Hi Pete, I proposed an interview to Andreas this morning in a private
email, actually.
Also, I want to explain myself as a human being, not only as an ED.
Without filters.
L
On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 10:56 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
An unusually immediate comment from Wikimedia
leadership following Andreas'
admittedly speculative comments.
It's not about the relevance to the movement. It's not about the relevance
to the organization. It's about an individual's role.
This just got fascinating (and a little more depressing).
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
I am happy to talk to Signpost on-record about anything that has been
happening under my watch to minimize misinterpretations of second-hand
reports or further conjectures.
Lila
On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 9:57 PM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 10:56 PM, Anthony Cole
<ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Lila should have taken the community along with
her as the Knowledge
Engine
project was evolving. I don't know what was
behind her reticence. I
presume
an element was unwillingness to announce a thing
while the thing was
shifting and changing from one day to the next.
It was pointed out to me today that there is a court exhibit, no. 666,
made
> public in 2014 as part of the [[High-Tech Employee Antitrust
Litigation]]
(the same
case Arnnon Geshuri was involved in), which reproduces some
correspondence between Sue Gardner, Facebook's Sheryl Sandberg, and
various
Google managers.[1]
In short, Sheryl Sandberg (who'd formerly worked for Google) helped Sue
Gardner by introducing her to senior management at Google. To do so,
according to the court exhibit, Sandberg forwarded an email from Sue
Gardner to Jonathan Rosenberg (then Senior Vice President of Products)
and
others at Google:
---o0o---
From: Sheryl Sandberg
Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 7:40 PM
To: Jonathan Rosenberg; Omid Kordestani; David Drummond; Megan Smith
Subject: Fw: Thanks + a request re Google
Jonathan, Omid, David, Megan - I was introduced to Sue by Roger. As you
can
> see below, they would love a better and more senior relationship with
> Google. Can I email introduce her to one of you?
>
>
>
> Please excuse blackberry-caused typos.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Sue Gardner
>
> To: Sheryl Sandberg
>
> Sent: Mon Aug 04 10:02:01 2008
>
> Subject: Thanks + a request re Google
>
>
>
> Hi Sheryl,
>
>
>
> It was terrific to finally meet you last week :-)
>
>
>
> Here's a recap of the Google issue that I raised:
>
>
>
> I started as Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation last
summer.
>
>
>
> A few months after that, Roger McNamee began introducing me to
potential
Wikipedia
donors in the valley. Most of that was great and successful,
but
in a few cases -including once with a Google
board member- I was
surprised
> to be have people cite 'loyalty to Google' as a reason to not give
money
to
> Wikipedia.
>
>
>
> Their objections, which have been echoed to me several times since
then,
seem to
fall into three categories:
* A belief that Wikia Search is an attempt by Wikipedia to compete with
Google. (Many people don't realize the only thing shared between
Wikipedia
> and Wikia is our founder, Jimmy Wales. Nor do they realize that Jimmy
has
no
day-to-day responsibilities at the Wikimedia Foundation.)
* The view that because Wikipedia is non-commercial, it is
anti-advertising
> and anti-Google.
>
> * A belief that Knol is an attempt by Google to compete with Wikipedia.
>
>
>
> I personally don't believe any of this: I think Google and Wikipedia
can
> and should have a complementary and positive
relationship. And I gather
> Larry and Sergey feel the same: I believe they've told Jimmy that
Google
has no
ill will towards Wikipedia, and that they'd be willing to make a
donation to us in order to signal that publicly.
I also believe that any real or perceived tensions in the
Google/Wikipedia
relationship may be being exacerbated at some
levels inside Google by
their
> unfulfilled desires to do business with us. Since relocating to the Bay
> Area in January, we've had plenty of Google folks reach out to us. But
--
> we have a total staff of 21 people, with
just one person responsible
for
> business development, so I am not sure we
are even able to politely
keep
up
> with their pitches. IMO, rather than spending our time on multiple
> product-specific pitches, it would probably be more productive for
> Wikipedia and Google to develop a single umbrella
relationship/agreement
(obviously within the limits of Wikipedia's non-commercial context).
So. I think a good next step would be some kind of high-level meeting
between Wikipedia and Google, to talk through these issues and see if a
donation and/or business deal makes sense.
I appreciate your advice on this issue :-)
Thanks,
Sue
---o0o---
Now, some of this isn't earth-shattering news -- it's long been known
that
relations between Google and Wikipedia have been
friendly. The lobbying
partnership between Google and Wikipedia may well date back to the
meetings
> that followed that email exchange.
>
>
>
> What wasn't known to me was that Sue found people in Silicon Valley
> unwilling to donate because of their "loyalty to Google". (This
reasoning
raises
questions of its own about Google's influence, but we'll leave
that
> aside.)
>
>
>
> Now it has become clear over the past few days that Damon Sicore, to
use
Jimmy
Wales' words at Lila's Knowledge Engine FAQ,[2] "really was
advocating for taking a run at Google", and gave "strict orders to keep
it
top secret".
Sue referred to her wish to have "a single umbrella
relationship/agreement"
> with Google, in part to help with the donation problems she was
> encountering. If such an agreement ever came into being, then being
seen
to
be planning a campaign against Google behind
Google's back, as it were,
might well jeopardise that relationship, and be seen as disloyal.
That would have been a compelling reason for continued secrecy,
especially
if these plans to compete against Google were in
the end given up,
meaning
> that any loss of face vis-à-vis Google and its friends would in effect
be
> for nothing.
>
>
>
> Of course this is just supposition.
>
>
> But there are issues here worth reflecting upon. I recall plenty of
> volunteers over the years saying it was very good that Google seemed to
> treat Wikipedia favourably. Yet I don't recall the community ever being
> asked whether they wanted the WMF to seek any kinds of agreements with
> for-profit players.
>
>
>
> At any rate, whatever the facts of this case, it seems to me that
> maintaining transparency becomes very hard if you pursue such
agreements.
It
becomes very easy to tie yourself into knots.
[1]
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/sandberg.pdf
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Engine/FAQ
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)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(a)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(a)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.”*