Re: [Wikimedia-l] DARPA FOSSS programs of interest

[Marc A. Pelletier]

On 16-04-12 06:25 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> Yeah, what have DARPA ever done for us..?

For the benefit of those who do not sport beards[1], one of the most
relevant things that is a legacy of DARPA - and certainly the one Andy
is alluding to - is that of Internet itself (née Arpanet).

-- Coren / Marc

[1] Which beards may be virtual, as befits those of us dinosaurs who
couldn't grow one if their life depended on it[2].

[2] Or whose marriage depends on not having one.  :-)


___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What can we learn

[Pine W]

I like the idea of a boot camp or orientation for board members, which
could be applicable to both affiliate and WMF boards. I believe that the
standing Elections Committee, once it is operational, has plans to work on
this, along with cultivating a list of good candidates for affiliate and
WMF boards.

Greg or Lane, are you able to comment on this?

It would also be nice to get an update on the formation of the standing
Elections Committee.

Pine

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 2:47 PM, phoebe ayers  wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Chris Keating
>  wrote:
> > If I read Denny's email correctly, this section is broader than conflict
> of
> > interest:
> >
> >>
> >> I discussed with Jan-Bart, then chair, what is and what is not
> > appropriate to
> >> pursue as a member of the Board. I understood and followed his advice,
> but
> >> it was frustrating. It was infuriatingly limiting.
> >>
> >
> > E.g. any comment Denny made on Phabricator now being read in the light
> that
> > he was a board member.
>
> While I'm not sure exactly what Denny meant in his mail, I think
> Chris' comment is spot on -- every trustee, especially those used to
> weighing in on community discussions, feels somewhat limited in what
> they can say and how to say it when they join the board, whether
> that's proposing a new idea or weighing in on an existing one. (Then,
> of course, you also get criticized for not speaking up enough!) It can
> be an awkward balancing act that takes some time to learn, and can
> indeed be frustrating.
>
> Partly I think it's simply inherently difficult. As a trustee your own
> interests and areas of volunteering are often not what's best for the
> WMF overall to focus on -- either because they are too narrow, or too
> resource intensive, or a host of other reasons -- not least because
> one contributor cannot possibly speak for a whole area of the
> movement, and as a movement we value consensus and broad input for
> every idea. But I also think we're not very good on the board at
> utilizing people's individual strengths and recognizing that the very
> reasons why someone is interesting as a trustee (because they are an
> expert contributor in some area, as all the trustees are) also means
> that they likely have biases and opinions about strategic directions,
> and could use those opinions productively to help the organization
> learn and grow.
>
> As for what we can learn from this situation, I'm intrigued by this
> proposal:
>
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Atsme  wrote:
> > Establish alternates who are non-voting members but are in the wings
> waiting to fill vacancies.  It’s a win-win.
>
> We could certainly vote in alternates; it would be as simple as taking
> the 4th place winner.
> Also, we do have a mechanism set up for observers at the board
> meetings, and have not taken advantage of it recently; 1 or 2
> community observers could join.
> Another idea: what about field training of some sort for candidates or
> those considering candidacy? It's a big commitment that people make
> and that the movement makes to those people, and having a week or two
> immersion and preparation -- it could be done virtually -- wouldn't be
> the worst thing. Board boot camp, if you will.
>
> Phoebe
>
>
> --
> * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers
>  gmail.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,
> 
>
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] DARPA FOSSS programs of interest

[Andy Mabbett]

> DARPA

Yeah, what have DARPA ever done for us..?

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] DARPA FOSSS programs of interest

[Nathan]

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 1:54 PM, James Salsman  wrote:

> Re
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/publicpolicy/2016-April/001335.html
>
> 
>
> Are there any reasons that trying to do this might be a bad idea?
>
> __


Because the WMF is not, at least as far as we know, in the business of
covert HUMINT or surveillance technology.
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] DARPA FOSSS programs of interest

[Oliver Keyes]

Off the top of my head:

1. Because we have absolutely no idea, from the briefs given, about
the technological stack and how well it meshes with our existing
expertise as a movement, or the WMF's existing expertise as a
technical entity;
2. Because we have absolutely no idea, from the briefs given, how much
progress was made and thus how much work is needed or even if the
projects were a failure;
3. Because the policy you're linking to is a policy for 18F, and it's
totally unclear as to whether DARPA contractors or employees are
covered by that, or whether the source code would be released or fall
under the restrictions section given its origin in a military research
arena;
3. Because "hey, we took a load of propaganda software from the US
military and now we're spending donor dollars on it" looks
*incredibly* bad and ominous to pretty much anyone outside the US,
including most of Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, areas we are
trying to expand into as their populations come online more and more
and areas the US military that wrote this software is continuously
bombing the shit out of.

Basically it's far too early to make any useful determination about
this, and even if it wasn't, the optics are atrocious.

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 1:54 PM, James Salsman  wrote:
> Re https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/publicpolicy/2016-April/001335.html
>
> Should the Foundation mount a campaign to rescue BOLT from whomever
> took it down from the DARPA site?
>
> "The Broad Operational Language Translation (BOLT) program is aimed at
> enabling communication with non-English-speaking populations and
> identifying important information in foreign-language sources by: 1)
> allowing English-speakers to understand foreign-language sources of
> all genres, including chat, messaging and informal conversation; 2)
> providing English-speakers the ability to quickly identify targeted
> information in foreign-language sources using natural-language
> queries; and 3) enabling multi-turn communication in text and speech
> with non-English speakers. If successful, BOLT would deliver all
> capabilities free from domain or genre limitations."
>
> Program Manager: Dr. Boyan Onyshkevych
>
> Contact: boyan.onyshkev...@darpa.mil
>
> Here is another one that we need to rescue:
>
> "The general goal of the Social Media in Strategic Communication
> (SMISC) program is to develop a new science of social networks built
> on an emerging technology base. Through the program, DARPA seeks to
> develop tools to support the efforts of human operators to counter
> misinformation or deception campaigns with truthful information."
>
> Program Manager: Dr. Rand Waltzman
>
> Contact: rand.waltz...@darpa.mil
>
> Are there any reasons that trying to do this might be a bad idea?
>
> ___
> 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, 
> 

___
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, 

[Wikimedia-l] Recognition of Wikipedia Community Schools Association Greece

[Carlos M. Colina]

Dear all,

On behalf of the Affiliations Committee, I am glad to share the 
recognitio of a new Wikimedia User Group: Wikipedia Community Schools 
Association Greece [1]


Among their goals are increasing the participation of the hellenic 
wikimedians in the different Wikimedia projects, with a strong emphasis 
on education and outreach, from secondary education to GLAM institutions 
to universities.


Best of luck and success to our greek colleagues!


1: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Community_Schools_Association_Greece

--
"*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua 
junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."

Carlos M. Colina
Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 | 
www.wikimedia.org.ve 

Member, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
Phone: +972-52-4869915
Twitter: @maor_x
___
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, 

[Wikimedia-l] DARPA FOSSS programs of interest

[James Salsman]

Re https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/publicpolicy/2016-April/001335.html

Should the Foundation mount a campaign to rescue BOLT from whomever
took it down from the DARPA site?

"The Broad Operational Language Translation (BOLT) program is aimed at
enabling communication with non-English-speaking populations and
identifying important information in foreign-language sources by: 1)
allowing English-speakers to understand foreign-language sources of
all genres, including chat, messaging and informal conversation; 2)
providing English-speakers the ability to quickly identify targeted
information in foreign-language sources using natural-language
queries; and 3) enabling multi-turn communication in text and speech
with non-English speakers. If successful, BOLT would deliver all
capabilities free from domain or genre limitations."

Program Manager: Dr. Boyan Onyshkevych

Contact: boyan.onyshkev...@darpa.mil

Here is another one that we need to rescue:

"The general goal of the Social Media in Strategic Communication
(SMISC) program is to develop a new science of social networks built
on an emerging technology base. Through the program, DARPA seeks to
develop tools to support the efforts of human operators to counter
misinformation or deception campaigns with truthful information."

Program Manager: Dr. Rand Waltzman

Contact: rand.waltz...@darpa.mil

Are there any reasons that trying to do this might be a bad idea?

___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] next Wikidata office hour on IRC

[Lydia Pintscher]

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 4:43 PM Lydia Pintscher <
lydia.pintsc...@wikimedia.de> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 2:15 PM Lydia Pintscher <
> lydia.pintsc...@wikimedia.de> wrote:
>
>> Hey everyone :)
>>
>> We'll be doing another office hour on IRC for all things Wikidata on
>> April 12th at 4PM UTC.
>> https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?hour=16=00=0=12=04=2016
>>  has
>> your timezone.
>> I'll give an overview of what's been happening over the past 3 months and
>> give an update on what's coming up. We'll have time for questions as well.
>> If you have any topics you'd like to bring up please let me know. As always
>> there will be logs for people who can't attend.
>> Hope to see many of you there.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Lydia
>>
>
>
> Hey :)
>
> Just a quick reminder that this is in about 1 hour. We'll meet in
> #wikimedia-office on freenode IRC.
>


The log is now available at
http://bots.wmflabs.org/~wm-bot/logs/%23wikimedia-office/20160412.txt for
anyone who couldn't make it.


Cheers
Lydia
-- 
Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher
Product Manager for Wikidata

Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24
10963 Berlin
www.wikimedia.de

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.

Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
___
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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] next Wikidata office hour on IRC

[Lydia Pintscher]

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 2:15 PM Lydia Pintscher <
lydia.pintsc...@wikimedia.de> wrote:

> Hey everyone :)
>
> We'll be doing another office hour on IRC for all things Wikidata on April
> 12th at 4PM UTC.
> https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?hour=16=00=0=12=04=2016
>  has
> your timezone.
> I'll give an overview of what's been happening over the past 3 months and
> give an update on what's coming up. We'll have time for questions as well.
> If you have any topics you'd like to bring up please let me know. As always
> there will be logs for people who can't attend.
> Hope to see many of you there.
>
> Cheers
> Lydia
>


Hey :)

Just a quick reminder that this is in about 1 hour. We'll meet in
#wikimedia-office on freenode IRC.


Cheers
Lydia
-- 
Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher
Product Manager for Wikidata

Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24
10963 Berlin
www.wikimedia.de

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.

Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [recent changes]

[Fæ]

When a board member has special 'enthusiasms', it can be normal for
the board to seek their view as an inside expert, however it can
easily turn out to be a mistake if a trustee vote includes their vote,
especially if the community wishes to see trustee voting becoming more
transparent.

This is because the same trustees with special passions and interests
for a resolution may be hard to stand against for fellow trustees who
have neither special interest nor knowledge for a resolution, beyond
what is presented to the board at that time. Just having a especially
interested trustee participate in the vote may sway the outcome far
more than their single numerical vote. It is fairly obvious that
trustees like Jimmy with interests in Wikia, ex-trustee Denny with
interests in Google or ex-trustee James with interests in the medical
field, have interests to be managed and should be a reason for them to
recuse from votes touching on those same interests, or where they may
be later *seen* to touch on those interests. This should not be a
reason for the board to fail to benefit from expert knowledge that
some trustees happen to have.

Of course there is *plenty* of outside expertize amongst the Wikimedia
community that could be provided to the board at minimal cost,
especially if video conferencing were used, rather than flying people
around the world to talk. I find it sad that we see few of these types
of board presentations being solicited from expert and enthusiastic
community members, with a default of using WMF employees or
consultants to give board presentations (based on what we see from the
ridiculously sketchy board meeting minutes). Getting varying views
from non-Trustee experts in snapshot/10 minute briefing presentations
would be an excellent way for Trustees in Denny's position to
recommend sources of expert information while avoiding being
compromised, and remaining comfortable that the issues and benefits
for improvements to the WMF strategy, and best use of funding, were
being properly explored.

Fae


On 12 April 2016 at 12:30, Anthony Cole  wrote:
> Hi Ting.
>
> You say, "...a board member should not foster his or her own pet projects."
>
> It's just one vote out of ten (normally). If they can't persuade their
> colleagues, the motion won't pass.
>
> In the case of community-selected trustees, they were put there by people
> who know their enthusiasms and expect them to do what they can to allow
> those initiatives to flourish, and who trust them not to do that at the
> expense of the overall shared mission.
>
> Shouldn't a discussion affecting an initiative include the very trustee who
> is (likely) the best informed and best placed to explain things to the
> other trustees?
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 7:09 PM, Ting Chen  wrote:
>
>> Hello Anthony,
>>
>> in my opinion a board member should not foster his or her own pet
>> projects. The WMF board members are leading a global movement. When
>> everyone of them are fosting their own pet projects other projects may
>> suffer. The board members should be beyond the single projects and give
>> directions, like do more for the small projects, instead of single out the
>> Swahili Wikipedia (just as an example).
>>
>> This does not mean that the board members should not continue their
>> involvement in the projects, but then as community members, not having more
>> power or say than other community members.
>>
>> Greetings
>> Ting
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 04/12/2016 um 01:03 PM schrieb Anthony Cole:
>>
>>> Ugh. Sorry. I mean: should involvement in and advocacy for a particular
>>> movement initiative disqualify one from voting on motions related to that
>>> initiative?
>>>
>>> Anthony Cole
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Anthony Cole 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> jytdog, regarding:

 "Going forward, there should be a) a clear disclosure of relevant
 outside interests
 and b) a pre-agreed COI management plan where those interests conflict
 with a Trustee's obligations, before Trustees formally step into the
 role."

 When you say "relevant outside interests" what do you mean?

 I'd love to hear Denny's thoughts on this. Also, Denny, I'm interested to
 hear you were concerned about a conflict of interest with Wikidata. I'm
 just now rethinking the question of internal conflicts of interest. Are
 they necessarily a bad thing? You were elected by a community who, I
 think,
 expected you to create an environment where Wikidata could flourish. Is
 it
 a bad thing to have advocates for movement initiatives on the board?

 Anthony Cole


 On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Anthony Cole 
 wrote:

 Good points worth repeating, though, jytdog.
>
> We're learning as we go here. COI is notoriously difficult to anticipate
> and manage. None of us, that I'm aware 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [recent changes]

[Ting Chen]

Hello Anthony,

in my opinion, the board should not discuss individual projects, at 
least when I was on the board we decided not to. The board looks at 
policies that are more general and global. The resolutions that the 
board issued, which do impact the projects, are (or at least were) 
always formulated in a way that it applies to all projects. And they 
always only state the principle, and let the individual projects room to 
implement the principles into their own policies.


That said. Naturally every single board member bring their own 
experience, and in discussions we did use our individual experiences to 
explain our position. But when we formulated a resolution or made a 
decision we always tried to avoid to set up a principle or a decision on 
one project.


There is no clear boundary for COI, as someone else had already said. 
Everyone of us has our own personal red lines. I am not someone who 
would comment other people's red line. Actually generally I tend to 
accept the fact that other people have a different red line.


I would like to give you an example to show you my red line: Back in 
2009 when we were working on the strategic planning I decided to not be 
member of the workshop that deal with China, instead of that I took part 
in the movement roles workshop. And I didn't take part on the discussion 
when it came to the decision if China should be a hot spot or now. The 
reason for that is exactly because as a board member I may be put a 
special emphasis on the topic China, and there is potentially a bias of 
my opinion which may lead the Foundation do a wrong decision (in that 
case it may mean waste a few tens of thousands of dollars). Naturally 
there were community members who were not happy with this. And there 
were some critics when the board decided in favor of India, Africa and 
Middle East. I was quite confident that there were many people who can 
better examing China than me, and looking back, it was a right decision.


Generally speaking, my principle is if there is a possible COI then 
avoid it. Defending a COI suspect (even if it is wrong) costs more 
energy than avoid get into that situation.


Beside of that, you also need to think that the best involved and 
engaged trustee may also have a single point of view, which may differ 
with the rest of that community. I know that in many things other zh-wk 
community member have a different opinion than me.



Greetings
Ting



Am 04/12/2016 um 01:30 PM schrieb Anthony Cole:

Hi Ting.

You say, "...a board member should not foster his or her own pet projects."

It's just one vote out of ten (normally). If they can't persuade their
colleagues, the motion won't pass.

In the case of community-selected trustees, they were put there by people
who know their enthusiasms and expect them to do what they can to allow
those initiatives to flourish, and who trust them not to do that at the
expense of the overall shared mission.

Shouldn't a discussion affecting an initiative include the very trustee who
is (likely) the best informed and best placed to explain things to the
other trustees?

Anthony Cole


On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 7:09 PM, Ting Chen  wrote:


Hello Anthony,

in my opinion a board member should not foster his or her own pet
projects. The WMF board members are leading a global movement. When
everyone of them are fosting their own pet projects other projects may
suffer. The board members should be beyond the single projects and give
directions, like do more for the small projects, instead of single out the
Swahili Wikipedia (just as an example).

This does not mean that the board members should not continue their
involvement in the projects, but then as community members, not having more
power or say than other community members.

Greetings
Ting




Am 04/12/2016 um 01:03 PM schrieb Anthony Cole:


Ugh. Sorry. I mean: should involvement in and advocacy for a particular
movement initiative disqualify one from voting on motions related to that
initiative?

Anthony Cole


On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Anthony Cole 
wrote:

jytdog, regarding:

"Going forward, there should be a) a clear disclosure of relevant
outside interests
and b) a pre-agreed COI management plan where those interests conflict
with a Trustee's obligations, before Trustees formally step into the
role."

When you say "relevant outside interests" what do you mean?

I'd love to hear Denny's thoughts on this. Also, Denny, I'm interested to
hear you were concerned about a conflict of interest with Wikidata. I'm
just now rethinking the question of internal conflicts of interest. Are
they necessarily a bad thing? You were elected by a community who, I
think,
expected you to create an environment where Wikidata could flourish. Is
it
a bad thing to have advocates for movement initiatives on the board?

Anthony Cole


On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Anthony Cole 
wrote:

Good points worth repeating, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [recent changes]

[Anthony Cole]

Hi Ting.

You say, "...a board member should not foster his or her own pet projects."

It's just one vote out of ten (normally). If they can't persuade their
colleagues, the motion won't pass.

In the case of community-selected trustees, they were put there by people
who know their enthusiasms and expect them to do what they can to allow
those initiatives to flourish, and who trust them not to do that at the
expense of the overall shared mission.

Shouldn't a discussion affecting an initiative include the very trustee who
is (likely) the best informed and best placed to explain things to the
other trustees?

Anthony Cole


On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 7:09 PM, Ting Chen  wrote:

> Hello Anthony,
>
> in my opinion a board member should not foster his or her own pet
> projects. The WMF board members are leading a global movement. When
> everyone of them are fosting their own pet projects other projects may
> suffer. The board members should be beyond the single projects and give
> directions, like do more for the small projects, instead of single out the
> Swahili Wikipedia (just as an example).
>
> This does not mean that the board members should not continue their
> involvement in the projects, but then as community members, not having more
> power or say than other community members.
>
> Greetings
> Ting
>
>
>
>
> Am 04/12/2016 um 01:03 PM schrieb Anthony Cole:
>
>> Ugh. Sorry. I mean: should involvement in and advocacy for a particular
>> movement initiative disqualify one from voting on motions related to that
>> initiative?
>>
>> Anthony Cole
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Anthony Cole 
>> wrote:
>>
>> jytdog, regarding:
>>>
>>> "Going forward, there should be a) a clear disclosure of relevant
>>> outside interests
>>> and b) a pre-agreed COI management plan where those interests conflict
>>> with a Trustee's obligations, before Trustees formally step into the
>>> role."
>>>
>>> When you say "relevant outside interests" what do you mean?
>>>
>>> I'd love to hear Denny's thoughts on this. Also, Denny, I'm interested to
>>> hear you were concerned about a conflict of interest with Wikidata. I'm
>>> just now rethinking the question of internal conflicts of interest. Are
>>> they necessarily a bad thing? You were elected by a community who, I
>>> think,
>>> expected you to create an environment where Wikidata could flourish. Is
>>> it
>>> a bad thing to have advocates for movement initiatives on the board?
>>>
>>> Anthony Cole
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Anthony Cole 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Good points worth repeating, though, jytdog.

 We're learning as we go here. COI is notoriously difficult to anticipate
 and manage. None of us, that I'm aware of, thought about - or at least
 discussed - the implications of his Google role when he ran for the
 board,
 and when it became too onerous to manage, Denny had the wisdom to step
 away.

 He's an enormous asset to this movement; as I said, we're lucky to have
 him, and I'm very grateful for all he's contributed.

 Anthony Cole


 On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 4:44 PM, jytdog  wrote:

 This is kind of frustrating.  Lila (speaking for the board) in her "Why
> we
> changed
> <
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Lila_Tretikov%27s_statement_on_Why_we%27ve_changed
>
>> "
>>
> message, identified falling page views (creating a threat of falling
> donation revenue) caused by folks like Google repurposing our content
> as
> an
> "existential challenge".I am not sure I agree with that, but the
> WMF
> Board and the former ED said that.  (Jimmy confirmed that on his Talk
> page,
> too)
>
> The key thing about Denny's COI issues as they unfolded, is that he was
> surprised and frustrated about the problems managing his COI ended up
> causing - so much so that he quit.  That stuff actually happened.
> Debating
> what his COI was or whether it mattered is really beside the point...
> and
> all murky because whatever management plan was worked out - whatever
> areas
> actually were identified as problematic - we do not know, as that plan
> wasn't made public.
>
> Going forward, there should be a) a clear disclosure of relevant
> outside
> interests and b) a pre-agreed COI management plan where those interests
> conflict with a Trustee's obligations, before Trustees formally step
> into
> the role.  What happened with Denny doesn't have to happen again.  That
> seems to be the key issue looking forward.
>
> I'm repeating myself, and will stop now.
>
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 2:28 AM, Anthony Cole 
> wrote:
>
> I agree with all of that, MZ. As to your questions:
>>
>> "Shouldn't we be applauding Google and others 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [recent changes]

[Ting Chen]

Hello Anthony,

in my opinion a board member should not foster his or her own pet 
projects. The WMF board members are leading a global movement. When 
everyone of them are fosting their own pet projects other projects may 
suffer. The board members should be beyond the single projects and give 
directions, like do more for the small projects, instead of single out 
the Swahili Wikipedia (just as an example).


This does not mean that the board members should not continue their 
involvement in the projects, but then as community members, not having 
more power or say than other community members.


Greetings
Ting



Am 04/12/2016 um 01:03 PM schrieb Anthony Cole:

Ugh. Sorry. I mean: should involvement in and advocacy for a particular
movement initiative disqualify one from voting on motions related to that
initiative?

Anthony Cole


On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Anthony Cole  wrote:


jytdog, regarding:

"Going forward, there should be a) a clear disclosure of relevant outside 
interests
and b) a pre-agreed COI management plan where those interests conflict
with a Trustee's obligations, before Trustees formally step into the
role."

When you say "relevant outside interests" what do you mean?

I'd love to hear Denny's thoughts on this. Also, Denny, I'm interested to
hear you were concerned about a conflict of interest with Wikidata. I'm
just now rethinking the question of internal conflicts of interest. Are
they necessarily a bad thing? You were elected by a community who, I think,
expected you to create an environment where Wikidata could flourish. Is it
a bad thing to have advocates for movement initiatives on the board?

Anthony Cole


On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Anthony Cole  wrote:


Good points worth repeating, though, jytdog.

We're learning as we go here. COI is notoriously difficult to anticipate
and manage. None of us, that I'm aware of, thought about - or at least
discussed - the implications of his Google role when he ran for the board,
and when it became too onerous to manage, Denny had the wisdom to step
away.

He's an enormous asset to this movement; as I said, we're lucky to have
him, and I'm very grateful for all he's contributed.

Anthony Cole


On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 4:44 PM, jytdog  wrote:


This is kind of frustrating.  Lila (speaking for the board) in her "Why
we
changed
<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Lila_Tretikov%27s_statement_on_Why_we%27ve_changed

"

message, identified falling page views (creating a threat of falling
donation revenue) caused by folks like Google repurposing our content as
an
"existential challenge".I am not sure I agree with that, but the WMF
Board and the former ED said that.  (Jimmy confirmed that on his Talk
page,
too)

The key thing about Denny's COI issues as they unfolded, is that he was
surprised and frustrated about the problems managing his COI ended up
causing - so much so that he quit.  That stuff actually happened.
Debating
what his COI was or whether it mattered is really beside the point... and
all murky because whatever management plan was worked out - whatever
areas
actually were identified as problematic - we do not know, as that plan
wasn't made public.

Going forward, there should be a) a clear disclosure of relevant outside
interests and b) a pre-agreed COI management plan where those interests
conflict with a Trustee's obligations, before Trustees formally step into
the role.  What happened with Denny doesn't have to happen again.  That
seems to be the key issue looking forward.

I'm repeating myself, and will stop now.

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 2:28 AM, Anthony Cole 
wrote:


I agree with all of that, MZ. As to your questions:

"Shouldn't we be applauding Google and others for helping us share our
knowledge with the world?"

Yes.

"What size do you think the Wikimedia Foundation should be in terms of
yearly
budget and number of full-time employees? How much bigger or smaller

should

the Wikimedia Foundation be than other Wikimedia chapters?"

It depends on what we want them to do.

"...are you sure that we're all agreed that this [Google impacting
Wikipedia's
page views and the ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers]

is

problematic?"

I'm less concerned than many, and I'm sure others are unconcerned.

"If Google causes page views to go down and our sites are directly hit
less frequently,
that actually saves us money, doesn't it?"

If our page views drop by 50% and this halves our fundraising

capacity, I

doubt that would be offset by the saved hosting costs. But I'm no

expert on

these things.


Anthony Cole


On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:46 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:


Anthony Cole wrote:

Google's "info boxes" and their answers at the top of their results,

we're

all agreed now, I think, are impacting Wikipedia's page views and,
consequently, our ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers.

Google and 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [recent changes]

[Anthony Cole]

Ugh. Sorry. I mean: should involvement in and advocacy for a particular
movement initiative disqualify one from voting on motions related to that
initiative?

Anthony Cole


On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Anthony Cole  wrote:

> jytdog, regarding:
>
> "Going forward, there should be a) a clear disclosure of relevant outside 
> interests
> and b) a pre-agreed COI management plan where those interests conflict
> with a Trustee's obligations, before Trustees formally step into the
> role."
>
> When you say "relevant outside interests" what do you mean?
>
> I'd love to hear Denny's thoughts on this. Also, Denny, I'm interested to
> hear you were concerned about a conflict of interest with Wikidata. I'm
> just now rethinking the question of internal conflicts of interest. Are
> they necessarily a bad thing? You were elected by a community who, I think,
> expected you to create an environment where Wikidata could flourish. Is it
> a bad thing to have advocates for movement initiatives on the board?
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Anthony Cole  wrote:
>
>> Good points worth repeating, though, jytdog.
>>
>> We're learning as we go here. COI is notoriously difficult to anticipate
>> and manage. None of us, that I'm aware of, thought about - or at least
>> discussed - the implications of his Google role when he ran for the board,
>> and when it became too onerous to manage, Denny had the wisdom to step
>> away.
>>
>> He's an enormous asset to this movement; as I said, we're lucky to have
>> him, and I'm very grateful for all he's contributed.
>>
>> Anthony Cole
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 4:44 PM, jytdog  wrote:
>>
>>> This is kind of frustrating.  Lila (speaking for the board) in her "Why
>>> we
>>> changed
>>> <
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Lila_Tretikov%27s_statement_on_Why_we%27ve_changed
>>> >"
>>> message, identified falling page views (creating a threat of falling
>>> donation revenue) caused by folks like Google repurposing our content as
>>> an
>>> "existential challenge".I am not sure I agree with that, but the WMF
>>> Board and the former ED said that.  (Jimmy confirmed that on his Talk
>>> page,
>>> too)
>>>
>>> The key thing about Denny's COI issues as they unfolded, is that he was
>>> surprised and frustrated about the problems managing his COI ended up
>>> causing - so much so that he quit.  That stuff actually happened.
>>> Debating
>>> what his COI was or whether it mattered is really beside the point... and
>>> all murky because whatever management plan was worked out - whatever
>>> areas
>>> actually were identified as problematic - we do not know, as that plan
>>> wasn't made public.
>>>
>>> Going forward, there should be a) a clear disclosure of relevant outside
>>> interests and b) a pre-agreed COI management plan where those interests
>>> conflict with a Trustee's obligations, before Trustees formally step into
>>> the role.  What happened with Denny doesn't have to happen again.  That
>>> seems to be the key issue looking forward.
>>>
>>> I'm repeating myself, and will stop now.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 2:28 AM, Anthony Cole 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > I agree with all of that, MZ. As to your questions:
>>> >
>>> > "Shouldn't we be applauding Google and others for helping us share our
>>> > knowledge with the world?"
>>> >
>>> > Yes.
>>> >
>>> > "What size do you think the Wikimedia Foundation should be in terms of
>>> > yearly
>>> > budget and number of full-time employees? How much bigger or smaller
>>> should
>>> > the Wikimedia Foundation be than other Wikimedia chapters?"
>>> >
>>> > It depends on what we want them to do.
>>> >
>>> > "...are you sure that we're all agreed that this [Google impacting
>>> > Wikipedia's
>>> > page views and the ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers]
>>> is
>>> > problematic?"
>>> >
>>> > I'm less concerned than many, and I'm sure others are unconcerned.
>>> >
>>> > "If Google causes page views to go down and our sites are directly hit
>>> > less frequently,
>>> > that actually saves us money, doesn't it?"
>>> >
>>> > If our page views drop by 50% and this halves our fundraising
>>> capacity, I
>>> > doubt that would be offset by the saved hosting costs. But I'm no
>>> expert on
>>> > these things.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Anthony Cole
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:46 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Anthony Cole wrote:
>>> > > >Google's "info boxes" and their answers at the top of their results,
>>> > we're
>>> > > >all agreed now, I think, are impacting Wikipedia's page views and,
>>> > > >consequently, our ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers.
>>> > >
>>> > > Google and others have a direct interest in their data being
>>> accurate and
>>> > > reliable. We already see that Google has a "report a correction"
>>> feature
>>> > > for some of its services. It's in both Wikimedia's 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [recent changes]

[Anthony Cole]

jytdog, regarding:

"Going forward, there should be a) a clear disclosure of relevant
outside interests
and b) a pre-agreed COI management plan where those interests conflict with
a Trustee's obligations, before Trustees formally step into the role."

When you say "relevant outside interests" what do you mean?

I'd love to hear Denny's thoughts on this. Also, Denny, I'm interested to
hear you were concerned about a conflict of interest with Wikidata. I'm
just now rethinking the question of internal conflicts of interest. Are
they necessarily a bad thing? You were elected by a community who, I think,
expected you to create an environment where Wikidata could flourish. Is it
a bad thing to have advocates for movement initiatives on the board?

Anthony Cole


On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Anthony Cole  wrote:

> Good points worth repeating, though, jytdog.
>
> We're learning as we go here. COI is notoriously difficult to anticipate
> and manage. None of us, that I'm aware of, thought about - or at least
> discussed - the implications of his Google role when he ran for the board,
> and when it became too onerous to manage, Denny had the wisdom to step
> away.
>
> He's an enormous asset to this movement; as I said, we're lucky to have
> him, and I'm very grateful for all he's contributed.
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 4:44 PM, jytdog  wrote:
>
>> This is kind of frustrating.  Lila (speaking for the board) in her "Why we
>> changed
>> <
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Lila_Tretikov%27s_statement_on_Why_we%27ve_changed
>> >"
>> message, identified falling page views (creating a threat of falling
>> donation revenue) caused by folks like Google repurposing our content as
>> an
>> "existential challenge".I am not sure I agree with that, but the WMF
>> Board and the former ED said that.  (Jimmy confirmed that on his Talk
>> page,
>> too)
>>
>> The key thing about Denny's COI issues as they unfolded, is that he was
>> surprised and frustrated about the problems managing his COI ended up
>> causing - so much so that he quit.  That stuff actually happened.
>> Debating
>> what his COI was or whether it mattered is really beside the point... and
>> all murky because whatever management plan was worked out - whatever areas
>> actually were identified as problematic - we do not know, as that plan
>> wasn't made public.
>>
>> Going forward, there should be a) a clear disclosure of relevant outside
>> interests and b) a pre-agreed COI management plan where those interests
>> conflict with a Trustee's obligations, before Trustees formally step into
>> the role.  What happened with Denny doesn't have to happen again.  That
>> seems to be the key issue looking forward.
>>
>> I'm repeating myself, and will stop now.
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 2:28 AM, Anthony Cole 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I agree with all of that, MZ. As to your questions:
>> >
>> > "Shouldn't we be applauding Google and others for helping us share our
>> > knowledge with the world?"
>> >
>> > Yes.
>> >
>> > "What size do you think the Wikimedia Foundation should be in terms of
>> > yearly
>> > budget and number of full-time employees? How much bigger or smaller
>> should
>> > the Wikimedia Foundation be than other Wikimedia chapters?"
>> >
>> > It depends on what we want them to do.
>> >
>> > "...are you sure that we're all agreed that this [Google impacting
>> > Wikipedia's
>> > page views and the ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers] is
>> > problematic?"
>> >
>> > I'm less concerned than many, and I'm sure others are unconcerned.
>> >
>> > "If Google causes page views to go down and our sites are directly hit
>> > less frequently,
>> > that actually saves us money, doesn't it?"
>> >
>> > If our page views drop by 50% and this halves our fundraising capacity,
>> I
>> > doubt that would be offset by the saved hosting costs. But I'm no
>> expert on
>> > these things.
>> >
>> >
>> > Anthony Cole
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:46 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:
>> >
>> > > Anthony Cole wrote:
>> > > >Google's "info boxes" and their answers at the top of their results,
>> > we're
>> > > >all agreed now, I think, are impacting Wikipedia's page views and,
>> > > >consequently, our ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers.
>> > >
>> > > Google and others have a direct interest in their data being accurate
>> and
>> > > reliable. We already see that Google has a "report a correction"
>> feature
>> > > for some of its services. It's in both Wikimedia's interest and
>> re-users'
>> > > interest for the underlying data source to be update-to-date and
>> correct.
>> > >
>> > > Our mission is to spread free educational content to the world and we
>> > make
>> > > our data available for re-use for this purpose. Shouldn't we be
>> > applauding
>> > > Google and others for helping us share our knowledge with the world?
>> > >
>> > > As far as threats 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [recent changes]

[Anthony Cole]

Good points worth repeating, though, jytdog.

We're learning as we go here. COI is notoriously difficult to anticipate
and manage. None of us, that I'm aware of, thought about - or at least
discussed - the implications of his Google role when he ran for the board,
and when it became too onerous to manage, Denny had the wisdom to step
away.

He's an enormous asset to this movement; as I said, we're lucky to have
him, and I'm very grateful for all he's contributed.

Anthony Cole


On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 4:44 PM, jytdog  wrote:

> This is kind of frustrating.  Lila (speaking for the board) in her "Why we
> changed
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Lila_Tretikov%27s_statement_on_Why_we%27ve_changed
> >"
> message, identified falling page views (creating a threat of falling
> donation revenue) caused by folks like Google repurposing our content as an
> "existential challenge".I am not sure I agree with that, but the WMF
> Board and the former ED said that.  (Jimmy confirmed that on his Talk page,
> too)
>
> The key thing about Denny's COI issues as they unfolded, is that he was
> surprised and frustrated about the problems managing his COI ended up
> causing - so much so that he quit.  That stuff actually happened.  Debating
> what his COI was or whether it mattered is really beside the point... and
> all murky because whatever management plan was worked out - whatever areas
> actually were identified as problematic - we do not know, as that plan
> wasn't made public.
>
> Going forward, there should be a) a clear disclosure of relevant outside
> interests and b) a pre-agreed COI management plan where those interests
> conflict with a Trustee's obligations, before Trustees formally step into
> the role.  What happened with Denny doesn't have to happen again.  That
> seems to be the key issue looking forward.
>
> I'm repeating myself, and will stop now.
>
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 2:28 AM, Anthony Cole  wrote:
>
> > I agree with all of that, MZ. As to your questions:
> >
> > "Shouldn't we be applauding Google and others for helping us share our
> > knowledge with the world?"
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > "What size do you think the Wikimedia Foundation should be in terms of
> > yearly
> > budget and number of full-time employees? How much bigger or smaller
> should
> > the Wikimedia Foundation be than other Wikimedia chapters?"
> >
> > It depends on what we want them to do.
> >
> > "...are you sure that we're all agreed that this [Google impacting
> > Wikipedia's
> > page views and the ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers] is
> > problematic?"
> >
> > I'm less concerned than many, and I'm sure others are unconcerned.
> >
> > "If Google causes page views to go down and our sites are directly hit
> > less frequently,
> > that actually saves us money, doesn't it?"
> >
> > If our page views drop by 50% and this halves our fundraising capacity, I
> > doubt that would be offset by the saved hosting costs. But I'm no expert
> on
> > these things.
> >
> >
> > Anthony Cole
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:46 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:
> >
> > > Anthony Cole wrote:
> > > >Google's "info boxes" and their answers at the top of their results,
> > we're
> > > >all agreed now, I think, are impacting Wikipedia's page views and,
> > > >consequently, our ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers.
> > >
> > > Google and others have a direct interest in their data being accurate
> and
> > > reliable. We already see that Google has a "report a correction"
> feature
> > > for some of its services. It's in both Wikimedia's interest and
> re-users'
> > > interest for the underlying data source to be update-to-date and
> correct.
> > >
> > > Our mission is to spread free educational content to the world and we
> > make
> > > our data available for re-use for this purpose. Shouldn't we be
> > applauding
> > > Google and others for helping us share our knowledge with the world?
> > >
> > > As far as threats to direct-to-user fund-raising go, I'd put
> > > organizational instability ahead of Google at the moment. The Wikimedia
> > > Foundation has repeatedly been in the news lately for ongoing
> management
> > > issues, both in its executive team and in its board of trustees.
> > >
> > > What size do you think the Wikimedia Foundation should be in terms of
> > > yearly budget and number of full-time employees? How much bigger or
> > > smaller should the Wikimedia Foundation be than other Wikimedia
> chapters?
> > >
> > > Even if we accepted your premise that Google was impacting Wikipedia's
> > > page views and the ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers
> > > (citations needed, to be sure), are you sure that we're all agreed that
> > > this is problematic? If others re-using our content has a side effect
> > > of reducing donations to Wikimedia Foundation Inc., donations which are
> > > received through questionable and increasingly obnoxious 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [recent changes]

[jytdog]

This is kind of frustrating.  Lila (speaking for the board) in her "Why we
changed
"
message, identified falling page views (creating a threat of falling
donation revenue) caused by folks like Google repurposing our content as an
"existential challenge".I am not sure I agree with that, but the WMF
Board and the former ED said that.  (Jimmy confirmed that on his Talk page,
too)

The key thing about Denny's COI issues as they unfolded, is that he was
surprised and frustrated about the problems managing his COI ended up
causing - so much so that he quit.  That stuff actually happened.  Debating
what his COI was or whether it mattered is really beside the point... and
all murky because whatever management plan was worked out - whatever areas
actually were identified as problematic - we do not know, as that plan
wasn't made public.

Going forward, there should be a) a clear disclosure of relevant outside
interests and b) a pre-agreed COI management plan where those interests
conflict with a Trustee's obligations, before Trustees formally step into
the role.  What happened with Denny doesn't have to happen again.  That
seems to be the key issue looking forward.

I'm repeating myself, and will stop now.

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 2:28 AM, Anthony Cole  wrote:

> I agree with all of that, MZ. As to your questions:
>
> "Shouldn't we be applauding Google and others for helping us share our
> knowledge with the world?"
>
> Yes.
>
> "What size do you think the Wikimedia Foundation should be in terms of
> yearly
> budget and number of full-time employees? How much bigger or smaller should
> the Wikimedia Foundation be than other Wikimedia chapters?"
>
> It depends on what we want them to do.
>
> "...are you sure that we're all agreed that this [Google impacting
> Wikipedia's
> page views and the ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers] is
> problematic?"
>
> I'm less concerned than many, and I'm sure others are unconcerned.
>
> "If Google causes page views to go down and our sites are directly hit
> less frequently,
> that actually saves us money, doesn't it?"
>
> If our page views drop by 50% and this halves our fundraising capacity, I
> doubt that would be offset by the saved hosting costs. But I'm no expert on
> these things.
>
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:46 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:
>
> > Anthony Cole wrote:
> > >Google's "info boxes" and their answers at the top of their results,
> we're
> > >all agreed now, I think, are impacting Wikipedia's page views and,
> > >consequently, our ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers.
> >
> > Google and others have a direct interest in their data being accurate and
> > reliable. We already see that Google has a "report a correction" feature
> > for some of its services. It's in both Wikimedia's interest and re-users'
> > interest for the underlying data source to be update-to-date and correct.
> >
> > Our mission is to spread free educational content to the world and we
> make
> > our data available for re-use for this purpose. Shouldn't we be
> applauding
> > Google and others for helping us share our knowledge with the world?
> >
> > As far as threats to direct-to-user fund-raising go, I'd put
> > organizational instability ahead of Google at the moment. The Wikimedia
> > Foundation has repeatedly been in the news lately for ongoing management
> > issues, both in its executive team and in its board of trustees.
> >
> > What size do you think the Wikimedia Foundation should be in terms of
> > yearly budget and number of full-time employees? How much bigger or
> > smaller should the Wikimedia Foundation be than other Wikimedia chapters?
> >
> > Even if we accepted your premise that Google was impacting Wikipedia's
> > page views and the ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers
> > (citations needed, to be sure), are you sure that we're all agreed that
> > this is problematic? If others re-using our content has a side effect
> > of reducing donations to Wikimedia Foundation Inc., donations which are
> > received through questionable and increasingly obnoxious on-site
> > advertisements, you will not find universal agreement that this donor
> > reduction would be terrible. As others have argued previously, small and
> > recurring donations are a means of providing accountability for the
> > entities entrusted with these monetary donations. If potential donors no
> > longer trust the Wikimedia Foundation to manage and distribute this
> > money, no longer donating financially is practical and wise.
> >
> > If Google causes page views to go down and our sites are directly hit
> less
> > frequently, that actually saves us money, doesn't it? We're theoretically
> > then off-loading some of our hosting costs to Google, Facebook, and
> > others who are downloading and re-uploading our data to the Web, exactly
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [recent changes]

[Anthony Cole]

I agree with all of that, MZ. As to your questions:

"Shouldn't we be applauding Google and others for helping us share our
knowledge with the world?"

Yes.

"What size do you think the Wikimedia Foundation should be in terms of yearly
budget and number of full-time employees? How much bigger or smaller should
the Wikimedia Foundation be than other Wikimedia chapters?"

It depends on what we want them to do.

"...are you sure that we're all agreed that this [Google impacting
Wikipedia's
page views and the ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers] is
problematic?"

I'm less concerned than many, and I'm sure others are unconcerned.

"If Google causes page views to go down and our sites are directly hit
less frequently,
that actually saves us money, doesn't it?"

If our page views drop by 50% and this halves our fundraising capacity, I
doubt that would be offset by the saved hosting costs. But I'm no expert on
these things.


Anthony Cole


On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:46 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:

> Anthony Cole wrote:
> >Google's "info boxes" and their answers at the top of their results, we're
> >all agreed now, I think, are impacting Wikipedia's page views and,
> >consequently, our ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers.
>
> Google and others have a direct interest in their data being accurate and
> reliable. We already see that Google has a "report a correction" feature
> for some of its services. It's in both Wikimedia's interest and re-users'
> interest for the underlying data source to be update-to-date and correct.
>
> Our mission is to spread free educational content to the world and we make
> our data available for re-use for this purpose. Shouldn't we be applauding
> Google and others for helping us share our knowledge with the world?
>
> As far as threats to direct-to-user fund-raising go, I'd put
> organizational instability ahead of Google at the moment. The Wikimedia
> Foundation has repeatedly been in the news lately for ongoing management
> issues, both in its executive team and in its board of trustees.
>
> What size do you think the Wikimedia Foundation should be in terms of
> yearly budget and number of full-time employees? How much bigger or
> smaller should the Wikimedia Foundation be than other Wikimedia chapters?
>
> Even if we accepted your premise that Google was impacting Wikipedia's
> page views and the ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers
> (citations needed, to be sure), are you sure that we're all agreed that
> this is problematic? If others re-using our content has a side effect
> of reducing donations to Wikimedia Foundation Inc., donations which are
> received through questionable and increasingly obnoxious on-site
> advertisements, you will not find universal agreement that this donor
> reduction would be terrible. As others have argued previously, small and
> recurring donations are a means of providing accountability for the
> entities entrusted with these monetary donations. If potential donors no
> longer trust the Wikimedia Foundation to manage and distribute this
> money, no longer donating financially is practical and wise.
>
> If Google causes page views to go down and our sites are directly hit less
> frequently, that actually saves us money, doesn't it? We're theoretically
> then off-loading some of our hosting costs to Google, Facebook, and
> others who are downloading and re-uploading our data to the Web, exactly
> as we mandated that anyone be able to do. With multiple copies of the data
> on the Web, we're better ensuring that the content lives on in perpetuity.
>
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> 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,
> 
>
___
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,