Hoi, When you harp on things that do not truly matter, you get the wrong results. It is not search that you are after, it is about aligning the needs you feel about communication and openness and the lack of trust you feel towards the WMF. I care about both. However, when Lila was hired it was communicated loud and clear that the WMF would become more of an organisation that would technically enable our projects. That in essence means a change of culture. My appreciation is that this has not been really taken on board by many and given the unfortunate changes at the board there is a lack of trust in what is happening at the moment. It has been getting towards a flash point for some time.
The whole thing with the Knight Foundation is what this flashpoint is focused on and, it is a fight that will only have losers. When we have a conversation of what kind of organisation we are, then fine. If we are to be more activist, I want our endowment fund only to invest in green energy to offset the harm that is done by using the electricity that is generated by dirty sources. We hide behind our hosting company because it uses dirty energy (and forget that we can offset that anyway somewhere else).
So what will it be, continue talk about things that are not the real issue and fail or talk about what it is, where we really hurt. Trust in the acceptance that the WMF and its board may be brave and do their job and when this trust has broken down, what we can do to come to a workable and acceptable continuation of what we do. Thanks, GerardM
On 15 February 2016 at 19:19, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Gerard, you and I agree on most of these points. Certainly, there is room for improvement on intra-Wikimedia search, and such work is important, and I would assume more pressing for non-English projects. And I agree, it is quite possible Siko's concerns about integrity are not directly related to the Knowledge Engine. (If they are unrelated, that would only more strongly suggest there are fundamental issues to be addressed around integrity; multiple issues would be worse than isolated incidents.)
But none of your points relate to whether Wikimedia leadership has been honest and forthright in its public communications about the Knowledge Engine. That is my concern here.
Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Feb 15, 2016 9:11 AM, "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The notion that WMF should out google Google is stupid, certainly at that kind of money. Search in the Wikimedia Foundation is much better but it
is
still easy for Magnus (for some time now) to improve the search results considerably.
The notion that search should not be strategic is laughable. Jane said
that
she uses Google to search results in our project because it does a better job. She searches in English !! Now consider searching in Tamil it finds
a
lot more than only results in Tamil. Then apply this to our aim; provide the sum of all knowledge.
Yes Siko left. It does however not follow that this has to do with grant
of
the Knight foundation. Yes she is outspoken in what she says but it does not follow that everything good is suspect. When James Heilman says that
he
has an issue with the focus on search, that is different. It does still
not
follow that we do a good job on search or that the additional effort as described in the Knight grant is not an important persuit. Thanks, GerardM Thanks, GerardM
On 15 February 2016 at 17:57, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com
wrote:
Lila,
The confusion, as you will surely agree, is understandable given the scattershot and often contradictory information provided by WMF to differing audiences. Above all, I hope the next volley of communication will address the central contradictions between what you and Jimmy
Wales
publicly stated prior to the publication of the grant application, and
the
words in the application itself.
I will quote these below, but first to underscore the importance: when
Siko
questioned the integrity of the organization, these are the apparent willful lies that came to mind for me.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
Quotes:
"To make this very clear: no one in top positions has proposed or is proposing that WMF should get into the general "searching" or to try to
"be
google". It's an interesting hypothetical which has not been part of
any
serious strategy proposal, nor even discussed at the board level, nor proposed to the board by staff, nor a part of any grant, etc. It's a
total
lie." -J. Wales, Feb. 1
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=pr...
"Let’s all treat each other withcivility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Civility and etiquette https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Etiquette, and see if we can collaborate to build a consensus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Consensus on
the
WMF’s project direction to help readers discover the high quality
content
and knowledge our editors are creating." - L. Tretikov, Feb. 1
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)&am...
"Knowledge Engine By Wikipedia is a federated knowledge engine that
will
give users the most reliable and most trustworthy public information channel on the web, applying fundamentals of transparent Wiki-based
systems
to surfacing the most relevant and important information." Grant application, August 2015
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-10/In_foc...
On Feb 15, 2016 2:35 AM, "Lila Tretikov" lila@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Gnangarra,
Thank you for forwarding, the authors of the article seem to be
confused
about the nature of the project. Our Comms team is working to clarify
this.
Please expect to see something from us in next few days.
Lila
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com
wrote:
FYI making main stream media
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-15/wikimedia-foundation-aims-to-take-o...
On 14 February 2016 at 00:49, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com
wrote:
Anne, we're talking about almost the same thing, but not
exactly. I
say
"advised" you say "consulted". "Consulted" implies soliciting or
expecting
some kind of response or engagement - probably approval/disapproval/critique/input. "Advised" means they got the
memo. I
think "advised" is enough, and if the board wants more
engagement,
they
can
initiate it - presuming the notification is clear and
comprehensive,
of
course.
Anthony Cole
On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com
wrote:
> Well, I'm not sure about that, Anthony. By "consulted", I
would
mean
> something to the effect of "We're looking at applying to XX
for a
grant
of > $YYY to do ZZZ" and asking the Board if they would be likely to
agree
to
> accept such a grant if the application is successful. The
grant
> application, evaluation and approval process is costly in both
time
and
> resources, and for both the applicant and the grantmaker.
Being
informed
> that a grant has been approved sounds more like a fait accompli
situation
> for the Board - they look petty and ungrateful if they say no,
even
if
they > don't think it was a reasonable grant application. In this
case,
we're
> only dealing with $250,000. What if this was $1 million? $10
million?
> > I think it is healthier for everyone if the Board is properly
consulted
> before the application is submitted. (And again, I note that
we
don't
know > how much was actually requested in this case, only what was
granted.)
> > Risker/Anne > > On 12 February 2016 at 21:23, Anthony Cole <
ahcoleecu@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > Anne, regarding: > > > > "Since the Board must approve acceptance of any donations
over
$100,000
> > USD, it seems to be obvious that they should be consulted and
possibly
> > should actively approve any grant applications where the
dollar
value
> > sought is higher than that amount." > > > > I'm not sure that the board should be *consulted* ahead of
such
> > applications' or should prior-approve all such applications.
That
seems a > > bit like micromanagement. But it makes sense to me for the
board
to
be
> > *advised > > *of such applications and when they're being actively
contemplated
or
> > prepared. > > > > Anthony Cole > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com
wrote:
> > > > > I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way, Gerard. I
personally
would
> like > > > to feel more assured that the WMF is looking into the
longer
future
and > > > actively plannning for the day that donations no longer
support a
large > > > staff doing lots of things. > > > > > > I am concerned today that the team specifically tasked to
work
closely > > with > > > so many elements of the community has lost 7% of its staff,
and
30%
of > > its > > > leaders, in a single week. This should be a concern in any > organization. > > > > > > With respect to the Knight grant - I know that many times
grant
> > > applications are made for considerably more than is given,
and
I
am
> > > interested to know how much the WMF requested in the first
place.
I
> > would > > > also like to know whether or not the Board was formally
advised
of
the > > > request before it was submitted. Since the Board must
approve
> acceptance > > > of any donations over $100,000 USD, it seems to be obvious
that
they
> > should > > > be consulted and possibly should actively approve any grant > applications > > > where the dollar value sought is higher than that amount.
I
don't
> > believe > > > the current policies require advance approval or even
advance
> > notification, > > > though. > > > > > > Risker/Anne > > > > > > On 12 February 2016 at 03:54, Gerard Meijssen < > gerard.meijssen@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hoi, > > > > I am not complaining. I point out that all this huha does
not
get
us > > > > anywhere. I am not afraid to give an opinion and I am not
afraid
to
> be > > a > > > > contrarian when I think it makes sense. Yes, things
happened
that
> were > > > not > > > > beautiful. They are not what upset me. What upsets me is
that
people > > like > > > > Siko and Anna are leaving. Because they are part of "my"
Wikimedia
> > > > Foundation. What upsets me is that I routinely use
Magnus's
tool
and > > > > process hundreds of thousands of records and am to
understand
that
> > > official > > > > query is stunted and does not allow for this "because it
was
not
in
> the > > > > design" and it is then pointed out that it takes money to
solve
> this... > > > > > > > > My point is that baying for blood is not what helps us
forward.
What > I > > do > > > > know is that when sheer negativity is not coupled with an
ability
to > > stop > > > > and move forward, we will get in a downward spiral. I
fault
Pine
for > > not > > > > being able to stop. What I wish for is for people like
Anna
and
Siko > > and > > > > money for our environment and not for an endowment. > > > > Thanks, > > > > GerardM > > > > > > > > On 12 February 2016 at 09:35, Michel Vuijlsteke <
wikipedia@zog.org
> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Gerard, > > > > > > > > > > I was waiting for this mail. For me personally, your
complaining
is > > > > > achieving exactly the opposite of what you think. > > > > > > > > > > It sounds as if you'd much rather prefer to stick your
head
in
the > > sand > > > > and > > > > > hope things will blow over. "Move along, nothing to see
here
--
oh > > > look! > > > > > something positive over there!" is not going to solve
anything.
> > > > > > > > > > Michel > > > > > > > > > > On 12 February 2016 at 09:24, Gerard Meijssen < > > > gerard.meijssen@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hoi, > > > > > > Pine as you are talking about "self inflicting
wounds"
I
take
it > > you > > > > are > > > > > > not talking in your personal capacity. When is it
enough
for
you? > > > When > > > > > are > > > > > > you going to talk about positive things, things that
will
move
us > > > > > forward. > > > > > > Why ask for blood and more blood? What is it that you
hope
to
> > > achieve? > > > > > > > > > > > > Who do you represent in this unending litany of
negativity
and
> what > > > > have > > > > > > you achieved in this way? When Lila was engaged in
her
role,
she > > was > > > to > > > > > > direct in a different direction and she is doing
that.
You
may
> not > > > like > > > > > it > > > > > > and that is ok. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > GerardM > > > > > > > > > > > > On 12 February 2016 at 08:43, Pine W <
wiki.pine@gmail.com>
> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dariusz, thanks for continuing to engage here.
Besides
the
good > > > > > questions > > > > > > > that others have asked, I'll add a few: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. If the Knowledge Engine is such an important
project,
why
is > > it > > > > not > > > > > > > mentioned in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16
> > > > > > ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. I realize that as a percentage of the WMF
budget,
$250k
is a > > > > > > relatively > > > > > > > small number. As others have said, this is not a
reason
for
> > opacity > > > > > about > > > > > > > it, nor a reason for not having a conversation with
the
> community > > > > about > > > > > > > something so strategically important as a decision
to
explore
> the > > > > > > question > > > > > > > of "Would users go to Wikipedia if it were an open
channel
> beyond > > > an > > > > > > > encyclopedia?" It's one thing to have a blue-sky
exercise
> > thinking > > > > > about > > > > > > > possibilities, and another thing to take a $250k
step
in
that
> > > > > direction, > > > > > > > especially without consulting the community. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. I am getting tired about seeing bad news in
general
about
> WMF > > > > > > > governance, planning, and turnover. I am curious
how
you
plan
> to > > > > > address > > > > > > > those issues. Like you, I would rather that we be
talking
about > > our > > > > > > > movement plans for the next 10 years. However, it's
difficult
> to > > > have > > > > > > those > > > > > > > conversations when WMF is making so many
self-inflicted
wounds. > > The > > > > > > recent > > > > > > > round of resignations is of respectable people from
the
WMF
> staff > > > is > > > > > > making > > > > > > > the situation that much more concerning and that
much
more
> > > difficult > > > > to > > > > > > > recover from. It seems to me that WMF leadership
has
lost
> control > > > of > > > > > this > > > > > > > situation, and I'd like to hear what the recovery
plan
is.
> > > > Personally, > > > > > I > > > > > > > feel that we need leadership that can build good relationships > > with > > > > the > > > > > > > staff and community, is transparent by default, and
is
capable > of > > > > > > restoring > > > > > > > the credibility of the organization's planning,
execution,
and > > > > > goodwill. > > > > > > I > > > > > > > think that we may need new leadership to make that
happen.
I
am > > > > > > interested > > > > > > > to hear your thoughts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pine > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Dariusz
Jemielniak <
> > > > darekj@alk.edu.pl > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV" <
sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com>
> > > napisał(a): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > > Dariusz, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > T > > > > > > > > > he grant application doesn't restrict the
search
engine
to > > > > > Wikimedia > > > > > > > > projects. It says that the "Knowledge Engine by
Wikipedia
[is > > a] > > > > > system > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > discovering reliable and trustworthy public
information
on
> the > > > > > > Internet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My understanding is that the top range could
potentially
be
> all > > > > > > > open/public > > > > > > > > resources, but this is the far stretched total
goal,
and
> still > > > not > > > > a > > > > > > > > general search engine of all content including
commercial
> one. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And a rrasonable realistic outcome can be just
improving
our > > > > searches > > > > > > > > across projects. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can't comment on the initial ideas or goals,
as I
was
not
> on > > > the > > > > > > Board > > > > > > > > before August 2015, but this is what I understand
we
build
> now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The document says the "Search Engine by
Wikipedia"
budget
> for > > > > > > 2015–2016 > > > > > > > > ($2.4 million) was approved by the board. Can
you
point
us
> to > > > > which > > > > > > > board > > > > > > > > meeting approved it and what was discussed there? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I dont recall this specifically, and I'm going to
elude
this > > > > question > > > > > > by > > > > > > > > going to sleep (and hoping someone better
informed
may
pick). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good night! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dj > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > > > > > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > > > > > > Unsubscribe: > > > > >
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
> > > > > > > > mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org > > > ?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > > > > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > > > > > Unsubscribe: > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
> > > > > > > mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org > > ?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > > > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > > > > Unsubscribe: > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > > > > mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org > ?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > > > Unsubscribe: > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > > > mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org ?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > > mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org ?subject=unsubscribe > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- Lila Tretikov Wikimedia Foundation
*“Be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid.”* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe