikidata
into
> > > > describing the media files on Commons. > > > > > > > > This work will allow us to expedite features both on the
Wikidata
> > > > development roadmap, and in other products supported by
the
Wikimedia > > > > Foundation. The grant also provides funding to ensure
that
movement
> > > > stakeholders, like Wiki Loves Monuments and GLAM-Wiki
program
> leaders, > > > and > > > > external partners who contribute heavily to Commons, such
as
GLAMs,
> can > > > be > > > > involved in the development. > > > > > > > > We have drafted a high level overview of the grant and
its
scope,
> > > available > > > > on Commons > > > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_ > data/Sloan_Grant> > > > > [2]. A blog post about the grant is also available on the
Wikimedia
> > blog > > > > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/01/09/sloan-foundation- > structured-data> > > > > [3]. > > > > > > > > We are currently in the process of identifying the
technical
lead
for > > the > > > > project. If you have questions, Alex Stinson, the
Foundation’s
> > GLAM-Wiki > > > > strategist, will be leading the community engagement and > communications > > > for > > > > the project until we hire a community liaison as part of
the
grant.
> > Stay > > > > tuned for more details about the project in the coming
months.
> > > > > > > > We’re excited to be able to support this project, and
look
forward
to > > > your > > > > participation in its development. > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > > > Wes Moran and Maggie Dennis > > > > > > > > *Wes Moran, Vice President of Product* > > > > *Maggie Dennis, Interim Chief of Community Engagement * > > > > *Wikimedia Foundation* > > > > > > > > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Alfred_P._Sloan_Foundation
> > > > [2]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/
> > > Sloan_Grant > > > > [3] https://blog.wikimedia.org/
2017/01/09/sloan-foundation-
> > > structured-data > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ > mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > > mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org ?subject=unsubscribe > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Development
Of any use?
Seddon
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Wes
Thank you for yet another prompt response. It seems almost churlish to say that unfortunately that is not what I have been asking for -- I must be very bad at expressing myself to have given so many different people so many different mistaken impressions of my request. To me a product roadmap would be a quite high-level view of the new products and major deveopments and their linkages looking out on a time scale significantly in excess of a single year, and at a level of detail significantly less than the aggregation of all the teams' quarterly plans. The roadmap would have the level of abstraction, interconnection and timscale that allows you to say that a three-year project such as the one you have just announced will expedite features on your roadmap and that the grant enabled accelerating the already started work on Structured Commons into a quicker three-year time frame: so a roadmap on which you can locate a project with a time frame that was previously beyond three years let alone one. It is also known that there are long-term projects such as parser unification, new editors and discussion systems which look out well beyond the current year. Are there others -- we do not (yet) know.
So again, my request is that you share this higher-level, longer-term, if not completely definitve roadmap with the community in the interests of transparency not only as an abstract objective but in order to maximise the benefits of early engagement, discussion and co-creation.
Yours "Rogol"
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:29 PM, Wes Moran wmoran@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello Rogol,
Thanks for the question. The Annual Plan we follow and share with the community for review before we begin our work is available on Meta [1].
We
update specific plans on a quarterly basis on our goals pages [2] as they may evolve over the year. We also provide a number of links for the specific teams on our Product page and welcome participation, discussion
or
connection through those pathways and directly with the feature teams
[3].
Specifically the Wikidata, Community Tech, Editing and Discovery teams
have
specific objectives and goals in this years annual plan.
Hope this answers your question and certainly engage in the ongoing discussion around the work on the Commons page [4].
Thanks, Wes
Wes Moran Vice President of Product Wikimedia Foundation
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_ Annual_Plan/2016-2017/Final#Product [2] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Engineering/2016-17_Goals [3] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Product [4] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Overview
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Rogol Domedonfors <
domedonfors@gmail.com
wrote:
Thanks to both Lydia and Denny for these further replies. I assume
that
the WMF has a clear stable and unified view of where it is taking its various products and the dependencies, which is what I understand by
the
phrase product roadmap. "A single document" would be nice, but
whatever
it
is, I am asking for it to be shared with the community.
"Rogol"
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 6:12 PM, Denny Vrandečić vrandecic@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Rogol,
that is why I pointed you to the links in that document, which go all
the
way back to 2004 discussions of such a project, and further
discussions
over the years. These pretty much establish for me that this item has
been
a topic for commons for more than a decade now. But it seems I am misunderstanding you, and you are not looking for a documentation of
the
shared understanding of the roadmap for Commons and other Wikimedia products, but for a singular Foundation-written document that fixes
the
Wikimedia product roadmap over several years instead?
Cheers, Denny
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:00 AM Rogol Domedonfors <
domedonfors@gmail.com>
wrote:
Denny
Thank you but the link you provide appears to be to be "Our
high-level
roadmap for developing the project", namely the Structured Data in
Commons
project. Since Lisa wrote "Structured Data on Commons was in our
product
roadmap" I was referring to the product roadmap on which the
Structured
Data in Commons project is included -- that is, I was asking for a
pointer
to the roadmap for "features both on the Wikidata development
roadmap,
and
in other products supported by the Wikimedia Foundation" referred
to
in
Wes
Moran's initial post on this topic:
But I appreciate the speed of your reply.
"Rogol"
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 5:46 PM, Denny Vrandečić <
vrandecic@gmail.com>
wrote:
Rogol,
this was the link previously provided on this project: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/
Overview
including links to previous documents.
Cheers, Denny
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:32 AM Rogol Domedonfors <
domedonfors@gmail.com
wrote:
> Lisa > > You say that "Structured Data on Commons was in our product
roadmap,
so
> this grant is not diverting our attention. The grant simply
enables
us
to > accelerate the work we were planning to do". Please would you
publish,
or > point to, a version of that product roadmap that can inform the community's > participation in such planning exercises as the 2017 Wikimedia
Movement
> Strategy and other more tactical product planning processes. > > Thanks in advance > "Rogol" > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:01 PM, Lisa Gruwell <
lgruwell@wikimedia.org>
> wrote: > > > Hi Pete and Gerard- > > > > I just wanted to give my thoughts on restricted gifts. Like
most
things, > > there are both good and bad restricted gifts. They can be
bad
if a
> funder > > is making a well-intentioned gift that none-the-less pulls
the
> organization > > in direction that they were not planning to go. Or even
worse,
when
a
> > funder pays for something outside of an org's plans that has
ongoing
> > maintenance cost that are not covered in the grant. > > > > This is why the WMF board reviews all restricted grants per
our
gift
> policy > > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Gift_policy. Those
are
the
types > > of > > dynamics that the board considers when they review a
restricted
grant.
> > > > Structured Data on Commons was in our product roadmap, so
this
grant
is
> not > > diverting our attention. The grant simply enables us to
accelerate
the
> > work we were planning to do. In terms of restrictions, we
have
to
follow > > through with the plan we submitted. In other words, do what
we
said
we
> are > > going to do. I think that accountability is a good thing.
And
the
Sloan > > Foundation is a great long-term funder of WMF. If something
changes
as
> the > > work progress, I have no doubt we could have a reasonable
conversation
> with > > them about adjusting the plan. > > > > Best, > > Lisa > > > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Gerard Meijssen < > gerard.meijssen@gmail.com > > > > > wrote: > > > > > Hoi, > > > Maybe restricted but the subject matter is exactly what we
want
anyway. > > > Where I have my reservations is that Wikidata will be set
in
stone
and > > > stuff that just is not right will be with us for forever.
With
more
> money > > > it does not need to be a huge problem because it makes it
more
> > manageable. > > > Thanks, > > > GerardM > > > > > > On 9 January 2017 at 21:52, Pete Forsyth <
peteforsyth@gmail.com>
> wrote: > > > > > > > Structured data on Commons is a huge and important area
--
for
one
> > thing, > > > > the whole Media Viewer project would have gone much more
smoothly
if > > > there > > > > were underlying structured data to rely on. Kudos to WMF
and
Sloan
> for > > > the > > > > focus on this issue! > > > > > > > > If I'm not mistaken, this is by far the most extravagant
restricted
> > grant > > > > in the history of the WMF. I believe the Stanton
Foundation's
> usability > > > > grant ($890k in 2008)[1] and Public Policy Initiative
grant
($1.2
> > million > > > > in 2010)[2] are the only ones that comes close. In the
past,
WMF
> board > > > > members have expressed great skepticism about --
specifically
--
the > > > Sloan > > > > Foundation's influence, when it sought to place an
observer
in
WMF
> > board > > > > meetings. A former WMF Executive Director has written at
length
about > > the > > > > dangers of restricted grants. > > > > > > > > It appears there is a new theory in play around
restricted
grants.
> Will > > > > somebody be expressing it publicly? Will the past
practice
of
> > publishing > > > > the details of the grant expectations be followed?[3] > > > > > > > > -Pete > > > > -- > > > > [[User:Peteforsyth]] > > > > > > > > [1] https://blog.wikimedia.org/
2008/12/03/improved-usability-
> > > > in-our-future/ > > > > [2] > > > > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/May_ > > > > 2010_Wikimedia_Foundation_will_engage_academic_experts_ > > > > and_students_to_improve_public_policy_information > > > > [3] > > > > https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Public_Policy_ > > > > Initiative_project_details > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Wes Moran <
wmoran@wikimedia.org
> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hello Wikimedia community, > > > > > > > > > > It’s our delight to inform you that we received a
US$3,015,000
> grant > > > from > > > > > the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation > > > > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_P._Sloan_
Foundation>
[1]
to > > > > expedite > > > > > development of structured data on Commons. The grant
will
be
given > > over > > > > the > > > > > course of three years, and will allow us to develop a
team,
in
> > > > > collaboration with the Wikidata team at Wikimedia
Deutschland,
that > > can > > > > > focus on integrating the structured data features of
Wikidata
into > > > > > describing the media files on Commons. > > > > > > > > > > This work will allow us to expedite features both on
the
Wikidata
> > > > > development roadmap, and in other products supported by
the
> Wikimedia > > > > > Foundation. The grant also provides funding to ensure
that
movement > > > > > stakeholders, like Wiki Loves Monuments and GLAM-Wiki
program
> > leaders, > > > > and > > > > > external partners who contribute heavily to Commons,
such
as
GLAMs, > > can > > > > be > > > > > involved in the development. > > > > > > > > > > We have drafted a high level overview of the grant and
its
scope,
> > > > available > > > > > on Commons > > > > > <https://commons.wikimedia.
org/wiki/Commons:Structured_
> > > data/Sloan_Grant> > > > > > [2]. A blog post about the grant is also available on
the
Wikimedia > > > blog > > > > > <https://blog.wikimedia.org/
2017/01/09/sloan-foundation-
> > > structured-data> > > > > > [3]. > > > > > > > > > > We are currently in the process of identifying the
technical
lead
> for > > > the > > > > > project. If you have questions, Alex Stinson, the
Foundation’s
> > > GLAM-Wiki > > > > > strategist, will be leading the community engagement
and
> > communications > > > > for > > > > > the project until we hire a community liaison as part
of
the
grant. > > > Stay > > > > > tuned for more details about the project in the coming
months.
> > > > > > > > > > We’re excited to be able to support this project, and
look
forward > to > > > > your > > > > > participation in its development. > > > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > > > > > Wes Moran and Maggie Dennis > > > > > > > > > > *Wes Moran, Vice President of Product* > > > > > *Maggie Dennis, Interim Chief of Community Engagement * > > > > > *Wikimedia Foundation* > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Alfred_P._Sloan_Foundation
> > > > > [2]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/
> > > > Sloan_Grant > > > > > [3] https://blog.wikimedia.org/
2017/01/09/sloan-foundation-
> > > > structured-data > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ > > mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > > > mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org ?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > > mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject= unsubscribe > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Rogol, a good start into 2017! I have difficulties understanding your question, especially why you are asking it now. This topic was discussed quite often and for a long time to justify putting money behind talking at least imo.
you are unhappy a restricted grant was received without community consensus on commons to have such a technology included? Or you are unhappy that WMF builds up a Wikidata team when wikimedia Deutschland has already one? You are unhappy that WMF cuts the money for WMDE and at the same time increases spending in the same area of technology? Or you are unhappy that there will be another technical lead while at WMDE there is a lot of experience which you consider waste and unnecessary bureaucracy? Or you want to discuss how it will be implemented? Or, to put it in other words, what input would you give or expect if a document like you are requesting would exist?
Best Rupert
On Jan 10, 2017 11:28 PM, "Rogol Domedonfors" domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Wes
Thank you for yet another prompt response. It seems almost churlish to say that unfortunately that is not what I have been asking for -- I must be very bad at expressing myself to have given so many different people so many different mistaken impressions of my request. To me a product roadmap would be a quite high-level view of the new products and major deveopments and their linkages looking out on a time scale significantly in excess of a single year, and at a level of detail significantly less than the aggregation of all the teams' quarterly plans. The roadmap would have the level of abstraction, interconnection and timscale that allows you to say that a three-year project such as the one you have just announced will expedite features on your roadmap and that the grant enabled accelerating the already started work on Structured Commons into a quicker three-year time frame: so a roadmap on which you can locate a project with a time frame that was previously beyond three years let alone one. It is also known that there are long-term projects such as parser unification, new editors and discussion systems which look out well beyond the current year. Are there others -- we do not (yet) know.
So again, my request is that you share this higher-level, longer-term, if not completely definitve roadmap with the community in the interests of transparency not only as an abstract objective but in order to maximise the benefits of early engagement, discussion and co-creation.
Yours "Rogol"
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:29 PM, Wes Moran wmoran@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello Rogol,
Thanks for the question. The Annual Plan we follow and share with the community for review before we begin our work is available on Meta [1]. We update specific plans on a quarterly basis on our goals pages [2] as they may evolve over the year. We also provide a number of links for the specific teams on our Product page and welcome participation, discussion
or
connection through those pathways and directly with the feature teams [3].
Specifically the Wikidata, Community Tech, Editing and Discovery teams
have
specific objectives and goals in this years annual plan.
Hope this answers your question and certainly engage in the ongoing discussion around the work on the Commons page [4].
Thanks, Wes
Wes Moran Vice President of Product Wikimedia Foundation
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_ Annual_Plan/2016-2017/Final#Product [2] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Engineering/2016-17_Goals [3] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Product [4] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Overview
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Rogol Domedonfors <domedonfors@gmail.com
wrote:
Thanks to both Lydia and Denny for these further replies. I assume that the WMF has a clear stable and unified view of where it is taking its various products and the dependencies, which is what I understand by the phrase product roadmap. "A single document" would be nice, but whatever
it
is, I am asking for it to be shared with the community.
"Rogol"
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 6:12 PM, Denny Vrandečić vrandecic@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Rogol,
that is why I pointed you to the links in that document, which go all
the
way back to 2004 discussions of such a project, and further
discussions
over the years. These pretty much establish for me that this item has
been
a topic for commons for more than a decade now. But it seems I am misunderstanding you, and you are not looking for a documentation of
the
shared understanding of the roadmap for Commons and other Wikimedia products, but for a singular Foundation-written document that fixes
the
Wikimedia product roadmap over several years instead?
Cheers, Denny
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:00 AM Rogol Domedonfors <
domedonfors@gmail.com>
wrote:
Denny
Thank you but the link you provide appears to be to be "Our
high-level
roadmap for developing the project", namely the Structured Data in
Commons
project. Since Lisa wrote "Structured Data on Commons was in our
product
roadmap" I was referring to the product roadmap on which the
Structured
Data in Commons project is included -- that is, I was asking for a
pointer
to the roadmap for "features both on the Wikidata development
roadmap,
and
in other products supported by the Wikimedia Foundation" referred to
in
Wes
Moran's initial post on this topic:
But I appreciate the speed of your reply.
"Rogol"
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 5:46 PM, Denny Vrandečić <
vrandecic@gmail.com>
wrote:
Rogol,
this was the link previously provided on this project: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/
Overview
including links to previous documents.
Cheers, Denny
Rupert,
A Happy New Year to you too. I don't see why my personal motivation for asking this question would come into it. The request is to publish the overall product roadmap to the community, for the community to collaborate with the WMF on planning the future products. That does not sound to me like any kind of complaint about past actions – why would you assume that?
In answer to Joseph's posting: this response was about current planning for the one product, while my request is about medium-to-long term planning for the whole product range.
"Rogol"
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 6:47 AM, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.com wrote:
Rogol, a good start into 2017! I have difficulties understanding your question, especially why you are asking it now. This topic was discussed quite often and for a long time to justify putting money behind talking at least imo.
you are unhappy a restricted grant was received without community consensus on commons to have such a technology included? Or you are unhappy that WMF builds up a Wikidata team when wikimedia Deutschland has already one? You are unhappy that WMF cuts the money for WMDE and at the same time increases spending in the same area of technology? Or you are unhappy that there will be another technical lead while at WMDE there is a lot of experience which you consider waste and unnecessary bureaucracy? Or you want to discuss how it will be implemented? Or, to put it in other words, what input would you give or expect if a document like you are requesting would exist?
Best Rupert
On Jan 10, 2017 11:28 PM, "Rogol Domedonfors" domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Wes
Thank you for yet another prompt response. It seems almost churlish to say that unfortunately that is not what I have been asking for -- I must be very bad at expressing myself to have given so many different people so many different mistaken impressions of my request. To me a product roadmap would be a quite high-level view of the new products and major deveopments and their linkages looking out on a time scale significantly in excess of a single year, and at a level of detail significantly less than the aggregation of all the teams' quarterly plans. The roadmap would have the level of abstraction, interconnection and timscale that allows you to say that a three-year project such as the one you have just announced will expedite features on your roadmap and that the grant enabled accelerating the already started work on Structured Commons into a quicker three-year time frame: so a roadmap on which you can locate a project with a time frame that was previously beyond three years let alone one. It is also known that there are long-term projects such as parser unification, new editors and discussion systems which look out well beyond the current year. Are there others -- we do not (yet) know.
So again, my request is that you share this higher-level, longer-term, if not completely definitve roadmap with the community in the interests of transparency not only as an abstract objective but in order to maximise the benefits of early engagement, discussion and co-creation.
Yours "Rogol"
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:29 PM, Wes Moran wmoran@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello Rogol,
Thanks for the question. The Annual Plan we follow and share with the community for review before we begin our work is available on Meta [1].
We
update specific plans on a quarterly basis on our goals pages [2] as they may evolve over the year. We also provide a number of links for the specific teams on our Product page and welcome participation, discussion
or
connection through those pathways and directly with the feature teams
[3].
Specifically the Wikidata, Community Tech, Editing and Discovery teams
have
specific objectives and goals in this years annual plan.
Hope this answers your question and certainly engage in the ongoing discussion around the work on the Commons page [4].
Thanks, Wes
Wes Moran Vice President of Product Wikimedia Foundation
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_ Annual_Plan/2016-2017/Final#Product [2] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Engineering/2016-17_Goals [3] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Product [4] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Overview
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Rogol Domedonfors <
domedonfors@gmail.com
wrote:
Thanks to both Lydia and Denny for these further replies. I assume
that
the WMF has a clear stable and unified view of where it is taking its various products and the dependencies, which is what I understand by
the
phrase product roadmap. "A single document" would be nice, but
whatever
it
is, I am asking for it to be shared with the community.
"Rogol"
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 6:12 PM, Denny Vrandečić vrandecic@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Rogol,
that is why I pointed you to the links in that document, which go all
the
way back to 2004 discussions of such a project, and further
discussions
over the years. These pretty much establish for me that this item has
been
a topic for commons for more than a decade now. But it seems I am misunderstanding you, and you are not looking for a documentation of
the
shared understanding of the roadmap for Commons and other Wikimedia products, but for a singular Foundation-written document that fixes
the
Wikimedia product roadmap over several years instead?
Cheers, Denny
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:00 AM Rogol Domedonfors <
domedonfors@gmail.com>
wrote:
Denny
Thank you but the link you provide appears to be to be "Our
high-level
roadmap for developing the project", namely the Structured Data in
Commons
project. Since Lisa wrote "Structured Data on Commons was in our
product
roadmap" I was referring to the product roadmap on which the
Structured
Data in Commons project is included -- that is, I was asking for a
pointer
to the roadmap for "features both on the Wikidata development
roadmap,
and
in other products supported by the Wikimedia Foundation" referred
to
in
Wes
Moran's initial post on this topic:
But I appreciate the speed of your reply.
"Rogol"
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 5:46 PM, Denny Vrandečić <
vrandecic@gmail.com>
wrote:
Rogol,
this was the link previously provided on this project: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/
Overview
including links to previous documents.
Cheers, Denny
>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
That's a great news!!
Thanks, Nabin Wikimedians of Nepal
On Jan 11, 2017 11:33 PM, "Rogol Domedonfors" domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
Rupert,
A Happy New Year to you too. I don't see why my personal motivation for asking this question would come into it. The request is to publish the overall product roadmap to the community, for the community to collaborate with the WMF on planning the future products. That does not sound to me like any kind of complaint about past actions – why would you assume that?
In answer to Joseph's posting: this response was about current planning for the one product, while my request is about medium-to-long term planning for the whole product range.
"Rogol"
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 6:47 AM, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.com wrote:
Rogol, a good start into 2017! I have difficulties understanding your question, especially why you are asking it now. This topic was discussed quite often and for a long time to justify putting money behind talking
at
least imo.
you are unhappy a restricted grant was received without community
consensus
on commons to have such a technology included? Or you are unhappy that
WMF
builds up a Wikidata team when wikimedia Deutschland has already one? You are unhappy that WMF cuts the money for WMDE and at the same time
increases
spending in the same area of technology? Or you are unhappy that there
will
be another technical lead while at WMDE there is a lot of experience
which
you consider waste and unnecessary bureaucracy? Or you want to discuss
how
it will be implemented? Or, to put it in other words, what input would
you
give or expect if a document like you are requesting would exist?
Best Rupert
On Jan 10, 2017 11:28 PM, "Rogol Domedonfors" domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Wes
Thank you for yet another prompt response. It seems almost churlish to
say
that unfortunately that is not what I have been asking for -- I must be very bad at expressing myself to have given so many different people so many different mistaken impressions of my request. To me a product
roadmap
would be a quite high-level view of the new products and major
deveopments
and their linkages looking out on a time scale significantly in excess
of a
single year, and at a level of detail significantly less than the aggregation of all the teams' quarterly plans. The roadmap would have
the
level of abstraction, interconnection and timscale that allows you to say that a three-year project such as the one you have just announced will expedite features on your roadmap and that the grant enabled accelerating the already started work on Structured Commons into a quicker three-year time frame: so a roadmap on which you can locate a project with a time frame that was previously beyond three years let alone one. It is also known that there are long-term projects such as parser unification, new editors and discussion systems which look out well beyond the current year. Are there others -- we do not (yet) know.
So again, my request is that you share this higher-level, longer-term, if not completely definitve roadmap with the community in the interests of transparency not only as an abstract objective but in order to maximise the benefits of early engagement, discussion and co-creation.
Yours "Rogol"
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:29 PM, Wes Moran wmoran@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello Rogol,
Thanks for the question. The Annual Plan we follow and share with the community for review before we begin our work is available on Meta [1].
We
update specific plans on a quarterly basis on our goals pages [2] as
they
may evolve over the year. We also provide a number of links for the specific teams on our Product page and welcome participation,
discussion
or
connection through those pathways and directly with the feature teams
[3].
Specifically the Wikidata, Community Tech, Editing and Discovery teams
have
specific objectives and goals in this years annual plan.
Hope this answers your question and certainly engage in the ongoing discussion around the work on the Commons page [4].
Thanks, Wes
Wes Moran Vice President of Product Wikimedia Foundation
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_ Annual_Plan/2016-2017/Final#Product [2] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Engineering/2016-17_Goals [3] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Product [4] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/
Overview
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Rogol Domedonfors <
domedonfors@gmail.com
wrote:
Thanks to both Lydia and Denny for these further replies. I assume
that
the WMF has a clear stable and unified view of where it is taking its various products and the dependencies, which is what I understand by
the
phrase product roadmap. "A single document" would be nice, but
whatever
it
is, I am asking for it to be shared with the community.
"Rogol"
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 6:12 PM, Denny Vrandečić <
vrandecic@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hi Rogol,
that is why I pointed you to the links in that document, which go
all
the
way back to 2004 discussions of such a project, and further
discussions
over the years. These pretty much establish for me that this item
has
been
a topic for commons for more than a decade now. But it seems I am misunderstanding you, and you are not looking for a documentation
of
the
shared understanding of the roadmap for Commons and other Wikimedia products, but for a singular Foundation-written document that fixes
the
Wikimedia product roadmap over several years instead?
Cheers, Denny
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:00 AM Rogol Domedonfors <
domedonfors@gmail.com>
wrote:
Denny
Thank you but the link you provide appears to be to be "Our
high-level
roadmap for developing the project", namely the Structured Data
in
Commons
project. Since Lisa wrote "Structured Data on Commons was in our
product
roadmap" I was referring to the product roadmap on which the
Structured
Data in Commons project is included -- that is, I was asking for
a
pointer
to the roadmap for "features both on the Wikidata development
roadmap,
and
in other products supported by the Wikimedia Foundation" referred
to
in
Wes
Moran's initial post on this topic:
But I appreciate the speed of your reply.
"Rogol"
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 5:46 PM, Denny Vrandečić <
vrandecic@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Rogol, > > this was the link previously provided on this project: > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/
Overview
> including > links to previous documents. > > Cheers, > Denny > >>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Replying to Alex and Lisa (and Rogol) in one message:
Alex, thank you for linking the 32 page public version of the grant to the Sloan Foundation. It is indeed an impressive quantity of information, and I'm glad that this kind of transparency was built into the process -- having written grant proposals on behalf of WMF, I'm keenly aware of how much of an additional challenge that creates, and applaud the team. That said, it's a lot of info to look over, so if I have any more substantive comments, it will take a little time.
Lisa, I also appreciate your timely response about restricted grants. It's good to have a little insight into your thinking, which resonates. I do hope for more, in time. In the past, I felt all of us associated with Wikimedia could take legitimate pride in our connection to an organization that took a leadership role in the thinking on philanthropic giving. (As you may recall, I wrote up an overview about it last year: https://wikistrategies.net/grant-transparency/ ) It was especially distressing to see this issue play a central role in last year's crises, in the sense that the Knowledge Engine was rooted in a strategy of restricted grant opacity. I am still hoping the organization will take decisive steps toward reclaiming its position as a significant thought leader on the topic.
Perhaps the strategic planning process will offer an opportunity to do so?
In general, my questions are strongly aligned with those Rogol Domedonfors is asking, both in this thread and in the one about historical documents. Restricted grants can be one of the more visible artifacts that reflect the large-scale thinking of the organization; it's broadly important to the movement that the large-scale thinking be visible.
It has not been very long since a broadcast video led by Lila Tretikov and Jimmy Wales ended with a bit of open mockery of the value of long-term strategic planning. That was in jest, I understand, but in the absence of a more serious followup, not a great thing for Wikimedia stakeholders to hear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-12-22/News_a... We have a new executive director, new faces on the board, many things are running very smoothly, and many good things are happening. But we still lack a foundation for insight into how the rapidly expanding organization is thinking. Billions of people have a stake in those questions.
If there are no readily-available answers that can be shared, I hope at least that the strategic planning process will begin to flesh out some of what has been driving the WMF, and what will drive it in the years to come.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Wes
Thank you for yet another prompt response. It seems almost churlish to say that unfortunately that is not what I have been asking for -- I must be very bad at expressing myself to have given so many different people so many different mistaken impressions of my request. To me a product roadmap would be a quite high-level view of the new products and major deveopments and their linkages looking out on a time scale significantly in excess of a single year, and at a level of detail significantly less than the aggregation of all the teams' quarterly plans. The roadmap would have the level of abstraction, interconnection and timscale that allows you to say that a three-year project such as the one you have just announced will expedite features on your roadmap and that the grant enabled accelerating the already started work on Structured Commons into a quicker three-year time frame: so a roadmap on which you can locate a project with a time frame that was previously beyond three years let alone one. It is also known that there are long-term projects such as parser unification, new editors and discussion systems which look out well beyond the current year. Are there others -- we do not (yet) know.
So again, my request is that you share this higher-level, longer-term, if not completely definitve roadmap with the community in the interests of transparency not only as an abstract objective but in order to maximise the benefits of early engagement, discussion and co-creation.
Yours "Rogol"
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:29 PM, Wes Moran wmoran@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello Rogol,
Thanks for the question. The Annual Plan we follow and share with the community for review before we begin our work is available on Meta [1].
We
update specific plans on a quarterly basis on our goals pages [2] as they may evolve over the year. We also provide a number of links for the specific teams on our Product page and welcome participation, discussion
or
connection through those pathways and directly with the feature teams
[3].
Specifically the Wikidata, Community Tech, Editing and Discovery teams
have
specific objectives and goals in this years annual plan.
Hope this answers your question and certainly engage in the ongoing discussion around the work on the Commons page [4].
Thanks, Wes
Wes Moran Vice President of Product Wikimedia Foundation
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_ Annual_Plan/2016-2017/Final#Product [2] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Engineering/2016-17_Goals [3] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Product [4] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Overview
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Rogol Domedonfors <
domedonfors@gmail.com
wrote:
Thanks to both Lydia and Denny for these further replies. I assume
that
the WMF has a clear stable and unified view of where it is taking its various products and the dependencies, which is what I understand by
the
phrase product roadmap. "A single document" would be nice, but
whatever
it
is, I am asking for it to be shared with the community.
"Rogol"
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 6:12 PM, Denny Vrandečić vrandecic@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Rogol,
that is why I pointed you to the links in that document, which go all
the
way back to 2004 discussions of such a project, and further
discussions
over the years. These pretty much establish for me that this item has
been
a topic for commons for more than a decade now. But it seems I am misunderstanding you, and you are not looking for a documentation of
the
shared understanding of the roadmap for Commons and other Wikimedia products, but for a singular Foundation-written document that fixes
the
Wikimedia product roadmap over several years instead?
Cheers, Denny
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:00 AM Rogol Domedonfors <
domedonfors@gmail.com>
wrote:
Denny
Thank you but the link you provide appears to be to be "Our
high-level
roadmap for developing the project", namely the Structured Data in
Commons
project. Since Lisa wrote "Structured Data on Commons was in our
product
roadmap" I was referring to the product roadmap on which the
Structured
Data in Commons project is included -- that is, I was asking for a
pointer
to the roadmap for "features both on the Wikidata development
roadmap,
and
in other products supported by the Wikimedia Foundation" referred
to
in
Wes
Moran's initial post on this topic:
But I appreciate the speed of your reply.
"Rogol"
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 5:46 PM, Denny Vrandečić <
vrandecic@gmail.com>
wrote:
Rogol,
this was the link previously provided on this project: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/
Overview
including links to previous documents.
Cheers, Denny
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:32 AM Rogol Domedonfors <
domedonfors@gmail.com
wrote:
> Lisa > > You say that "Structured Data on Commons was in our product
roadmap,
so
> this grant is not diverting our attention. The grant simply
enables
us
to > accelerate the work we were planning to do". Please would you
publish,
or > point to, a version of that product roadmap that can inform the community's > participation in such planning exercises as the 2017 Wikimedia
Movement
> Strategy and other more tactical product planning processes. > > Thanks in advance > "Rogol" > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:01 PM, Lisa Gruwell <
lgruwell@wikimedia.org>
> wrote: > > > Hi Pete and Gerard- > > > > I just wanted to give my thoughts on restricted gifts. Like
most
things, > > there are both good and bad restricted gifts. They can be
bad
if a
> funder > > is making a well-intentioned gift that none-the-less pulls
the
> organization > > in direction that they were not planning to go. Or even
worse,
when
a
> > funder pays for something outside of an org's plans that has
ongoing
> > maintenance cost that are not covered in the grant. > > > > This is why the WMF board reviews all restricted grants per
our
gift
> policy > > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Gift_policy. Those
are
the
types > > of > > dynamics that the board considers when they review a
restricted
grant.
> > > > Structured Data on Commons was in our product roadmap, so
this
grant
is
> not > > diverting our attention. The grant simply enables us to
accelerate
the
> > work we were planning to do. In terms of restrictions, we
have
to
follow > > through with the plan we submitted. In other words, do what
we
said
we
> are > > going to do. I think that accountability is a good thing.
And
the
Sloan > > Foundation is a great long-term funder of WMF. If something
changes
as
> the > > work progress, I have no doubt we could have a reasonable
conversation
> with > > them about adjusting the plan. > > > > Best, > > Lisa > > > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Gerard Meijssen < > gerard.meijssen@gmail.com > > > > > wrote: > > > > > Hoi, > > > Maybe restricted but the subject matter is exactly what we
want
anyway. > > > Where I have my reservations is that Wikidata will be set
in
stone
and > > > stuff that just is not right will be with us for forever.
With
more
> money > > > it does not need to be a huge problem because it makes it
more
> > manageable. > > > Thanks, > > > GerardM > > > > > > On 9 January 2017 at 21:52, Pete Forsyth <
peteforsyth@gmail.com>
> wrote: > > > > > > > Structured data on Commons is a huge and important area
--
for
one
> > thing, > > > > the whole Media Viewer project would have gone much more
smoothly
if > > > there > > > > were underlying structured data to rely on. Kudos to WMF
and
Sloan
> for > > > the > > > > focus on this issue! > > > > > > > > If I'm not mistaken, this is by far the most extravagant
restricted
> > grant > > > > in the history of the WMF. I believe the Stanton
Foundation's
> usability > > > > grant ($890k in 2008)[1] and Public Policy Initiative
grant
($1.2
> > million > > > > in 2010)[2] are the only ones that comes close. In the
past,
WMF
> board > > > > members have expressed great skepticism about --
specifically
--
the > > > Sloan > > > > Foundation's influence, when it sought to place an
observer
in
WMF
> > board > > > > meetings. A former WMF Executive Director has written at
length
about > > the > > > > dangers of restricted grants. > > > > > > > > It appears there is a new theory in play around
restricted
grants.
> Will > > > > somebody be expressing it publicly? Will the past
practice
of
> > publishing > > > > the details of the grant expectations be followed?[3] > > > > > > > > -Pete > > > > -- > > > > [[User:Peteforsyth]] > > > > > > > > [1] https://blog.wikimedia.org/
2008/12/03/improved-usability-
> > > > in-our-future/ > > > > [2] > > > > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/May_ > > > > 2010_Wikimedia_Foundation_will_engage_academic_experts_ > > > > and_students_to_improve_public_policy_information > > > > [3] > > > > https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Public_Policy_ > > > > Initiative_project_details > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Wes Moran <
wmoran@wikimedia.org
> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hello Wikimedia community, > > > > > > > > > > It’s our delight to inform you that we received a
US$3,015,000
> grant > > > from > > > > > the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation > > > > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_P._Sloan_
Foundation>
[1]
to > > > > expedite > > > > > development of structured data on Commons. The grant
will
be
given > > over > > > > the > > > > > course of three years, and will allow us to develop a
team,
in
> > > > > collaboration with the Wikidata team at Wikimedia
Deutschland,
that > > can > > > > > focus on integrating the structured data features of
Wikidata
into > > > > > describing the media files on Commons. > > > > > > > > > > This work will allow us to expedite features both on
the
Wikidata
> > > > > development roadmap, and in other products supported by
the
> Wikimedia > > > > > Foundation. The grant also provides funding to ensure
that
movement > > > > > stakeholders, like Wiki Loves Monuments and GLAM-Wiki
program
> > leaders, > > > > and > > > > > external partners who contribute heavily to Commons,
such
as
GLAMs, > > can > > > > be > > > > > involved in the development. > > > > > > > > > > We have drafted a high level overview of the grant and
its
scope,
> > > > available > > > > > on Commons > > > > > <https://commons.wikimedia.
org/wiki/Commons:Structured_
> > > data/Sloan_Grant> > > > > > [2]. A blog post about the grant is also available on
the
Wikimedia > > > blog > > > > > <https://blog.wikimedia.org/
2017/01/09/sloan-foundation-
> > > structured-data> > > > > > [3]. > > > > > > > > > > We are currently in the process of identifying the
technical
lead
> for > > > the > > > > > project. If you have questions, Alex Stinson, the
Foundation’s
> > > GLAM-Wiki > > > > > strategist, will be leading the community engagement
and
> > communications > > > > for > > > > > the project until we hire a community liaison as part
of
the
grant. > > > Stay > > > > > tuned for more details about the project in the coming
months.
> > > > > > > > > > We’re excited to be able to support this project, and
look
forward > to > > > > your > > > > > participation in its development. > > > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > > > > > Wes Moran and Maggie Dennis > > > > > > > > > > *Wes Moran, Vice President of Product* > > > > > *Maggie Dennis, Interim Chief of Community Engagement * > > > > > *Wikimedia Foundation* > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Alfred_P._Sloan_Foundation
> > > > > [2]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/
> > > > Sloan_Grant > > > > > [3] https://blog.wikimedia.org/
2017/01/09/sloan-foundation-
> > > > structured-data > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ > > mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > > > mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org ?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > > mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject= unsubscribe > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wow ! Awesome !
Florence
Le 09/01/2017 à 20:48, Wes Moran a écrit :
Hello Wikimedia community,
It’s our delight to inform you that we received a US$3,015,000 grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_P._Sloan_Foundation [1] to expedite development of structured data on Commons. The grant will be given over the course of three years, and will allow us to develop a team, in collaboration with the Wikidata team at Wikimedia Deutschland, that can focus on integrating the structured data features of Wikidata into describing the media files on Commons.
This work will allow us to expedite features both on the Wikidata development roadmap, and in other products supported by the Wikimedia Foundation. The grant also provides funding to ensure that movement stakeholders, like Wiki Loves Monuments and GLAM-Wiki program leaders, and external partners who contribute heavily to Commons, such as GLAMs, can be involved in the development.
We have drafted a high level overview of the grant and its scope, available on Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Sloan_Grant [2]. A blog post about the grant is also available on the Wikimedia blog https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/01/09/sloan-foundation-structured-data [3].
We are currently in the process of identifying the technical lead for the project. If you have questions, Alex Stinson, the Foundation’s GLAM-Wiki strategist, will be leading the community engagement and communications for the project until we hire a community liaison as part of the grant. Stay tuned for more details about the project in the coming months.
We’re excited to be able to support this project, and look forward to your participation in its development.
Thank you,
Wes Moran and Maggie Dennis
*Wes Moran, Vice President of Product* *Maggie Dennis, Interim Chief of Community Engagement * *Wikimedia Foundation*
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_P._Sloan_Foundation [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Sloan_Grant [3] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/01/09/sloan-foundation-structured-data _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org