Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2016 Strategic Approaches Report

[Legoktm]

Hi,

On 02/26/2016 10:25 PM, Patrick Earley wrote:
> A summary report of the first stage of community consultation for the 2016
> Wikimedia Foundation strategy process has uploaded to Commons in PDF
> format.[1]

Two quick questions:
1. How was a user's "home wiki" determined?
2. Page 29 says that 17 users have 0 edits. AIUI you had to edit the
wiki to participate, so how do they have 0 edits?


> [1]
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2016_Strategic_Approaches_Report.pdf

Thanks,
-- Legoktm

___
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 it means to be a high-tech organization

[Florence Devouard]

I am not a lawyer so would not have the correct legal words to explain 
this. But roughly... the legal responsibility is not the same when you 
are simply "hosting" content published by others, as opposed to 
"publishing with an editorial role".


For example, when you are simply a host provider, you can not be held 
responsible if you host a content which is defaming a person as long as 
you were not aware of it. Once the host is informed of the existence of 
the illegal content, it has an obligation of removing it.
And to a certain extent, the host has an obligation to make sure that 
steps are taken to avoid illegal content to land on its servers. This is 
one of the reason for the existence of terms of use. Or this can justify 
recommandations made by WMF to the community to be super careful when 
dealing with biographies of living people.


However, when the company is considered to have an editorial role (and 
this is very vague...), it may be considered legally responsible for any 
illegal content being on its servers. It is by default considered aware 
of the illegal content, and even worse... supporting its presence there.


The LAST thing we want is to have the WMF being recognized as having an 
editorial role.


Is that clearer ?

Flo


Le 27/02/16 18:50, Anthony Cole a écrit :

Florence, can you explain to me the actual risk the foundation  would be
exposed to if ir got involved in editorial decisions, please? Perhaps some
hypothetical examples would help.

Anthony Cole


On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Florence Devouard 
wrote:


Le 27/02/16 00:37, SarahSV a écrit :

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Pete Forsyth 

wrote:



However, if the core interest (as Sarah suggests) is to create paid
opportunities for those who excel at Wikipedia writing and editing, those
opportunities exist, and are increasingly available. The money doesn't
need
to flow through the WMF. In my opinion, it's much better if it doesn't;
the
WMF has enough political challenges to deal with, without getting
involved
in paid editing.


​Hi Pete,



I didn't intend to start a detailed discussion about paid editing in this
thread. I mentioned it only as one of the ways in which the Foundation
could help unpaid editors.

To address a few issues: the point of suggesting the Foundation as a
neutral broker is to remove the paid editor's COI. The editor would have
no
relationship with the people wanting the article, and would not be chosen
by them. The brief from the Foundation would be to produce a well-written,
reasonably comprehensive, neutral article about X, based on the best
sources available. (Someone referred to this as advertising. It would be
exactly the opposite.)

It needn't be the Foundation that organizes this. A third party might
work,
but the danger of a private company doing it is that they would rely on it
for profit, and therefore would be sensitive to pressure from companies.
The idea of the Foundation as broker is that it would always place the
core
policies above the desires of the client. Foundation involvement struck me
as the only way for an editor to be paid for an article without having a
COI.

I believe someone else suggested in this thread that it could be run the
way the Education Program is, as a related but separate body. That would
be
something you would be perfectly placed to lead, Pete, given your
experience as consultant, editor, and former Foundation employee.

Sarah
___
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,




Removing a COI is not the only issue at stake Sarah.

Would WMF get involved into such a process, it would also possibly change
its legal reponsibility. Right now, WMF does not get involved in the
editorial process, which allows to claim WMF is only hosting the content.
If WMF is somewhat involved in an editorial process which results in
paying the authors, then WMF might lose the "host" status.

Flo



___
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 mailing list, guidelines 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

[Chris Sherlock]

On 28 Feb 2016, at 6:51 PM, Erik Moeller  wrote:
> 
> Chris,
> 
> It's good to read you here and on WW. I think you're raising
> legitimate points that others have also sought progress on. I would
> just suggest one thing. Right now the Wikimedia Foundation is going
> through an ED transition, impacting nearly 300 staff members most
> immediately. The Board's primary responsibility at this point is to
> identify interim leadership, set that person up for success, and renew
> the Board's bridge to the staff. Painful as the situation with James
> Heilman is, it is legitimate to address it later, in a professional
> and civil manner.

I hear you, and I would normally agree. However, I’m not entirely sure that it 
is James that is the person you need to be directing your email to. 

Quite frankly, James’ reputation has been damaged by the words used by various 
Board members. Denny has, in my view, made certain allegations that James could 
not be trusted with confidential Wikimedia Foundation business, but there is no 
direct evidence this was ever, or has ever, been the case. 

The Jimmy sent an email to the mailing list:

> It was written at a time when there were efforts underway by Patricio to
> get James to agree to a joint statement.  It is an encouragement to
> James to be honest with the community about what happened.  It is not a
> full explanation of what happened - he already knew that.

And yet, when he was advised by James that in fact that effort was spearheaded 
by James and not Patricio, he turns around and states that he didn’t know as he 
wasn’t involved. Jimmy has just now written that it was the Wikimedia 
Foundation that “encouraged [him] to be honest with the community”. Jimmy is 
saying, yet again, that James is not honest and is a liar. It was not James who 
wrote that he "made a lot of noise about why he was dismissed which is utter 
and complete bullshit”, nor was it James who wrote that "I was unconvinced that 
it would be held in confidence”, with the clear implication that James was 
someone who leaked secrets. 

If civil discourse had have happened, and Board members were open and showed 
that they were able to give clear, factual information as to why he was 
removed, then this would of course not be a problem. It is very unfortunate 
that Jimmy and Denny made these statements, had they not made such inflammatory 
statements then I would of course bow to your request. It *has* been a very 
difficult time, and nobody is happy with this situation. Unfortunately, those 
who should have known better (in particular Jimmy) have as another member has 
described it, "been mauling each other politely in public” [1] this isn’t going 
to go away. 


> I would encourage James, Jimmy, Denny and others similarly to not
> shoot from the hip at this time. I know something about shooting from
> the hip, and it rarely moves things forward positively. ;-) This
> dispute may need a facilitator and a quiet, generous conversation to
> be settled amicably. Given that Dariusz voted to retain James, I trust
> James hasn't done anything so dastardly that this cannot be done.

Dariusz has been nothing short of amazing in this whole situation. I have 
nothing but the greatest of respect for him, he is a true diplomat, and IMO he 
seems to have a very deep understanding of not only the Foundation’s mission, 
but how Wikimedia works in totality. 

Shooting from the hip is definitely not what I’m aiming for though. I actually 
spent a long time working out what I wanted to say before I decided to wade 
into this mess by subscribing to this mailing list and sending that rather long 
open letter to the board. Of course, I know that’s not what you mean also, and 
I know that my timing is less than awesome, but given the things that have been 
written about James by people who should know better, they have now left us all 
in the rather unfortunate situation where these issues must be addressed before 
anything can be resolved at Board level. 

Now I’m not saying that quiet, generous conversation cannot happen. I know 
James well enough to know that throughout all of this there isn’t even a single 
email, communication, Facebook post or Wiki edit that can be said to have been 
unfair, unfeeling, ungenerous, rude or abusive. Not one, and I challenge anyone 
here to point me to such a contribution. James has, and continues to have, a 
great passion for Wikimedia and its central tenants of openness, transparency, 
civility and great work. 

Frankly, I’m amazed at James’ good grace. I have seen on Facebook certain 
people accuse him of not answering his phone when he was high on mountain 
slopes where there are limited opportunities to use the Internet, and VOIP is 
banned or else it uses up everyone’s bandwidth. I have now read the Founder of 
Wikipedia accuse him of being dishonest.

But, how, precisely, are we meant to take this? At the very least, surely those 
attacking James should 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What kind of ED would you like to see?

[Olaniyan Olushola]

This is wonderful,‎

I want a ED with following attributes:

1. Someone that is grounded in global politics ‎as it affects the operations of 
the movement. 
2. Some that has grown within the rank and file of the Wikimedia foundation .
3. ‎Someone that is strategic in implementation of policies 
4. Someone with foresight.
5. Someone that understand the dynamics of the movement, in term of different 
people, races, nationalities, ideas, believes and religions encompasses in 
wikimedia foundation.  
6. A global player in term of management of the diversity of the communities 
within the  Wikimedia Foundation. . 
7.Team player.
8. Someone that understand the impact of relationship between the BOT, staff of 
WMT and the community.
9. Peace maker and bold person. 
10. A creative minded ED 
11. Someone who has direct contact with the various communities.  
12. Someone which is not bias in term of taking decision.
13. Proactive

Olaniyan Olushola
Team Lead, WUGN
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
  Original Message  
From: Comet styles
Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2016 3:55 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Reply To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] What kind of ED would you like to see?

What kind of ED would you like to see?

* Someone who knows how the wiki works or atleast has basic knowledge
on how to "edit" wikis.

* Someone who wants to work on "building" the encyclopaedia, not the
bureaucratic side which our last ED was more focused on.

* Someone willing to work on improving the wiki by working on ways of
creating and increasing our contributor base, we are seriously lacking
in that sector..

* Someone who is so transparent that we could see right through them,
secrecy is what got us in this mess in the first place.

* Someone willing to ensure that the board, the staff and the
community work in 'unison' instead of the former 2 dictating their
policies, views and choices onto the latter.

* Someone willing to take the hard stance and do what's right by the
community instead of allowing the Board and other staff members to
dictate the job for them..

* Someone who puts the Community first ALWAYS. (we do not want another
issue like 'super-protect' ever again)


That is what I would like our ED to be ...we need an "Executive
DIRECTor", not an "Executive FOLLOWer"

On 2/27/16, Greg Grossmeier  wrote:
> 
>> Greg, agree 100%, but that's not how I understood the question and the
>> results of the staff survey. It seemed the staff expected the vision from
>> the ED/Management.
>
> I think you're misinterpreting.
>
> The agree/disagree statement was:
> "Senior leadership at Wikimedia have communicated a vision that
> motivates me" (7% agree)
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-01-06/News_and_notes#WMF_staff_morale
>
> See also, this quote in glassdoor, quoted in the Signpost as well:
> "The Executive Director unveils a new strategy every three months or
> so."
>
> So, it's not that people wanted the vision solely from the
> ED/Management, it's that they wanted a not constantly changing one.
>
> This is getting off topic, however.
>
> The point is, a vision does not need to come from one person, which you
> agree with. A good vision comes from many people working together
> collaboratively. Then sticking with it to see it through. Consistency is
> needed in an ED.
>
> Greg
>
> --
> | Greg Grossmeier GPG: B2FA 27B1 F7EB D327 6B8E |
> | identi.ca: @greg A18D 1138 8E47 FAC8 1C7D |
>
> ___
> 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,
> 


-- 
Cometstyles

___
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] I am going to San Francisco

[Andreas Kolbe]

Hey Chris, that's great! I didn't know that. I really should have checked
the [[Template:Citation needed]] edit history yesterday.

There you are:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Citation_needed=17662960

Well done!

Andreas

Andreas

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 3:37 AM, Chris Sherlock 
wrote:

>
> > On 28 Feb 2016, at 2:25 PM, Chris Sherlock 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On 28 Feb 2016, at 1:16 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Anna Stillwell <
> astillw...@wikimedia.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Jimmy,
> >>>
> >>> I have a ridiculous amount of respect for you and what you have
> >>> accomplished. I have watched from afar (I was living a lot in other
> >>> countries) as this radical experiment in trust *exploded* on to the
> world.
> >>> It blew my mind. And some of the early rules that were set were nothing
> >>> short of genius (e.g. NPOV, AGF and due weight come to mind). It was an
> >>> ideal experiment: an open frontier with simple, limited rule sets. And
> the
> >>> icing on the cake is that "citation needed" ended up not just
> influencing
> >>> how I thought about an encyclopedic text, but how I thought about
> >>> discussing ideas.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Anna,
> >>
> >> Hold on just a moment. :)
> >>
> >> It's important to understand that Jimmy Wales didn't accomplish the
> things
> >> you speak of alone.
> >>
>
> Funny you should say this :-) I’m the “inventor” of [citation needed].
>
> You know why I created [citation needed] on Wikipedia? Because the amount
> of ill-informed, badly thought out, ridiculous claims on Wikipedia articles
> were getting out hand. I started removing them to the talk page, but then
> that same person not only refused to explain where they got their
> information from, but would put the "fact" back into the article. This
> would then perpetuate incorrect information.
>
> One day I had an epiphany. I realised that you can't just argue with these
> people, you need to have a reverse citation system - you need to clearly
> mark out information that is dubious, ill-informed, the result of ingrained
> prejudice (often unconsciously so) and almost always inaccurate.
>
> At the same time, there needed to be a way of allowing controversial views
> and sometimes accurate but controversial facts be detailed on the
> encyclopaedia.
> There was only one way I could see to do it - use the same citation system
> that referenced sources but invert it to highlight information that needed
> a source. Hence I created citation needed (originally without the square
> brackets, whoever added them was a genius in their own right).
>
> Guess what? It worked. 11 years later, despite the many issues on
> Wikipedia, finding out the source of assumptions is no longer a problem.
> People can go to the citations and see where the factoid is documented, or
> whose opinion is being expressed. It allows ordinary people to judge the
> view being expressed more accurately, or to look at how the data was
> extrapolated, to understand how the academic study was conducted, or to
> verify that what is claimed is actually what the original claimant was
> indeed claiming.
>
> But I’d like to make the point: I could *never* have created [citation
> needed] if someone had not created the policy to cite sources, and hundreds
> and hundreds of other editors didn’t have a commitment to sources. So
> whilst [citation needed] was probably one of my best ideas (sometimes I
> wonder if this might not be an indictment to my creativitity!) I have to
> say that it was only possible because of the commitment by my peers on
> Wikipedia to making the project great, and because of those who came before
> me.
>
> And I’m happy to know that my good idea has literally influences and
> improved the critical faculties of so many people who use our encyclopedia
> today!
>
> Chris
> ___
> 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] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

[Andreas Kolbe]

Erik,

I have too many times read appeals to do something later, because now is
not a good time, or to move discussion to a sub-page, because it's too big
a topic, and so forth.

Invariably the result was that *nothing ever happened*.

Chris Sherlock is absolutely right that the board's performance with
respect to transparency sucks. What is posted in public is invariably
minimalist, incomplete, and weeks or months late.

The WMF board operates less transparently than the boards of many other
organisations – organisations that make far less of a song and dance about
their transparency than the WMF.

The time to address this is now.

Jimmy Wales styles himself as someone constantly pushing for transparency.
But the fact is that he has been on the board far longer than anyone else.
He has had more opportunity to influence its modus operandi than anyone
else.

It is difficult to square his repeated assertions that he is a mighty
advocate for openness and transparency with the fact that after more than a
decade on the board, he has failed to achieve any real transparency in the
manner the board conducts its business.

In a recent reply to a post by Milos here, Jimmy styled himself as a meek
board member who rarely speaks up. I don't think of Jimmy Wales as meek and
feeble – witness his recent statements, repeated about half a dozen times
on-wiki, that he "got" the entire board to release a statement saying that
James Heilman's dismissal had nothing to do with the latter's concerns
about transparency, along with his heated comments about James (which he
continues to defend). His conduct doesn't strike me as meek.

I think it is far more likely that if the board is conducting its business
in a non-transparent manner, and has done for as long as it has existed,
then that is because Jimmy Wales, more than anyone else, likes it that way.

Jimmy Wales' words and actions on the topic of transparency don't match.
For example, on the Transparency Gap page on Meta WMF staffer Adam Wight
recently said much the same as what Chris Sherlock has been saying here:
that the board does not publish detailed minutes.

When Adam suggested that portions of board meetings could be videotaped,
the first to agree ("A fine idea") was Sam Klein, a former
community-selected trustee who recalled this being done at another
foundation he was part of. The first to shoot the idea down was Jimmy Wales
("A poor idea").[1] Whether or not videotaping board sessions is a good
idea or not, it seems clear that doing so is more transparent than not
doing it.

There is a problem with board transparency, and there has been for many
years. If it's not addressed now, it will never be addressed.

Andreas

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_transparency_gap#Board_minutes

Andreas

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 7:51 AM, Erik Moeller  wrote:

> Chris,
>
> It's good to read you here and on WW. I think you're raising
> legitimate points that others have also sought progress on. I would
> just suggest one thing. Right now the Wikimedia Foundation is going
> through an ED transition, impacting nearly 300 staff members most
> immediately. The Board's primary responsibility at this point is to
> identify interim leadership, set that person up for success, and renew
> the Board's bridge to the staff. Painful as the situation with James
> Heilman is, it is legitimate to address it later, in a professional
> and civil manner.
>
> I would encourage James, Jimmy, Denny and others similarly to not
> shoot from the hip at this time. I know something about shooting from
> the hip, and it rarely moves things forward positively. ;-) This
> dispute may need a facilitator and a quiet, generous conversation to
> be settled amicably. Given that Dariusz voted to retain James, I trust
> James hasn't done anything so dastardly that this cannot be done.
>
> Everyone has had an incredibly long week. I am sure
> everyone--including Board members, who are all volunteers with other
> obligations--is still stressed right now about what's to come. People
> don't make the best decisions when they are too stressed, too tired,
> too busy. It's important that the Board is given some space to focus,
> to move forward one step at a time.
>
> I concur with your call for greater transparency and involvement of
> the Board in meaningful conversations with staff and volunteers. I
> also think other steps of Board reform, including better training for
> Board members, ought to be considered. I would love to hear more from
> recently appointed Board members like Guy and Kelly, to understand
> their perspective on the last few months. But all in due time.
>
> Warmly,
>
> Erik
>
> ___
> 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] Movement representation vs WMF board reform

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Ad Huikeshoven  wrote:

> B) Another way would be to use securepoll to (s)elect a number of people in
> a specific country by active editors in that country to accept certain
> representative roles, for example in two way communication between
> foundation and community about technology changes, but also to oversee
> processes to recruit new editors and onboard them. I imagine a (s)election
> process like the (s)election of community (s)elected BoT members, however
> with voters restricted to editors who are active in that country based on
> geo-ip. Maybe some countries are so big, that it would be wiser to do this
> at state level.
>
>
yup, that's effectively the idea of volunteer community liaisons
, I've been trying to
discuss for a while (in Mexico, Luis was quite receptive, but
understandably in the following months the idea did not receive the highest
priority).

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, 

[Wikimedia-l] Responsibility during the revolutionary times

[Milos Rancic]

I see that the discussion on this list exploded and I am very happy to
see that. Now we need to capitalize on this enormous engagement by all
of us and make the real changes.

We need the leadership. WMF staff proved to be much more potent than
dysfunctional Board.

So, please, talk to each other, structure this discussion on Meta --
idea by idea, counter-idea by counter-idea --, and call us to
participate there. If you need our help to do this, you have private
and public means to ask for help.

It's your responsibility to yourself and to the rest of us. This is
the right time and you need to do that now!

-- 
Milos

___
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 it means to be a high-tech organization

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
wrote:

We COULD outsource most of our tech (I'm not supporting this, I'm just
> giving perspective).
>


One thing I've been wondering about of late is how much donor-funded the
work the WMF is doing that is primarily designed to support commercial
re-users.

The other day, I read an Engineering report on the Wikimedia blog that
spoke of the Wikipedia Zero team doing "side project" work for Amazon
Kindle and Google Play.

I was thinking, Why are donors paying for that? – especially at a time when
the Foundation worries about being able to sustain fundraising growth.

Wikimedia content is worth billions. Wikidata in particular has huge
potential value for commercial re-users.[1] So have the link-ups between
Wikipedia and Amazon, Google, Bing etc.

It's clear that even in 2008, the Foundation was inundated with "multiple
product-specific pitches" from Google.[2] I imagine the breadth and number
of these pitches from Silicon Valley companies can only have increased
since then.

Sure, Wikimedia is committed to using its donated funds to make content
freely available under an open licence, but does that mean donors should
also be paying for programming work that is primarily designed to support
commercial re-users?

That work could be done by self-financing cottage industries built up by
Wikimedians, working for profit, or even a for-profit arm of the
Foundation. All the Foundation would have to do would be to provide basic
documentation; the rest could be left to the open market.

The astonishing thing to me is that there seems to be very little or no
publicity and transparency from the WMF about developments in this area.
For instance, I was unable to find any WMF communication about Wikipedia
Smart Lookup being integrated in the Amazon Kindle (something Amazon
announced in 2014),[3] even though WMF teams clearly have done programming
work on this. You'd have thought having Wikipedia search embedded in a
major product like the Kindle is a big thing, worthy of a community-facing
announcement?

In short, I think the WMF should collate and publicise more information
about commercial re-use applications, and be transparent about the work
it's doing to support such re-use. Maybe there is another "transparency
gap" here.[4]

And if there is any work that the Foundation is currently doing that
primarily benefits commercial re-users, then I think it should stop doing
that for free (= at donors' expense), and allow for-profit contractors to
spring up and pitch for that work. That would allow the non-profit
foundation to focus on user-facing improvements.

Andreas

[1]
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/25/wikidata_turns_the_world_into_a_database/
[2] See Sue Gardner's email quoted on the last two pages of
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/sandberg.pdf
[3]
http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/forums/kindleqna/ref=cs_hc_k_m_oldest?ie=UTF8=Fx1FI6JDSFEQQ7V=Tx27IU7Z5IQJV2J=oldest
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_transparency_gap#Transparency_about_donor-funded_work_supporting_commercial_re-users
___
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] Movement representation vs WMF board reform

[Lodewijk]

Hi Brion,

these signals indeed worry me a bit. The fact that they bring it up so
directly, probably indicates they have struggled with it. If we indeed want
some kind of overarching body for the movement as a whole, and the current
board feels incapable to be that, there are I think a number of remedies,
of which you mention one. Some are less likely (or desirable) to occur
though:

- select different board members who are capable of mixing the two (this
only works if one believes that the board members are imagining boundaries
that are not there)
- Changing the WMF to change this dynamic (i.e. changing it to a membership
organisation, changing the mission, etc.)
- Creating an additional body inside the WMF that can take up this movement
role better
- Creating a non-legal entity (a council without any standing) - this would
only work for some moral authority
- creating a separate body that would become the umbrella (or creating
another WMF, which will take over most activities from the current
organisation, allowing the umbrella to hold the trademarks etc)

The question is indeed what we're trying to accomplish. Some of these work
well for community matters, but if I read the temperature well, it seems
rather that people are looking for a way to impact what the WMF does. A
representation without any actual powers would become quickly moot.

But there is another side to community representation, and that is to ease
communication. I have suggested before that some kind of council or body
with community representatives (probably informal in a way) might make
communication with the community in a constructive way easier. Maybe that
would make it less likely that things are kept hidden, that the community
is not consulted. Because having a channel that will actually have a
conversation with you instead of shouting back no matter what you do (and
that is definitely how it must have felt to some staff members in the past
years) is no fun, and not a warm encouragement to involve the community
early on. It is oh so easy to wait it out a bit, until you have solid
numbers to proof your story. And before you know, it's basically too late
to turn back. For this role, the WMF board is definitely unsuitable, if
only because its members are very unrepresentative for the community
(albeit they come /from/ the community for a big part) due to their
international nature, and often they stopped editing altogether..

Lodewijk

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Brion Vibber  wrote:

> I just want to split out a concept that came up in the big threads of the
> last few days:
>
> Some members of the WMF Board of Trustees are giving strong signals (like,
> saying it outright) that the BoT can't fully take on the role of movement
> leadership or community representation. Not because they think it shouldn't
> happen, but because structurally and legally and practically the board of
> Wikimedia Foundation Inc has different roles to fill.
>
> I think we should consider what roles and structures we *do* want as
> members of the Wikimedia movement community. And I think we should think
> about that and talk about that carefully before rushing into details like
> board reform.
>
> Perhaps we should explicitly accept WMF as a "first among equals" org
> within the movement, with specific roles like tech development and
> fundraising (or other emphases as well) while other orgs concentrate on
> different specific issues. Or even just "one among equals" that happens to
> have specialized in those roles.
>
> This probably means we should think about "umbrella" structures to
> coordinate and represent and look forward.
>
> And that's something we should *definitely* not rush into. If a mismatch in
> hopes for what the WMF BoT can and should do has been a factor in
> communication and leadership issues in the past, then it's very important
> we not make the same kinds of mistakes in any new structures that might be
> needed.
>
> Dream big.
> Act with passion.
> Talk with thought.
> Don't run with scissors.
>
> -- brion
> ___
> 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] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

[David Cuenca Tudela]

I am starting a new thread because I disagree with the idea that the WMF
should be a high-tech organization as the other thread by Brion seemed to
suggest. Yes, technology is a tool that we use in our mission to gather and
process all forms of human knowledge, but in the end the driving force is
volunteership.

Without volunteers there wouldn't be any movement and there wouldn't be any
need for tools, or any donations whatsoever. It is the concept of working
for free for the common good that allows us to exist and fulfill our
mission. The WMF is instrumental in providing the tools for it to happen,
but those tools are not only technological, they are also legal,
educational, and social, however when talking through computer screens we
seem to forget that.

A hi-tech tool can work for a given task or not, but there are more
important topics like trust, commitment, empowerment, motivation, and joy
that cannot be assessed so easily, and that are at least as crucial as any
software. What is the point of having a perfect tool Z if I don't enjoy
working with my fellows on a common mission?

The role of nurturing volunteers is not exclusive of affiliate
organizations, the WMF offer grants to volunteers and organizes several
gatherings. Is that enough to strengthen the volunteer community? Then I
look at organizations like WOOF or workaway that thrive with full-time
volunteers and I wonder if more opportunities could be opened for our
volunteers.
Is there anything holding us back to try new things besides old patterns of
participation?

It is a challenge to do more for the volunteer community without resorting
to grants or payment, but that is the key to succeed as a volunteer
organization, to provide an ecosystem where personal growth is possible.

I am interested in hearing what others have to say about it. Maybe it is
possible to gather ideas or even a team of people who wants to research
more information about the topic.

Cheers,
Micru
___
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] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Jimmy Wales  wrote:

> On 2/28/16 6:48 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> > I think it is far more likely that if the board is conducting its
> business
> > in a non-transparent manner, and has done for as long as it has existed,
> > then that is because Jimmy Wales, more than anyone else, likes it that
> way.
>
> No, this is wrong.  I think things should be much more transparent at
> the WMF generally, and with the board in particular.  One of the things
> that I would invite toward this end is a program of invited board
> observers from people who are well known and well trusted by the
> community, who can be trusted to keep confidential information
> confidential, sitting in on nearly every minute of every board meeting.
>
> I don't support filming board meetings because I don't want to end up in
> a world where board meetings are "shows" with people making speeches to
> pander to certain constituencies.  These are working meetings with
> people exploring ideas - self-censorship to avoid possibly offending
> some subset of people wouldn't be healthy.  But there are other ways to
> add to transparency.
>
> I think that nearly every presentation made to the board by staff should
> be published - possibly with certain things redacted if they really are
> confidential.
>
> > For example, on the Transparency Gap page on Meta WMF staffer Adam Wight
> > recently said much the same as what Chris Sherlock has been saying here:
> > that the board does not publish detailed minutes.
>
> I've not been involved in writing or publishing minutes for many years,
> if ever.  I'd like to see them be more detailed.
>


Then make it happen -- make it actually *happen*. What has stopped you?

If there is anyone else stopping you, then tell us. Call board votes on the
issues, and publish the votes so we can see who votes against.

Andreas
___
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] Movement representation vs WMF board reform

[Emmanuel Engelhart]

On 28.02.2016 15:53, Brion Vibber wrote:
> I just want to split out a concept that came up in the big threads of the
> last few days:
> 
> Some members of the WMF Board of Trustees are giving strong signals (like,
> saying it outright) that the BoT can't fully take on the role of movement
> leadership or community representation. Not because they think it shouldn't
> happen, but because structurally and legally and practically the board of
> Wikimedia Foundation Inc has different roles to fill.
> 
> I think we should consider what roles and structures we *do* want as
> members of the Wikimedia movement community. And I think we should think
> about that and talk about that carefully before rushing into details like
> board reform.
> 
> Perhaps we should explicitly accept WMF as a "first among equals" org
> within the movement, with specific roles like tech development and
> fundraising (or other emphases as well) while other orgs concentrate on
> different specific issues. Or even just "one among equals" that happens to
> have specialized in those roles.
> 
> This probably means we should think about "umbrella" structures to
> coordinate and represent and look forward.
> 
> And that's something we should *definitely* not rush into. If a mismatch in
> hopes for what the WMF BoT can and should do has been a factor in
> communication and leadership issues in the past, then it's very important
> we not make the same kinds of mistakes in any new structures that might be
> needed.

Delighting to read this. That said, the path to achieve this looks
pretty challenging. Would the WMF be able to organize such a move and
"give-up" parts of its duties/activities to better focus on core business?

Emmanuel

-- 
Kiwix - Wikipedia Offline & more
* Web: http://www.kiwix.org
* Twitter: https://twitter.com/KiwixOffline
* more: http://www.kiwix.org/wiki/Communication



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
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 it means to be a high-tech organization

[Guettarda]

On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:


> ​
> technology is our tool not our purpose
>
>
This should be printed on a banner and hung on the wall every time the
Board meets.
___
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 it means to be a high-tech organization

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On 2016-02-28 16:24, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter 


wrote:







A direct consequence would be that one should think again whether San
Francisco is the best location for the WMF office, rather than a place
better known for culture and education and less for proximity to 
Silicon

Valley. Boston was named in the same discussion.



If we were choosing a location from the scratch - definitely. As it is 
now,
I think that relocating would involve really huge intangible costs for 
our
staff, and our staff is our unique asset. I would be cautious to rush 
any

changes in this respect.

dj
___


The relocation does not have to happen overnight. It can easily take 
several years (which is likely longer than the average time a WMF 
employee spends in the organization). But I think discussing this as a 
strategical direction would be beneficial for the movement. The topic 
was raised several times in the past, and I did not get the impression 
that there was any willingness to discuss it from the Board / WMF. (I 
might be wrong though, and pointing out to such discussions will be 
appreciated).


Cheers
Yaroslav

___
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] Movement representation vs WMF board reform

[Ad Huikeshoven]

2016-02-28 15:53 GMT+01:00 Brion Vibber :

> Some members of the WMF Board of Trustees are giving strong signals (like,
> saying it outright) that the BoT can't fully take on the role of movement
> leadership or community representation. Not because they think it shouldn't
> happen, but because structurally and legally and practically the board of
> Wikimedia Foundation Inc has different roles to fill.
>

Thanks Brion for starting this conversation. "Our community is our biggest
asset" do read the values.[1] How do you reconcile the statement of some
board members with this stated value?


> I think we should consider what roles and structures we *do* want as
> members of the Wikimedia movement community.
>

The saying is "structure follows strategy". One goal, or strategy can be
"As a movement we want healthy thriving communities".

A) One way to achieve that could be to delegate the task explicitly to each
individual community and help the members of that community to
(self)organize. For example to use securepoll to (s)elect a number of
people by active editors to accept certain representative roles, for
example in two way communication between foundation and community about
technology changes, but also to oversee processes to recruit new editors
and onboard them. I imagine a (s)election process like the (s)election of
community (s)elected BoT members, however with voters restricted to editors
who are active in that community (that is per project wiki of which there
are 900).

B) Another way would be to use securepoll to (s)elect a number of people in
a specific country by active editors in that country to accept certain
representative roles, for example in two way communication between
foundation and community about technology changes, but also to oversee
processes to recruit new editors and onboard them. I imagine a (s)election
process like the (s)election of community (s)elected BoT members, however
with voters restricted to editors who are active in that country based on
geo-ip. Maybe some countries are so big, that it would be wiser to do this
at state level.


> This probably means we should think about "umbrella" structures to
> coordinate and represent and look forward.
>

The failed attempts to WCA come to mind. That didn't work. An association
of active editors legally separate from the WMF might be conceivable. Such
an assocation could be compartementalized by A) and B). The B) structures
might merge with existing chapters, I can imagine. (S)election of community
members for the BoT of the WMF could shift to the association.

That might end up outsourcing community support by the WMF to the
association, something Dariusz opposes ;)

Regards,

Ad Huikeshoven

[1]:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Values#Our_community_is_our_biggest_asset
___
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 it means to be a high-tech organization

[Florence Devouard]

Le 27/02/16 22:41, SarahSV a écrit :

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:49 PM, Florence Devouard 
wrote:



Removing a COI is not the only issue at stake Sarah.

Would WMF get involved into such a process, it would also possibly change
its legal reponsibility. Right now, WMF does not get involved in the
editorial process, which allows to claim WMF is only hosting the content.
If WMF is somewhat involved in an editorial process which results in
paying the authors, then WMF might lose the "host" status.

Flo


​Hi Flo, I've heard so many contradictory positions about that over the

years that I have no idea what the implications would be.

Moving away from the very complex issue of paid editing, Brion opened the
thread with different views of what a high-tech organization is, one of
which involves lack of diversity, overemphasis on engineering, and
exploitation of staff and users at the cost of their physical and emotional
health. He argued that the WMF should instead cultivate and support staff
and volunteers.

So what can we do to move the WMF away from the bad aspects of high-tech
organizations and toward a position where the health of the paid and unpaid
workforces is actively nurtured?



I had written a LONG email to tell the story of how "Wiki Loves Women" 
ended up NOT funded by Wikimedia Foundation (it is entirely funded and 
supported by partner Goethe Institute).


But in the end... I thought the whole story would bore people here. So 
let me toss two ideas



1) It would be nice that it be possible to ask for grants from WMF that 
would not fall in either of the 4 options, currently

- annual plan grants (for big official affiliates)
- PEG (for groups and individuals)
- individual grants
- travel grants

PEG is capped (roughly around 30.000 dollars apparently). So between PEG 
and affiliates... there is a big void.



2) It would be nice that WMF set up a system where it is officially 
supporting a project, even though it is not funding it with REAL cash (= 
it is easier to look for other funding organizations when WMF has 
already put a sort of "yeah great project" stamp on it.)



Florence




___
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] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

[Jimmy Wales]

Chris, I think you are misreading something that I wrote.

On 2/28/16 1:03 AM, Chris Sherlock wrote:
> The Jimmy sent an email to the mailing list:
> 
>> It was written at a time when there were efforts underway by
>> Patricio to get James to agree to a joint statement.  It is an
>> encouragement to James to be honest with the community about what
>> happened.  It is not a full explanation of what happened - he
>> already knew that.
> 
> And yet, when he was advised by James that in fact that effort was
> spearheaded by James and not Patricio, he turns around and states
> that he didn’t know as he wasn’t involved.

Both of those things are true.  I knew they were talking, I didn't know
who who initiated it.

> Jimmy has just now written
> that it was the Wikimedia Foundation that “encouraged [him] to be
> honest with the community”. 

No, I said that I wrote him a personal letter to that effect.



___
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 it means to be a high-tech organization

[Andreas Kolbe]

Jimmy,

I think the first step is for the Foundation to be more open and
transparent about what work it is actually doing for commercial re-users,
and to announce such work proactively to both donors and the community.
There should be a dedicated space where such information is collected and
available to the public. Major developments should be announced on the
Wikimedia blog.

If some engineering team does work *specifically* for Amazon Kindle, Amazon
Echo, Google Play, Siri etc., then in my view the companies concerned
should pay for that work, or the work should be left to a for-profit
contractor. It should not be paid for by donors.

Donors do not give money to the Foundation so it can flood the knowledge
market with a free product that a handful of companies then earn billions
from.

As for API use, if there are *generic* APIs that multiple commercial
re-users can benefit from, then they should be charged according to their
usage, with small users operating below a certain threshold being exempt
from payment.

Lastly, we should not seek world domination. :) It's unhealthy, especially
in the world of information and knowledge. Prices should be high enough
that some competition is possible.

Andreas

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 5:32 PM, Jimmy Wales  wrote:

>
> On the very specific topic of donor funding going to help commercial
> re-users, we've had some interesting but inconclusive board discussions
> about this topic.  Despite that he takes every opportunity to attack me,
> and surely it will disappoint him to know, but my general view is 100%
> in agreement with him on the core issue - where commercial re-users are
> getting enormous value from our work, they should be paying for the
> engineering resources required for their support.
>
> Here are two push-backs on the idea that I do think are deserving of
> serious consideration:
>
> 1. Part of our core mission as a community is free access - will a "pay
> for service" model for APIs for commercial re-users alienate a
> significant portion of the community?  Does requiring some to pay while
> others get it free raise questions similar to those around "net
> neutrality"?
>
> As a historical footnote, there was a deal many years ago with
> Answers.com to give them access to an API which they used to present our
> content alongside many other resources.  They paid for that - not a huge
> amount, but it was meaningful back in those days.  I don't recall this
> being particularly controversial.
>
> 2. In many cases it may be too simplistic to simply say "a company is
> benefiting, so they should pay".  The point is that *we* also benefit,
> from increased readership for example, from our work making it to end
> users as technology changes and as the way people get information
> changes.  There is certainly a situation where setting too high a price
> would simply push commercial re-users to not use our content at all, so
> sensible pricing would be key.  And with real serious ongoing analysis,
> the right price could still be "free" even if we in principle charge.
>
> 
>
> For me, despite those being real concerns, I come down firmly on the
> side of being careful about falling into a trap of doing lots of
> expensive work for commercial re-users without having them pay.  I don't
> actually think we do a lot of that right now.  What I'd like to see is
> more of it, and I'm pretty agnostic about whether that's in the form of
> "self-financing cottage industries" or a "separate for-profit arm" or
> within the current engineering organization.  I can see arguments for
> any of those.
>
>
>
>
> On 2/28/16 8:02 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
> > wrote:
> >
> > We COULD outsource most of our tech (I'm not supporting this, I'm just
> >> giving perspective).
> >>
> >
> >
> > One thing I've been wondering about of late is how much donor-funded the
> > work the WMF is doing that is primarily designed to support commercial
> > re-users.
> >
> > The other day, I read an Engineering report on the Wikimedia blog that
> > spoke of the Wikipedia Zero team doing "side project" work for Amazon
> > Kindle and Google Play.
> >
> > I was thinking, Why are donors paying for that? – especially at a time
> when
> > the Foundation worries about being able to sustain fundraising growth.
> >
> > Wikimedia content is worth billions. Wikidata in particular has huge
> > potential value for commercial re-users.[1] So have the link-ups between
> > Wikipedia and Amazon, Google, Bing etc.
> >
> > It's clear that even in 2008, the Foundation was inundated with "multiple
> > product-specific pitches" from Google.[2] I imagine the breadth and
> number
> > of these pitches from Silicon Valley companies can only have increased
> > since then.
> >
> > Sure, Wikimedia is committed to using its donated funds to make content
> > freely available under an open licence, but does that mean donors should
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

[Anthony Cole]

Yes, thanks Florence. That's about my understanding too.

There's editing and there's imposing policy. I can see that WMF, obviously,
can't take on an editorial oversight role (and the entailed responsibility)
because it can't possibly vet every edit.

But it seems to me they can impose editorial and other behavioural *policy*
on the projects. Yet, even in the case of BLP, they just urged the projects
to behave responsibly and left it up to the projects to take it or leave
it.

Not that I want them meddling in projects' policies much. I'm just worried
they're unnecessarily constraining themselves. Others have implied this
inaction on project policy is in order to safeguard their protections under
the Communications Decency Act but nothing in that, to my non-expert eye,
stops them from imposing editorial and behavioural policy.

If it's just a position they've adopted for philosophical reasons, that's
fine. But I'd like to know what is at the heart of the WMF's practice here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act









Anthony Cole


On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 7:49 PM, Florence Devouard 
wrote:

> I am not a lawyer so would not have the correct legal words to explain
> this. But roughly... the legal responsibility is not the same when you are
> simply "hosting" content published by others, as opposed to "publishing
> with an editorial role".
>
> For example, when you are simply a host provider, you can not be held
> responsible if you host a content which is defaming a person as long as you
> were not aware of it. Once the host is informed of the existence of the
> illegal content, it has an obligation of removing it.
> And to a certain extent, the host has an obligation to make sure that
> steps are taken to avoid illegal content to land on its servers. This is
> one of the reason for the existence of terms of use. Or this can justify
> recommandations made by WMF to the community to be super careful when
> dealing with biographies of living people.
>
> However, when the company is considered to have an editorial role (and
> this is very vague...), it may be considered legally responsible for any
> illegal content being on its servers. It is by default considered aware of
> the illegal content, and even worse... supporting its presence there.
>
> The LAST thing we want is to have the WMF being recognized as having an
> editorial role.
>
> Is that clearer ?
>
> Flo
>
>
> Le 27/02/16 18:50, Anthony Cole a écrit :
>
> Florence, can you explain to me the actual risk the foundation  would be
>> exposed to if ir got involved in editorial decisions, please? Perhaps some
>> hypothetical examples would help.
>>
>> Anthony Cole
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Florence Devouard 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Le 27/02/16 00:37, SarahSV a écrit :
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Pete Forsyth 
>>>
 wrote:


 However, if the core interest (as Sarah suggests) is to create paid
> opportunities for those who excel at Wikipedia writing and editing,
> those
> opportunities exist, and are increasingly available. The money doesn't
> need
> to flow through the WMF. In my opinion, it's much better if it doesn't;
> the
> WMF has enough political challenges to deal with, without getting
> involved
> in paid editing.
>
>
> ​Hi Pete,
>
>
 I didn't intend to start a detailed discussion about paid editing in
 this
 thread. I mentioned it only as one of the ways in which the Foundation
 could help unpaid editors.

 To address a few issues: the point of suggesting the Foundation as a
 neutral broker is to remove the paid editor's COI. The editor would have
 no
 relationship with the people wanting the article, and would not be
 chosen
 by them. The brief from the Foundation would be to produce a
 well-written,
 reasonably comprehensive, neutral article about X, based on the best
 sources available. (Someone referred to this as advertising. It would be
 exactly the opposite.)

 It needn't be the Foundation that organizes this. A third party might
 work,
 but the danger of a private company doing it is that they would rely on
 it
 for profit, and therefore would be sensitive to pressure from companies.
 The idea of the Foundation as broker is that it would always place the
 core
 policies above the desires of the client. Foundation involvement struck
 me
 as the only way for an editor to be paid for an article without having a
 COI.

 I believe someone else suggested in this thread that it could be run the
 way the Education Program is, as a related but separate body. That would
 be
 something you would be perfectly placed to lead, Pete, given your
 experience as consultant, editor, and former Foundation employee.

 Sarah
 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On 2016-02-28 16:10, Guettarda wrote:

On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:



​
technology is our tool not our purpose



This should be printed on a banner and hung on the wall every time the
Board meets.


Actually, in the facebook discussion which was earlier referenced on 
this list someone noticed (unfortunately, without much impact) that WMF 
is not a business company and not a high-tech company, but more like a 
culture/ educational institution. A direct consequence would be that one 
should think again whether San Francisco is the best location for the 
WMF office, rather than a place better known for culture and education 
and less for proximity to Silicon Valley. Boston was named in the same 
discussion.


Cheers
Yaroslav

___
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 it means to be a high-tech organization

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter 
wrote:

> Actually, in the facebook discussion which was earlier referenced on this
> list someone noticed (unfortunately, without much impact) that WMF is not a
> business company and not a high-tech company, but more like a culture/
> educational institution.


As stated on a number of occasions, I whole-heartedly agree with this
approach. It is also logical from strategic management point of view: our
core competitive advantage is the ability to engage with the knowledge
communities around ideas (we are the best in the world at that), and not
developing tech (we're good, but we're no match for Google, 3M, or Facebook
here). We should realize that as the vision of the WMF as predominantly a
high-tech organization is really dangerous.

We COULD outsource most of our tech (I'm not supporting this, I'm just
giving perspective). We COULD NOT outsource the community support.



> A direct consequence would be that one should think again whether San
> Francisco is the best location for the WMF office, rather than a place
> better known for culture and education and less for proximity to Silicon
> Valley. Boston was named in the same discussion.


If we were choosing a location from the scratch - definitely. As it is now,
I think that relocating would involve really huge intangible costs for our
staff, and our staff is our unique asset. I would be cautious to rush any
changes in this respect.

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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Katy Love to direct WMF Resources team

[Derek V.Giroulle]

Asaf ,

First of all, by your definition of censorship then I must consider 
that  my reaction to
ruslanś message was censored, what makes ruslanś message  immune for 
censorship that

my reaction doesn't qualify for ?
so I reduced my criticism to the quote you made in the message below

Some of the _questions_ ruslan asked certainly were legitimate, also by 
my standards
but i was not talking about his _questions_ ... i was criticizing some 
of his "_statements_"
and "_remarks_",  the implied comments had personal implications and 
thus were directed
at Katy  and that was what I qualified as disrespectful of a valuable 
person.
Ruslanś _remarks_  were imho not questioning the WMF decisions or the 
selection/decision proces,

he was attacking the outcome ... I read that in Maggieś response also

Derek

On 27-02-16 21:37, Asaf Bartov wrote:

On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 9:45 AM, Derek V.Giroulle <
derekvgirou...@wikimedia.be> wrote:


I'm very sorry that  Ruslan Takayev's message got through the moderation
IMHO his  statement and remarks  are not respectful


I strongly disagree, Derek.  That would have been outright censorship.
Ruslan asked a perfectly legitimate and useful question; Maggie thought so
too, and provided a clear and informative response, which has the added
benefit of answering it for other people who may have had the same question
as Ruslan but didn't express it.

Questioning WMF decisions, particularly with reference to our principles or
to previous stated positions, is certainly appropriate and legitimate, and
does not constitute disrespect.

 A.
___
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, 



--
Kind regards,
*Derek V. Giroulle*
Wikimedia Belgium vzw.
Treasurer
Troonstraat 51 Rue du Trône, BE-1050 Brussels
M: derekvgirou...@wikimedia.be
T: +32 494 134134
F: +32 3666 2700
___
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] Plan and goals for the Wikimedia, the Foundation, the Affiliates and the movement, Re: 2016 Strategic Approaches Report

[Brion Vibber]

On Feb 28, 2016 7:37 AM, "Ad Huikeshoven"  wrote:
>
> Reaching out to Brion Vibber explicitly. Brion shared some long and
> interesting posts last week and started a thread about what it means to be
> a high tech organization. My question for Brion is to share his case why
> the WMF should be a high tech organization.

I would argue that it has been one its entire history, with much budget and
staff being in web site operations support and software development.
Whether that's the best way to concentrate WMF resources or not is a
question I won't try to answer myself here, but I believe we have a decade
of precedence.

> In the first breakdown above
> tech(nology) is explicitly mentioned. Is the second breakdown as
'developer
> inclusive' as the first breakdown? Or would technology assume a supportive
> role to the leading programs reach, communities and knowledge?

I find all of these breakdowns to be vaguely worded corporatespeak and hard
to devise actions around.

>
> When I read the current statements of mission, vision, values and guiding
> principles I hardly get the impression the Wikimedia Foundation is a high
> tech organization, or an organization which employs a lot of engineers and
> developers. How should the mission, vision, values or guiding principles
of
> the Wikimedia Foundation be amended to give due weight to engineers and
> developers? Could you elaborate on that Brion.

Engineering does not exist for its own sake, but to accomplish some goal.

In other words, our mission/vision/values/guiding principles should not be
particularly focused on engineers it developers. They should focus on what
the movement wants to accomplish, and WMF's job is to use technology and
other resources to make those things happen.

-- brion
___
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] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

[Jimmy Wales]

On 2/28/16 6:48 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> I think it is far more likely that if the board is conducting its business
> in a non-transparent manner, and has done for as long as it has existed,
> then that is because Jimmy Wales, more than anyone else, likes it that way.

No, this is wrong.  I think things should be much more transparent at
the WMF generally, and with the board in particular.  One of the things
that I would invite toward this end is a program of invited board
observers from people who are well known and well trusted by the
community, who can be trusted to keep confidential information
confidential, sitting in on nearly every minute of every board meeting.

I don't support filming board meetings because I don't want to end up in
a world where board meetings are "shows" with people making speeches to
pander to certain constituencies.  These are working meetings with
people exploring ideas - self-censorship to avoid possibly offending
some subset of people wouldn't be healthy.  But there are other ways to
add to transparency.

I think that nearly every presentation made to the board by staff should
be published - possibly with certain things redacted if they really are
confidential.

> For example, on the Transparency Gap page on Meta WMF staffer Adam Wight
> recently said much the same as what Chris Sherlock has been saying here:
> that the board does not publish detailed minutes.

I've not been involved in writing or publishing minutes for many years,
if ever.  I'd like to see them be more detailed.

--Jimbo


___
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 it means to be a high-tech organization

[Jimmy Wales]

On the very specific topic of donor funding going to help commercial
re-users, we've had some interesting but inconclusive board discussions
about this topic.  Despite that he takes every opportunity to attack me,
and surely it will disappoint him to know, but my general view is 100%
in agreement with him on the core issue - where commercial re-users are
getting enormous value from our work, they should be paying for the
engineering resources required for their support.

Here are two push-backs on the idea that I do think are deserving of
serious consideration:

1. Part of our core mission as a community is free access - will a "pay
for service" model for APIs for commercial re-users alienate a
significant portion of the community?  Does requiring some to pay while
others get it free raise questions similar to those around "net neutrality"?

As a historical footnote, there was a deal many years ago with
Answers.com to give them access to an API which they used to present our
content alongside many other resources.  They paid for that - not a huge
amount, but it was meaningful back in those days.  I don't recall this
being particularly controversial.

2. In many cases it may be too simplistic to simply say "a company is
benefiting, so they should pay".  The point is that *we* also benefit,
from increased readership for example, from our work making it to end
users as technology changes and as the way people get information
changes.  There is certainly a situation where setting too high a price
would simply push commercial re-users to not use our content at all, so
sensible pricing would be key.  And with real serious ongoing analysis,
the right price could still be "free" even if we in principle charge.



For me, despite those being real concerns, I come down firmly on the
side of being careful about falling into a trap of doing lots of
expensive work for commercial re-users without having them pay.  I don't
actually think we do a lot of that right now.  What I'd like to see is
more of it, and I'm pretty agnostic about whether that's in the form of
"self-financing cottage industries" or a "separate for-profit arm" or
within the current engineering organization.  I can see arguments for
any of those.




On 2/28/16 8:02 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
> wrote:
> 
> We COULD outsource most of our tech (I'm not supporting this, I'm just
>> giving perspective).
>>
> 
> 
> One thing I've been wondering about of late is how much donor-funded the
> work the WMF is doing that is primarily designed to support commercial
> re-users.
> 
> The other day, I read an Engineering report on the Wikimedia blog that
> spoke of the Wikipedia Zero team doing "side project" work for Amazon
> Kindle and Google Play.
> 
> I was thinking, Why are donors paying for that? – especially at a time when
> the Foundation worries about being able to sustain fundraising growth.
> 
> Wikimedia content is worth billions. Wikidata in particular has huge
> potential value for commercial re-users.[1] So have the link-ups between
> Wikipedia and Amazon, Google, Bing etc.
> 
> It's clear that even in 2008, the Foundation was inundated with "multiple
> product-specific pitches" from Google.[2] I imagine the breadth and number
> of these pitches from Silicon Valley companies can only have increased
> since then.
> 
> Sure, Wikimedia is committed to using its donated funds to make content
> freely available under an open licence, but does that mean donors should
> also be paying for programming work that is primarily designed to support
> commercial re-users?
> 
> That work could be done by self-financing cottage industries built up by
> Wikimedians, working for profit, or even a for-profit arm of the
> Foundation. All the Foundation would have to do would be to provide basic
> documentation; the rest could be left to the open market.
> 
> The astonishing thing to me is that there seems to be very little or no
> publicity and transparency from the WMF about developments in this area.
> For instance, I was unable to find any WMF communication about Wikipedia
> Smart Lookup being integrated in the Amazon Kindle (something Amazon
> announced in 2014),[3] even though WMF teams clearly have done programming
> work on this. You'd have thought having Wikipedia search embedded in a
> major product like the Kindle is a big thing, worthy of a community-facing
> announcement?
> 
> In short, I think the WMF should collate and publicise more information
> about commercial re-use applications, and be transparent about the work
> it's doing to support such re-use. Maybe there is another "transparency
> gap" here.[4]
> 
> And if there is any work that the Foundation is currently doing that
> primarily benefits commercial re-users, then I think it should stop doing
> that for free (= at donors' expense), and allow for-profit contractors to
> spring up and pitch for that work. That would allow 

[Wikimedia-l] Movement representation vs WMF board reform

[Brion Vibber]

I just want to split out a concept that came up in the big threads of the
last few days:

Some members of the WMF Board of Trustees are giving strong signals (like,
saying it outright) that the BoT can't fully take on the role of movement
leadership or community representation. Not because they think it shouldn't
happen, but because structurally and legally and practically the board of
Wikimedia Foundation Inc has different roles to fill.

I think we should consider what roles and structures we *do* want as
members of the Wikimedia movement community. And I think we should think
about that and talk about that carefully before rushing into details like
board reform.

Perhaps we should explicitly accept WMF as a "first among equals" org
within the movement, with specific roles like tech development and
fundraising (or other emphases as well) while other orgs concentrate on
different specific issues. Or even just "one among equals" that happens to
have specialized in those roles.

This probably means we should think about "umbrella" structures to
coordinate and represent and look forward.

And that's something we should *definitely* not rush into. If a mismatch in
hopes for what the WMF BoT can and should do has been a factor in
communication and leadership issues in the past, then it's very important
we not make the same kinds of mistakes in any new structures that might be
needed.

Dream big.
Act with passion.
Talk with thought.
Don't run with scissors.

-- brion
___
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] I am going to San Francisco

[Andreas Kolbe]

Anna,

That too is largely due to volunteers. In early February 2002 for example,
Jimmy spoke of putting advertising on Wikipedia, saying on the Wikipedia-l
mailing list:[1][2]

---o0o---

However, with the ongoing hard times in the Internet economy, we do
anticipate adding some forms of advertising to the site in the near future.

---o0o---

The result of these plans being aired on the mailing list was a user
revolt.

The entire Spanish Wikipedia community jumped ship: they forked and created
their own project, the Enciclopedia Libre. It took the Spanish Wikipedia
years to catch up with and overtake EL.

Edgar Enyedy, one of the leaders of that revolt, shared his reminiscences
with Wired's Nathaniel Tkacz in 2011:[3]

---o0o---

[...]

*The clash that led to your departure from Wikipedia was sparked by a
seemingly insignificant remark, made by Sanger in passing about the
possibility of incorporating advertising in order to fund his future work
on the encyclopaedia(s). His exact words were, "Bomis might well start
selling ads on Wikipedia sometime within the next few months".[4] Can you
revisit this event and tell us how it unfolded? *

The possibility of advertising was out of the question. I asked Wales for a
public commitment that there would be no advertising, but this only came
after we left. Apart from those already mentioned (Sanger's role and the
autonomy of the Spanish version) there were other points of disagreement.

Firstly, all Wikipedia domains (.com, .org, .net) were owned by Wales. I
asked myself "why are we working for a dot com?" I asked for Wikipedia to
be changed to a dot org.

[...]

Because of these things, I didn't trust Wales' intentions. Not at all. We
were all working for free in a dot com with no access to the servers, no
mirrors, no software updates, no downloadable database, and no way to set
up the wiki itself. Finally, came the possibility of incorporating
advertising, so we left. It couldn't be any other way.

I would like to remark upon the fact that as it is known today, the
International Wikipedia that you all know and have come to take for
granted, might have been impossible without the Spanish fork. Wales was
worried that other foreign communities would follow our fork. He learnt
from us what to do and what not to do in future.

---o0o---

It's an interesting article, and a fascinating bit of Wikipedia history. At
one point, Jimmy Wales apparently envisaged selling hard copies (!) of the
encyclopedias; hence the GNU/FDL licence.

The point is, user revolts have always been a significant part of making
Wikipedia what it is today.

This includes its being an ad-free non-profit.

Andreas

[1] Feb. 2, 2002 mailing list post by Jimmy Wales:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-February/001279.html
[2] http://larrysanger.org/2011/01/jimmy-wales-on-advertisement/
[3]
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-01/20/wikipedia-spanish-fork/viewall
[4] Feb. 13, 2002 mailing list post by Larry Sanger:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-February/001444.html

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 4:58 AM, Anna Stillwell 
wrote:

> Andreas,
>
> > It's important to understand that Jimmy Wales didn't accomplish the
> things
> you speak of alone.
>
> Yes, I'm aware of this. Perhaps I should have been more clear. I was
> pointing to the fact that Jimmy did not mess it up. I don't ever
> underestimate that. Jimmy could have not allowed that to happen, he could
> have charged money, he could have done a lot of other things, and he did
> not. He did not mess it up and that is really saying something.
>
> Warmly,
> /a
>
>
___
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] feature: prevent overwork, statistics was: What it means to be a high-tech organization

[rupert THURNER]

On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 10:41 PM, SarahSV  wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:49 PM, Florence Devouard 
> wrote:
>
>
>> Removing a COI is not the only issue at stake Sarah.
>>
>> Would WMF get involved into such a process, it would also possibly change
>> its legal reponsibility. Right now, WMF does not get involved in the
>> editorial process, which allows to claim WMF is only hosting the content.
>> If WMF is somewhat involved in an editorial process which results in
>> paying the authors, then WMF might lose the "host" status.
>>
>> Flo
>>
>>
>> Hi Flo, I've heard so many contradictory positions about that over the
> years that I have no idea what the implications would be.
>
> Moving away from the very complex issue of paid editing, Brion opened the
> thread with different views of what a high-tech organization is, one of
> which involves lack of diversity, overemphasis on engineering, and
> exploitation of staff and users at the cost of their physical and emotional
> health. He argued that the WMF should instead cultivate and support staff
> and volunteers.
>
> So what can we do to move the WMF away from the bad aspects of high-tech
> organizations and toward a position where the health of the paid and unpaid
> workforces is actively nurtured?
>
> I've made a small start by suggesting software [1] that asks editors how
> long they want to spend on the site when they log in, along with options to
> be logged out automatically and not logged in again for a set time
> (following a suggestion from a former Google engineer in the *New York
> Review of Books*). [2]
>
> I would love to see the WMF agree never again to discuss trapping editors
> in feedback loops intended to keep them editing, but instead to help them
> plan and monitor their interactions with Wikimedia sites. Another idea is
> for opt-in software that asks how you're feeling every few hours – "Are you
> feeling angry? Is it time for a break?" – or when you log out: "How did
> your interactions today make you feel?" Questions could be asked that would
> be useful to the WMF in its gender-gap, anti-harassment and other
> initiatives (once the data is anonymized).

many thanks sarah for making a suggestion i like the restrict yourself
and see how you do compared to others, so i created
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T128320

best,
rupert

___
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] I am going to San Francisco

[Fæ]

A couple of responses in-line below.

Jimmy, if you would like me to be able to respond to issues on your
Wikipedia talk page, let me know. It's been 4 years now since you
censored me from writing there, which seems like a long time to hold a
grudge.

On 27 February 2016 at 14:39, Jimmy Wales  wrote:
> On 2/26/16 9:17 PM, Fæ wrote:
>> I hope you will be able to address nagging concerns about your
>> personal support for keeping the search project a secret last year,
>
> Sure - I never supported keeping the proposed and approved work on
> Discovery and Search secret last year at all.  I don't know of anyone
> who did.  The failure to sufficiently disclose happened, but it was not
> a point that was discussed at the board level to my knowledge.  I don't
> know of any board members, past or present, who think or thought that
> such things should be kept from the community.
>
> It is my longstanding and continued position that the Foundation should
> be as open as legally possible with only a very limited degree of
> non-disclosure, mostly around legal matters and around employee matters.
>  There are a few other examples, too, like price negotiations with
> vendors, and so on like that.  With regard to our long term strategy, I
> continue to strongly support that everything should not only be
> disclosed to the community, but that it makes no sense for it to be in
> conflict with the community, and that very often it should be led by the
> community in consultation with the Foundation.

As has been raised by others in this email thread, a key core and
legally defined duty of the board is to hold your senior management to
account. If the board of trustees is out of touch with the Wikimedia
community giving "plausible deniability" for a claim that throughout
2015 you thought your management team was being open about the huge
(in terms of relative staff numbers) Knowledge Engine / Search Engine
project and original Knight Grant application in 2015, even while
faced with many public requests for information about the grant and
the "secret project", then the WMF board was not competent or meeting
its commitment to transparency or basic governance.

Politically your words look good, but they must be able to be
demonstrated by action. The claim that you are personally pushing for
"the Foundation should be as open as legally possible with only a very
limited degree of non-disclosure" does not withstand comparison
against the facts. As a trivial example, you have been avoiding the
publication of your email to James about his dismissal, yet apparently
both you and he are agreed can and should be published. While you are
at it, could you copy to me the email(s) about me that you sent to
your fellow board members when I was Chair of the Chapters'
Association? You have a history of behind the scenes dealing and
politicking, when there are no "legal matters" that can apply to your
personal views in correspondence, so I am sure you can understand why
some of those Wikimedians that have become disillusioned as targets of
your non-public criticism or excruciating public criticism without
your engagement in a proper process of evidence or a right to
challenge, will continue to be sceptical of your ability to lead on
openness and transparency, unless you can honestly address those past
cases.

>> and your conflict of loyalties during that process, shortly after your
>> visit.
>
> I did not have any conflict of loyalties during that process.  Spending
> a reasonable portion of our IT budget on an ambitious project to improve
> search and discovery, and to conduct research and community consultation
> on that, is a great idea for Wikipedia and for the broader Wikimedia
> movement and I strongly support it.

Again I struggle to reconcile your opinions of your conflict of
loyalties, with how the general public would perceive a clearly
presented history of your role as an unelected WMF trustee, or
effective "trustee for life" as many have called it, with a personal
role for CEO selection that you have created for yourself, your part
in trustee appointments and the opportunities your regularly have on
the board to steer WMF strategy to encourage projects that suit your
preferences, with your significant financial interest in Wikia, Inc.,
your past experience with "Wikia Search" and how the WMF
Knowledge/Search engine development would fulfil Wikia's strategy for
selling more commercial services, selling Wikia user data and making a
greater profit from targeted advertising.[1] However I'll nail this
down a bit more in a separate thread as assessing the public
perception of your potential conflict of loyalties is worth having
multiple views on, rather than just your opinions or mine.

Links:
1. "Take advantage of Wikia's custom research solutions to achieve
campaign objectives, including brand lift studies, target audience
insights, and more!", "Reach the right audience with the right message
using Wikia's 

[Wikimedia-l] Plan and goals for the Wikimedia, the Foundation, the Affiliates and the movement, Re: 2016 Strategic Approaches Report

[Ad Huikeshoven]

Dear Wikimedians,

TL;DR: share your thougths on the future direction, plans and goals

In the past weeks dozens of people have shared their analysis and
unsolicited advice on many aspects. I really appreciate all of your
thorough thinking and careful wording in many long posts. While the HR
committee of the BoT and the BoT as a whole are busy contemplating who to
appoint as (interim) and would like to ask you to use your thoughtpower on
some specific forward looking items.

The strategy consultation for the Wikimedia Foundation 2016/2017 Annual
Plan attracted over 500 comments, most of them in rather short posts.[1] A
report with findings from the community consultation has been published.[2]
There is a new call for a movement wide strategy. Please add your name and
share your thoughts and analysis.[3]

After 'narrowing focus' the two main 'programs' of the Wikimedia Foundation
are "tech" and "grant making". After the last reorganization "grant making"
program has been renamed to "community". The breakdown in the latest
financial reports[4] preceded by the terms in the CtA and current AP[5] is:
(1) Improve Technology & Execution: building the technological and
operating platform that enables the Foundation to function sustainably as a
top global Internet organization,
(2) Focus on Knowledge & Community: strengthening, growing, and increasing
diversity of the editing community, and
(3) Support Innovation & New Knowledge: accelerating impact by investing in
key geographic areas, mobile application development, and bottom-up
innovation,
all of which, to support Wikipedia and eight other wiki-based projects.
(Correct me when I made a mismatch between report and plan. Jaime
Villagomez, the new CFO can probably reflect on that, reaching out to Amy
to contact him. Amy can you ask Jaime to briefly introduce himself to this
list. His predecessor had a pivotal role in financial oversight of
affiliates.)

The current strategy consultation makes a breakdown into three areas:
(1) Reach
(2) Communities
(3) Knowlegde

Please share your thoughts and analysis and join the conversation. Who can
see a shift in strategy from the first to the second breakdown, and why?
What are the implications for staff, affiliates, the movement and
communities?

Do affiliates, especially funded chapters, have a breakdown in these three
categories reach, communities and knowledge? How relevant is this breakdown
for affiliates? Do you use these names for these programs, or other names?
What kind of programs have affiliates that fall not in one of these three
areas reach, communities or knowledge? APG funded affiliates are evaluated
based on the strategic priorities:[6]

* Stabilize infrastructure

* Increase participation

* Improve quality

* Increase reach

* Encourage innovation


Reaching out to Liam Wyat and Anne/Risker from the FDC. Can you reflect on
shift in strategic priorities? How will APG funded affliliates be evaluated
regarding their programs? Will that continue to be on the list of strategic
priorities or might that be on the list of topic areas mentioned in the
strategy consultation, or something else?

Reaching out to Brion Vibber explicitly. Brion shared some long and
interesting posts last week and started a thread about what it means to be
a high tech organization. My question for Brion is to share his case why
the WMF should be a high tech organization. In the first breakdown above
tech(nology) is explicitly mentioned. Is the second breakdown as 'developer
inclusive' as the first breakdown? Or would technology assume a supportive
role to the leading programs reach, communities and knowledge?

When I read the current statements of mission, vision, values and guiding
principles I hardly get the impression the Wikimedia Foundation is a high
tech organization, or an organization which employs a lot of engineers and
developers. How should the mission, vision, values or guiding principles of
the Wikimedia Foundation be amended to give due weight to engineers and
developers? Could you elaborate on that Brion. Wes you are one of the
C-level staff. On this list people have suggested to appoint one of the
current C-level staff to (interim) ED. I have directed question about tech
to Brion and not you. Could you please introduce yourself?

Another C-level is more well known on this list and is currently CCO. We
know her qualities in communication. Dear Katherine, can you share with the
list your experience with, prior to Wikimedia, with not-for profit
management, building relationships with communities, and your experience
with innovation, ICT and fundraising? Anything missing on the wishlist for
an ED? Katherine, please share your thoughts on the strategic direction of
the Wikimedia Foundation and the Wikimedia movement in general.


Anyone who would rather see me, or him or herself, than Katherine as
(interim) ED? I don't belief so. Correct me if I'm wrong. Someone called
for open hr recruiting on wikimedia-l. For some specific 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

[Brion Vibber]

On Sunday, February 28, 2016, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Jimmy,
>
> I think the first step is for the Foundation to be more open and
> transparent about what work it is actually doing for commercial re-users,
> and to announce such work proactively to both donors and the community.
> There should be a dedicated space where such information is collected and
> available to the public. Major developments should be announced on the
> Wikimedia blog.
>
> If some engineering team does work *specifically* for Amazon Kindle, Amazon
> Echo, Google Play, Siri etc., then in my view the companies concerned
> should pay for that work, or the work should be left to a for-profit
> contractor. It should not be paid for by donors.


What non-hypothetical work are you referring to?

{{cn}}

-- brion


> Donors do not give money to the Foundation so it can flood the knowledge
> market with a free product that a handful of companies then earn billions
> from.
>
> As for API use, if there are *generic* APIs that multiple commercial
> re-users can benefit from, then they should be charged according to their
> usage, with small users operating below a certain threshold being exempt
> from payment.
>
> Lastly, we should not seek world domination. :) It's unhealthy, especially
> in the world of information and knowledge. Prices should be high enough
> that some competition is possible.
>
> Andreas
>
> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 5:32 PM, Jimmy Wales  > wrote:
>
> >
> > On the very specific topic of donor funding going to help commercial
> > re-users, we've had some interesting but inconclusive board discussions
> > about this topic.  Despite that he takes every opportunity to attack me,
> > and surely it will disappoint him to know, but my general view is 100%
> > in agreement with him on the core issue - where commercial re-users are
> > getting enormous value from our work, they should be paying for the
> > engineering resources required for their support.
> >
> > Here are two push-backs on the idea that I do think are deserving of
> > serious consideration:
> >
> > 1. Part of our core mission as a community is free access - will a "pay
> > for service" model for APIs for commercial re-users alienate a
> > significant portion of the community?  Does requiring some to pay while
> > others get it free raise questions similar to those around "net
> > neutrality"?
> >
> > As a historical footnote, there was a deal many years ago with
> > Answers.com to give them access to an API which they used to present our
> > content alongside many other resources.  They paid for that - not a huge
> > amount, but it was meaningful back in those days.  I don't recall this
> > being particularly controversial.
> >
> > 2. In many cases it may be too simplistic to simply say "a company is
> > benefiting, so they should pay".  The point is that *we* also benefit,
> > from increased readership for example, from our work making it to end
> > users as technology changes and as the way people get information
> > changes.  There is certainly a situation where setting too high a price
> > would simply push commercial re-users to not use our content at all, so
> > sensible pricing would be key.  And with real serious ongoing analysis,
> > the right price could still be "free" even if we in principle charge.
> >
> > 
> >
> > For me, despite those being real concerns, I come down firmly on the
> > side of being careful about falling into a trap of doing lots of
> > expensive work for commercial re-users without having them pay.  I don't
> > actually think we do a lot of that right now.  What I'd like to see is
> > more of it, and I'm pretty agnostic about whether that's in the form of
> > "self-financing cottage industries" or a "separate for-profit arm" or
> > within the current engineering organization.  I can see arguments for
> > any of those.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2/28/16 8:02 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> > > On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak  >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > We COULD outsource most of our tech (I'm not supporting this, I'm just
> > >> giving perspective).
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > One thing I've been wondering about of late is how much donor-funded
> the
> > > work the WMF is doing that is primarily designed to support commercial
> > > re-users.
> > >
> > > The other day, I read an Engineering report on the Wikimedia blog that
> > > spoke of the Wikipedia Zero team doing "side project" work for Amazon
> > > Kindle and Google Play.
> > >
> > > I was thinking, Why are donors paying for that? – especially at a time
> > when
> > > the Foundation worries about being able to sustain fundraising growth.
> > >
> > > Wikimedia content is worth billions. Wikidata in particular has huge
> > > potential value for commercial re-users.[1] So have the link-ups
> between
> > > Wikipedia and Amazon, Google, Bing etc.
> > >
> > > It's clear that even in 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

[Brion Vibber]

On Sunday, February 28, 2016, Brion Vibber  wrote:

> David, you appear to be agreeing strongly with me, not disagreeing. :)


To clarify, we are strongly agreed that constructive support of people to
accomplish movement goals is why WMF exists.

My message was focused on internal management/staff relations, adding
context to Lila's post.

Your message is focused on external company/volunteer relations -- just as
important and affecting more people -- and with very similar concerns about
giving needed support to help people succeed.

Ok now I'm way over my post quota, so going back to lurking.

-- brion


> -- brion
>
> On Sunday, February 28, 2016, David Cuenca Tudela  > wrote:
>
>> I am starting a new thread because I disagree with the idea that the WMF
>> should be a high-tech organization as the other thread by Brion seemed to
>> suggest. Yes, technology is a tool that we use in our mission to gather
>> and
>> process all forms of human knowledge, but in the end the driving force is
>> volunteership.
>>
>> Without volunteers there wouldn't be any movement and there wouldn't be
>> any
>> need for tools, or any donations whatsoever. It is the concept of working
>> for free for the common good that allows us to exist and fulfill our
>> mission. The WMF is instrumental in providing the tools for it to happen,
>> but those tools are not only technological, they are also legal,
>> educational, and social, however when talking through computer screens we
>> seem to forget that.
>>
>> A hi-tech tool can work for a given task or not, but there are more
>> important topics like trust, commitment, empowerment, motivation, and joy
>> that cannot be assessed so easily, and that are at least as crucial as any
>> software. What is the point of having a perfect tool Z if I don't enjoy
>> working with my fellows on a common mission?
>>
>> The role of nurturing volunteers is not exclusive of affiliate
>> organizations, the WMF offer grants to volunteers and organizes several
>> gatherings. Is that enough to strengthen the volunteer community? Then I
>> look at organizations like WOOF or workaway that thrive with full-time
>> volunteers and I wonder if more opportunities could be opened for our
>> volunteers.
>> Is there anything holding us back to try new things besides old patterns
>> of
>> participation?
>>
>> It is a challenge to do more for the volunteer community without resorting
>> to grants or payment, but that is the key to succeed as a volunteer
>> organization, to provide an ecosystem where personal growth is possible.
>>
>> I am interested in hearing what others have to say about it. Maybe it is
>> possible to gather ideas or even a team of people who wants to research
>> more information about the topic.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Micru
>> ___
>> 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] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

[Brion Vibber]

Two distinct issues, I think:

1) about improving community representation in power structures, I think we
have to think more about what representation we want and what structures
would accomplish it. I have no answers but think we should consider looking
beyond WMF alone:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082703.html

2) about support for volunteers to get stuff done effectively: I'll have
mostly tech-focused thoughts on that because that's where my expertise is,
so you need to hear from other people who interact with a wider set of
volunteers than patch contributors and the people who manage to figure out
our feedback systems. :) whether that should be funded by / staffed within
WMF or our other movement orgs or both is an open question.

-- brion
On Feb 28, 2016 11:51 AM, "David Cuenca Tudela"  wrote:

> Brion,
> so far in the discussions I have seen more weight to the idea of the WMF as
> a tech provider for the community, and not so much conversation about other
> roles that the organization could fulfill besides of tech / grant making.
> So when you see that we are agreeing, do you mean that there should be more
> power transferred to the communities and that there should be a greater
> focus in empowering volunteers?
> How would you increase the participation of volunteers in the direction of
> the movement? And how to offer volunteers the opportunity to become more
> dedicated without paying them directly?
>
> Cheers
> Micru
>
> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 8:10 PM, Brion Vibber 
> wrote:
>
> > David, you appear to be agreeing strongly with me, not disagreeing. :)
> >
> > -- brion
> >
> > On Sunday, February 28, 2016, David Cuenca Tudela 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I am starting a new thread because I disagree with the idea that the
> WMF
> > > should be a high-tech organization as the other thread by Brion seemed
> to
> > > suggest. Yes, technology is a tool that we use in our mission to gather
> > and
> > > process all forms of human knowledge, but in the end the driving force
> is
> > > volunteership.
> > >
> > > Without volunteers there wouldn't be any movement and there wouldn't be
> > any
> > > need for tools, or any donations whatsoever. It is the concept of
> working
> > > for free for the common good that allows us to exist and fulfill our
> > > mission. The WMF is instrumental in providing the tools for it to
> happen,
> > > but those tools are not only technological, they are also legal,
> > > educational, and social, however when talking through computer screens
> we
> > > seem to forget that.
> > >
> > > A hi-tech tool can work for a given task or not, but there are more
> > > important topics like trust, commitment, empowerment, motivation, and
> joy
> > > that cannot be assessed so easily, and that are at least as crucial as
> > any
> > > software. What is the point of having a perfect tool Z if I don't enjoy
> > > working with my fellows on a common mission?
> > >
> > > The role of nurturing volunteers is not exclusive of affiliate
> > > organizations, the WMF offer grants to volunteers and organizes several
> > > gatherings. Is that enough to strengthen the volunteer community? Then
> I
> > > look at organizations like WOOF or workaway that thrive with full-time
> > > volunteers and I wonder if more opportunities could be opened for our
> > > volunteers.
> > > Is there anything holding us back to try new things besides old
> patterns
> > of
> > > participation?
> > >
> > > It is a challenge to do more for the volunteer community without
> > resorting
> > > to grants or payment, but that is the key to succeed as a volunteer
> > > organization, to provide an ecosystem where personal growth is
> possible.
> > >
> > > I am interested in hearing what others have to say about it. Maybe it
> is
> > > possible to gather ideas or even a team of people who wants to research
> > > more information about the topic.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Micru
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > > 
> > > ?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,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Etiamsi omnes, ego non
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Jimmy Wales' potential conflict of loyalties for Wikia Inc. versus WMF

[Fæ]

Todd, putting the caveats before the main thrust of Jimmy Wales'
email, is a strange way of reading it. I read the email the obvious
way, and I encourage others to read the original for themselves,
rather than relying on cherry-picked quotes towards the end.

Thanks,
Fae

On 28 February 2016 at 20:17, Todd Allen  wrote:
> Fae,
>
> Your second citation didn't at all match what I recall Jimmy saying on the
> subject, so I went and read it. Even the specific email you cite is not, in
> any way, "...arguing the case against
> introducing charges for commercial reusers of WMF services...". Some quotes
> from the email you cited:
>
> "...my general view is 100% in agreement with him on the core issue - where
> commercial re-users are getting enormous value from our work, they should
> be paying for the engineering resources required for their support."
>
> "...I come down firmly on the side of being careful about falling into a
> trap of doing lots of expensive work for commercial re-users without having
> them pay."
>
> He does say that there would be some caveats and it would be something to
> step lightly on, but I don't think it could be any clearer that he does
> want commercial reusers to pay for WMF services in at least some cases.
>
> I'm all for discussion and identification of potential conflicts of
> interest. But if you're going to accuse someone of that, you really do need
> to make sure you've got your facts straight. Misrepresenting someone, or
> some things they said, will not get anyone to take you seriously.
>
> Todd
>
> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Fæ  wrote:
>
>> ISSUE
>>
>> Jimmy Wales has never declared a conflict of interest or loyalty when
>> acting as a WMF trustee. He is co-founder of Wikia Inc, set up in
>> 2004, a commercial company that often benefits from new MediaWiki
>> developments, and clearly he benefits financially from resulting
>> profitability of Wikia. The original vision for Wikia was as a
>> "Google-killer" open search engine, so it would seem highly prudent
>> for Jimmy to have declared a conflict of interest and avoided WMF
>> board discussions and votes in relation to new development projects
>> around open Knowledge Engines / Search Engines.
>>
>> I welcome some feedback as to whether the general perception of
>> Wikimedians is that WMF trustees should be seen to do more to declare
>> and manage their potential conflicts of interest, and whether Jimmy
>> Wales is perceived to have a conflict of loyalties when steering the
>> WMF board member in areas which overlap with Wikia Inc.'s marketing
>> strategy, and that they might otherwise fund commercially.
>>
>> BACKGROUND
>>
>> With regard to his potential conflict of loyalties when serving as a
>> voting unelected trustee on the WMF board, Jimmy Wales has stated:
>> "I did not have any conflict of loyalties during that process.
>> Spending a reasonable portion of our IT budget on an ambitious project
>> to improve search and discovery, and to conduct research and community
>> consultation on that, is a great idea for Wikipedia and for the
>> broader Wikimedia movement and I strongly support it."[1]
>>
>> Most recently Jimmy Wales has been arguing the case against
>> introducing charges for commercial reusers of WMF services, with an
>> obvious reuser of MediaWiki code improvements and WMF supported open
>> project data being Wikia Inc.[2]
>>
>> There is no record in the WMF board minutes for 2015 of Jimmy Wales
>> having ever declared a conflict of interest or loyalty for Wikia Inc
>> or for any other reason, nor of any other trustee doing so. In order
>> to comply with standard company law, these are expected on the
>> standing agenda for board meetings, and it is worrying for a
>> Foundation with control of $100m assets to never have a trustee or
>> director ever declare an interest as a reason to abstain from a vote
>> or discussion.[3]
>>
>> Jimmy does not appear to see there may be a public perception of
>> conflict of interest or loyalties[6] when he is involved in steering
>> the WMF strategy for prioritizing new developments that are likely to
>> benefit Wikia Inc. The Knowledge Engine / Search Engine project was
>> discussed by the board during 2015 and Jimmy has been a public
>> advocate of the project since it was publicly leaked. The overlap of
>> what is thought to have been the original proposal to the Knight
>> Foundation with Jimmy Wales' original vision for wikia.com, being
>> "Search Wikia", described as a "Google-killer search engine", is an
>> obvious concern. Jimmy Wales: "Obsession: Currently, it’s wikia.com.
>> It is meant to take on Google by creating a search engine where all
>> the editorial decisions are made by the general public and all the
>> software is open."[5]
>>
>> Nine years later Jimmy is promoting the same ideas but with the WMF
>> investing charitable donated funds to support a development that will
>> benefit Wikia, rather than it 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

[Andreas Kolbe]

Brion,

Thanks. Our mails crossed, and this answers some of the questions I had.
Please be assured that I wasn't expecting you to "defend" anything – I'm
merely curious.

Regardless, I think the issues Lila summarised in her mail last month[1],
when we were discussing charging for API usage, bear thinking about.

Best,
Andreas

[1]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-January/081155.html

Andreas

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 8:57 PM, Brion Vibber  wrote:

> On Feb 28, 2016 12:29 PM, "Anthony Cole"  wrote:
> >
> > Brion, are you aware of any WMF tech work aimed specifically at helping
> > large for-profits engage with our projects? Andreas mentioned a
> > side-project for Amazon.
>
> As far as I know, Wikipedia lookups via Apple's  Siri and Amazon Kindle's
> lookup widget are handled 100% by Apple and Amazon respectively. They get
> our data (presumably through our open data dumps), censor it, index it, and
> write and maintain their own search and snippet display services.
>
> And here's an example perhaps of why:
>
> In 2008 or so WMF made an agreement with Apple to provide a search API for
> the Mac OS X Dictionary app, which screen-scrapes Wikipedia articles as one
> of the lookup options. They paid us a small sum and provided source for a
> sample implementation, which I replaced with a one-file PHP script proxying
> to our existing OpenSearch API. The entirety of effort on our end since has
> been occasionally moving the PHP file to another server.
>
> We found it was a bad deal -- in terms of it was moderately annoying
> sometimes for ops and was pretty unclear in success terms, and they paid us
> very little to begin with because we had no experienced business
> development folks yet. We never made further such agreements that I'm aware
> of.
>
> I suppose Andreas might also be referring to work in mobile apps or mobile
> web teams to improve compatibility with various systems, such as making
> sure our Android app is installable on the Android-based Amazon Kindle Fire
> devices. That's to benefit users by making sure they can use our free app
> (open source and no-cost) on their devices regardless of which megacorp
> made the device.
>
> If that's "work for a company" then I have bad news -- our web site works
> in browsers made by for-profit companies too! ;)
>
> If there's anything else I'd really appreciate not having to guess at what
> we're supposed to be defending or denying.
>
> > Regardless of specific instances, in principle, would that be a
> reasonable
> > place to invest general donation revenue, or should we get the
> for-profits
> > to fund such work if it arises?
>
> I don't even know what is being referred to so I'm not sure how to talk
> about it. If talking about compatibility work that helps users, then I
> think that's part of our job to do. If talking about making search engines,
> they can and do just do it themselves without our involvement.
>
> -- brion
>
> >
> > On Monday, 29 February 2016, Brion Vibber  wrote:
> >
> > > On Sunday, February 28, 2016, Andreas Kolbe  > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Jimmy,
> > > >
> > > > I think the first step is for the Foundation to be more open and
> > > > transparent about what work it is actually doing for commercial
> re-users,
> > > > and to announce such work proactively to both donors and the
> community.
> > > > There should be a dedicated space where such information is collected
> and
> > > > available to the public. Major developments should be announced on
> the
> > > > Wikimedia blog.
> > > >
> > > > If some engineering team does work *specifically* for Amazon Kindle,
> > > Amazon
> > > > Echo, Google Play, Siri etc., then in my view the companies concerned
> > > > should pay for that work, or the work should be left to a for-profit
> > > > contractor. It should not be paid for by donors.
> > >
> > >
> > > What non-hypothetical work are you referring to?
> > >
> > > {{cn}}
> > >
> > > -- brion
> > >
> > >
> > > > Donors do not give money to the Foundation so it can flood the
> knowledge
> > > > market with a free product that a handful of companies then earn
> billions
> > > > from.
> > > >
> > > > As for API use, if there are *generic* APIs that multiple commercial
> > > > re-users can benefit from, then they should be charged according to
> their
> > > > usage, with small users operating below a certain threshold being
> exempt
> > > > from payment.
> > > >
> > > > Lastly, we should not seek world domination. :) It's unhealthy,
> > > especially
> > > > in the world of information and knowledge. Prices should be high
> enough
> > > > that some competition is possible.
> > > >
> > > > Andreas
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 5:32 PM, Jimmy Wales  > > 
> > > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On the very specific topic of donor funding going to help
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Jimmy Wales' potential conflict of loyalties for Wikia Inc. versus WMF

[Todd Allen]

Fae,

Your second citation didn't at all match what I recall Jimmy saying on the
subject, so I went and read it. Even the specific email you cite is not, in
any way, "...arguing the case against
introducing charges for commercial reusers of WMF services...". Some quotes
from the email you cited:

"...my general view is 100% in agreement with him on the core issue - where
commercial re-users are getting enormous value from our work, they should
be paying for the engineering resources required for their support."

"...I come down firmly on the side of being careful about falling into a
trap of doing lots of expensive work for commercial re-users without having
them pay."

He does say that there would be some caveats and it would be something to
step lightly on, but I don't think it could be any clearer that he does
want commercial reusers to pay for WMF services in at least some cases.

I'm all for discussion and identification of potential conflicts of
interest. But if you're going to accuse someone of that, you really do need
to make sure you've got your facts straight. Misrepresenting someone, or
some things they said, will not get anyone to take you seriously.

Todd

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Fæ  wrote:

> ISSUE
>
> Jimmy Wales has never declared a conflict of interest or loyalty when
> acting as a WMF trustee. He is co-founder of Wikia Inc, set up in
> 2004, a commercial company that often benefits from new MediaWiki
> developments, and clearly he benefits financially from resulting
> profitability of Wikia. The original vision for Wikia was as a
> "Google-killer" open search engine, so it would seem highly prudent
> for Jimmy to have declared a conflict of interest and avoided WMF
> board discussions and votes in relation to new development projects
> around open Knowledge Engines / Search Engines.
>
> I welcome some feedback as to whether the general perception of
> Wikimedians is that WMF trustees should be seen to do more to declare
> and manage their potential conflicts of interest, and whether Jimmy
> Wales is perceived to have a conflict of loyalties when steering the
> WMF board member in areas which overlap with Wikia Inc.'s marketing
> strategy, and that they might otherwise fund commercially.
>
> BACKGROUND
>
> With regard to his potential conflict of loyalties when serving as a
> voting unelected trustee on the WMF board, Jimmy Wales has stated:
> "I did not have any conflict of loyalties during that process.
> Spending a reasonable portion of our IT budget on an ambitious project
> to improve search and discovery, and to conduct research and community
> consultation on that, is a great idea for Wikipedia and for the
> broader Wikimedia movement and I strongly support it."[1]
>
> Most recently Jimmy Wales has been arguing the case against
> introducing charges for commercial reusers of WMF services, with an
> obvious reuser of MediaWiki code improvements and WMF supported open
> project data being Wikia Inc.[2]
>
> There is no record in the WMF board minutes for 2015 of Jimmy Wales
> having ever declared a conflict of interest or loyalty for Wikia Inc
> or for any other reason, nor of any other trustee doing so. In order
> to comply with standard company law, these are expected on the
> standing agenda for board meetings, and it is worrying for a
> Foundation with control of $100m assets to never have a trustee or
> director ever declare an interest as a reason to abstain from a vote
> or discussion.[3]
>
> Jimmy does not appear to see there may be a public perception of
> conflict of interest or loyalties[6] when he is involved in steering
> the WMF strategy for prioritizing new developments that are likely to
> benefit Wikia Inc. The Knowledge Engine / Search Engine project was
> discussed by the board during 2015 and Jimmy has been a public
> advocate of the project since it was publicly leaked. The overlap of
> what is thought to have been the original proposal to the Knight
> Foundation with Jimmy Wales' original vision for wikia.com, being
> "Search Wikia", described as a "Google-killer search engine", is an
> obvious concern. Jimmy Wales: "Obsession: Currently, it’s wikia.com.
> It is meant to take on Google by creating a search engine where all
> the editorial decisions are made by the general public and all the
> software is open."[5]
>
> Nine years later Jimmy is promoting the same ideas but with the WMF
> investing charitable donated funds to support a development that will
> benefit Wikia, rather than it being commercially funded while using
> much of the same rhetoric, such as the importance of transparency.[4]
>
> Links
> 1.
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082678.html
> 2.
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082721.html
> 3. https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Meetings
> 4. Search Wikia interview
> http://searchengineland.com/qa-with-jimmy-wales-on-search-wikia-10171
> 5. 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

[Anthony Cole]

Brion, are you aware of any WMF tech work aimed specifically at helping
large for-profits engage with our projects? Andreas mentioned a
side-project for Amazon.

Regardless of specific instances, in principle, would that be a reasonable
place to invest general donation revenue, or should we get the for-profits
to fund such work if it arises?

On Monday, 29 February 2016, Brion Vibber  wrote:

> On Sunday, February 28, 2016, Andreas Kolbe  > wrote:
>
> > Jimmy,
> >
> > I think the first step is for the Foundation to be more open and
> > transparent about what work it is actually doing for commercial re-users,
> > and to announce such work proactively to both donors and the community.
> > There should be a dedicated space where such information is collected and
> > available to the public. Major developments should be announced on the
> > Wikimedia blog.
> >
> > If some engineering team does work *specifically* for Amazon Kindle,
> Amazon
> > Echo, Google Play, Siri etc., then in my view the companies concerned
> > should pay for that work, or the work should be left to a for-profit
> > contractor. It should not be paid for by donors.
>
>
> What non-hypothetical work are you referring to?
>
> {{cn}}
>
> -- brion
>
>
> > Donors do not give money to the Foundation so it can flood the knowledge
> > market with a free product that a handful of companies then earn billions
> > from.
> >
> > As for API use, if there are *generic* APIs that multiple commercial
> > re-users can benefit from, then they should be charged according to their
> > usage, with small users operating below a certain threshold being exempt
> > from payment.
> >
> > Lastly, we should not seek world domination. :) It's unhealthy,
> especially
> > in the world of information and knowledge. Prices should be high enough
> > that some competition is possible.
> >
> > Andreas
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 5:32 PM, Jimmy Wales  
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On the very specific topic of donor funding going to help commercial
> > > re-users, we've had some interesting but inconclusive board discussions
> > > about this topic.  Despite that he takes every opportunity to attack
> me,
> > > and surely it will disappoint him to know, but my general view is 100%
> > > in agreement with him on the core issue - where commercial re-users are
> > > getting enormous value from our work, they should be paying for the
> > > engineering resources required for their support.
> > >
> > > Here are two push-backs on the idea that I do think are deserving of
> > > serious consideration:
> > >
> > > 1. Part of our core mission as a community is free access - will a "pay
> > > for service" model for APIs for commercial re-users alienate a
> > > significant portion of the community?  Does requiring some to pay while
> > > others get it free raise questions similar to those around "net
> > > neutrality"?
> > >
> > > As a historical footnote, there was a deal many years ago with
> > > Answers.com to give them access to an API which they used to present
> our
> > > content alongside many other resources.  They paid for that - not a
> huge
> > > amount, but it was meaningful back in those days.  I don't recall this
> > > being particularly controversial.
> > >
> > > 2. In many cases it may be too simplistic to simply say "a company is
> > > benefiting, so they should pay".  The point is that *we* also benefit,
> > > from increased readership for example, from our work making it to end
> > > users as technology changes and as the way people get information
> > > changes.  There is certainly a situation where setting too high a price
> > > would simply push commercial re-users to not use our content at all, so
> > > sensible pricing would be key.  And with real serious ongoing analysis,
> > > the right price could still be "free" even if we in principle charge.
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > > For me, despite those being real concerns, I come down firmly on the
> > > side of being careful about falling into a trap of doing lots of
> > > expensive work for commercial re-users without having them pay.  I
> don't
> > > actually think we do a lot of that right now.  What I'd like to see is
> > > more of it, and I'm pretty agnostic about whether that's in the form of
> > > "self-financing cottage industries" or a "separate for-profit arm" or
> > > within the current engineering organization.  I can see arguments for
> > > any of those.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2/28/16 8:02 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <
> dar...@alk.edu.pl 
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > We COULD outsource most of our tech (I'm not supporting this, I'm
> just
> > > >> giving perspective).
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > One thing I've been wondering about of late is how much donor-funded
> > the
> > > > work the 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

[Brion Vibber]

On Feb 28, 2016 12:29 PM, "Anthony Cole"  wrote:
>
> Brion, are you aware of any WMF tech work aimed specifically at helping
> large for-profits engage with our projects? Andreas mentioned a
> side-project for Amazon.

As far as I know, Wikipedia lookups via Apple's  Siri and Amazon Kindle's
lookup widget are handled 100% by Apple and Amazon respectively. They get
our data (presumably through our open data dumps), censor it, index it, and
write and maintain their own search and snippet display services.

And here's an example perhaps of why:

In 2008 or so WMF made an agreement with Apple to provide a search API for
the Mac OS X Dictionary app, which screen-scrapes Wikipedia articles as one
of the lookup options. They paid us a small sum and provided source for a
sample implementation, which I replaced with a one-file PHP script proxying
to our existing OpenSearch API. The entirety of effort on our end since has
been occasionally moving the PHP file to another server.

We found it was a bad deal -- in terms of it was moderately annoying
sometimes for ops and was pretty unclear in success terms, and they paid us
very little to begin with because we had no experienced business
development folks yet. We never made further such agreements that I'm aware
of.

I suppose Andreas might also be referring to work in mobile apps or mobile
web teams to improve compatibility with various systems, such as making
sure our Android app is installable on the Android-based Amazon Kindle Fire
devices. That's to benefit users by making sure they can use our free app
(open source and no-cost) on their devices regardless of which megacorp
made the device.

If that's "work for a company" then I have bad news -- our web site works
in browsers made by for-profit companies too! ;)

If there's anything else I'd really appreciate not having to guess at what
we're supposed to be defending or denying.

> Regardless of specific instances, in principle, would that be a reasonable
> place to invest general donation revenue, or should we get the for-profits
> to fund such work if it arises?

I don't even know what is being referred to so I'm not sure how to talk
about it. If talking about compatibility work that helps users, then I
think that's part of our job to do. If talking about making search engines,
they can and do just do it themselves without our involvement.

-- brion

>
> On Monday, 29 February 2016, Brion Vibber  wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, February 28, 2016, Andreas Kolbe  > > wrote:
> >
> > > Jimmy,
> > >
> > > I think the first step is for the Foundation to be more open and
> > > transparent about what work it is actually doing for commercial
re-users,
> > > and to announce such work proactively to both donors and the
community.
> > > There should be a dedicated space where such information is collected
and
> > > available to the public. Major developments should be announced on the
> > > Wikimedia blog.
> > >
> > > If some engineering team does work *specifically* for Amazon Kindle,
> > Amazon
> > > Echo, Google Play, Siri etc., then in my view the companies concerned
> > > should pay for that work, or the work should be left to a for-profit
> > > contractor. It should not be paid for by donors.
> >
> >
> > What non-hypothetical work are you referring to?
> >
> > {{cn}}
> >
> > -- brion
> >
> >
> > > Donors do not give money to the Foundation so it can flood the
knowledge
> > > market with a free product that a handful of companies then earn
billions
> > > from.
> > >
> > > As for API use, if there are *generic* APIs that multiple commercial
> > > re-users can benefit from, then they should be charged according to
their
> > > usage, with small users operating below a certain threshold being
exempt
> > > from payment.
> > >
> > > Lastly, we should not seek world domination. :) It's unhealthy,
> > especially
> > > in the world of information and knowledge. Prices should be high
enough
> > > that some competition is possible.
> > >
> > > Andreas
> > >
> > > On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 5:32 PM, Jimmy Wales  > 
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On the very specific topic of donor funding going to help commercial
> > > > re-users, we've had some interesting but inconclusive board
discussions
> > > > about this topic.  Despite that he takes every opportunity to attack
> > me,
> > > > and surely it will disappoint him to know, but my general view is
100%
> > > > in agreement with him on the core issue - where commercial re-users
are
> > > > getting enormous value from our work, they should be paying for the
> > > > engineering resources required for their support.
> > > >
> > > > Here are two push-backs on the idea that I do think are deserving of
> > > > serious consideration:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Part of our core mission as a community is free access - will a
"pay
> > > > for service" model for APIs for 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

[Anthony Cole]

If a tech task is relatively cheap and will expand the spread of free
knowledge then no one would object to you spending a little bit of donor
mony, I'm sure. But don't you see a point where it becomes sensible to
expect the for-profit/s who are expanding their profits thanks to such work
to pay for such work? Especially when we have a limited budget, and
volunteers' requests for you to help them make and present knowledge are
routinely turned down?

On Monday, 29 February 2016, Lodewijk  wrote:

> If statements are hard to answer in real life. I don't think this issue is
> as black-and-white as you paint it to be.
>
> The question is about impact for your bucks. If it requires a relatively
> small investment from WMF for Wikimedia content to be spread among more
> people, to reach a wider audience, and if that cost somehow prohibits those
> commercial players to do it in an open way or with other hurdles that
> hinder further distribution - why not!
>
> Why donors give money, is pure speculation. We only know one thing: we can
> only spend it on our mission. So lets do that.
>
> Lets not exclude whole ranges of issues based on some vague qualification
> that may or may not have foundation in reality. If there is a specific
> example that is terrible and you'd like to bring up, then do so.
>
> Lodewijk
>
> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 9:29 PM, Anthony Cole  > wrote:
>
> > Brion, are you aware of any WMF tech work aimed specifically at helping
> > large for-profits engage with our projects? Andreas mentioned a
> > side-project for Amazon.
> >
> > Regardless of specific instances, in principle, would that be a
> reasonable
> > place to invest general donation revenue, or should we get the
> for-profits
> > to fund such work if it arises?
> >
> > On Monday, 29 February 2016, Brion Vibber  > wrote:
> >
> > > On Sunday, February 28, 2016, Andreas Kolbe  
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Jimmy,
> > > >
> > > > I think the first step is for the Foundation to be more open and
> > > > transparent about what work it is actually doing for commercial
> > re-users,
> > > > and to announce such work proactively to both donors and the
> community.
> > > > There should be a dedicated space where such information is collected
> > and
> > > > available to the public. Major developments should be announced on
> the
> > > > Wikimedia blog.
> > > >
> > > > If some engineering team does work *specifically* for Amazon Kindle,
> > > Amazon
> > > > Echo, Google Play, Siri etc., then in my view the companies concerned
> > > > should pay for that work, or the work should be left to a for-profit
> > > > contractor. It should not be paid for by donors.
> > >
> > >
> > > What non-hypothetical work are you referring to?
> > >
> > > {{cn}}
> > >
> > > -- brion
> > >
> > >
> > > > Donors do not give money to the Foundation so it can flood the
> > knowledge
> > > > market with a free product that a handful of companies then earn
> > billions
> > > > from.
> > > >
> > > > As for API use, if there are *generic* APIs that multiple commercial
> > > > re-users can benefit from, then they should be charged according to
> > their
> > > > usage, with small users operating below a certain threshold being
> > exempt
> > > > from payment.
> > > >
> > > > Lastly, we should not seek world domination. :) It's unhealthy,
> > > especially
> > > > in the world of information and knowledge. Prices should be high
> enough
> > > > that some competition is possible.
> > > >
> > > > Andreas
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 5:32 PM, Jimmy Wales  
> > > 
> > > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On the very specific topic of donor funding going to help
> commercial
> > > > > re-users, we've had some interesting but inconclusive board
> > discussions
> > > > > about this topic.  Despite that he takes every opportunity to
> attack
> > > me,
> > > > > and surely it will disappoint him to know, but my general view is
> > 100%
> > > > > in agreement with him on the core issue - where commercial re-users
> > are
> > > > > getting enormous value from our work, they should be paying for the
> > > > > engineering resources required for their support.
> > > > >
> > > > > Here are two push-backs on the idea that I do think are deserving
> of
> > > > > serious consideration:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Part of our core mission as a community is free access - will a
> > "pay
> > > > > for service" model for APIs for commercial re-users alienate a
> > > > > significant portion of the community?  Does requiring some to pay
> > while
> > > > > others get it free raise questions similar to those around "net
> > > > > neutrality"?
> > > > >
> > > > > As a historical footnote, there was a deal many years ago with
> > > > > Answers.com to give them access to an API which 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

[Dan Garry]

On 28 February 2016 at 13:07, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
> What originally triggered my curiosity was this: I noticed a couple of
> weeks ago that the Kindle offered a Wikipedia look-up function. I couldn't
> recall -- and cannot find -- any corresponding WMF announcement. So, how
> did this happen?
>

Amazon is using our APIs and/or dumps. There's little to add to Brion's
explanation of how this works, so I'd suggest you re-read it.


> "In side project work, the team spent time on API continuation queries,
> Android IP editing notices, Amazon Kindle and other non-Google Play
> distribution, and Google Play reviews (now that the Android launch dust has
> settled, mobile apps product management will be triaging the reviews)."
>
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Engineering/Report/2014/July


To the best of my knowledge, that refers to exactly what Brion suggested it
might, specifically working on the Android app so that it's compatible with
more platforms. It has nothing to do with the Wikipedia lookup
functionality on the Kindle.

Dan

-- 
Dan Garry
Lead Product Manager, Discovery
Wikimedia Foundation
___
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 it means to be a high-tech organization

[Anthony Cole]

If that's the limit of your bespoke work for for-profits, I see no problem.

I'm curious about Andreas's other point. Does the WMF have any formal or
informal agreements with for-profits that aren't yet on the public record?
I realise this is probably a question for the board or chiefs.

On Monday, 29 February 2016, Dan Garry  wrote:

> On 28 February 2016 at 13:07, Andreas Kolbe  > wrote:
> >
> > What originally triggered my curiosity was this: I noticed a couple of
> > weeks ago that the Kindle offered a Wikipedia look-up function. I
> couldn't
> > recall -- and cannot find -- any corresponding WMF announcement. So, how
> > did this happen?
> >
>
> Amazon is using our APIs and/or dumps. There's little to add to Brion's
> explanation of how this works, so I'd suggest you re-read it.
>
>
> > "In side project work, the team spent time on API continuation queries,
> > Android IP editing notices, Amazon Kindle and other non-Google Play
> > distribution, and Google Play reviews (now that the Android launch dust
> has
> > settled, mobile apps product management will be triaging the reviews)."
> >
> > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Engineering/Report/2014/July
>
>
> To the best of my knowledge, that refers to exactly what Brion suggested it
> might, specifically working on the Android app so that it's compatible with
> more platforms. It has nothing to do with the Wikipedia lookup
> functionality on the Kindle.
>
> Dan
>
> --
> Dan Garry
> Lead Product Manager, Discovery
> Wikimedia Foundation
> ___
> 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,
> 
> ?subject=unsubscribe>



-- 
Anthony Cole
___
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 it means to be a *volunteer* organization

[Leigh Thelmadatter]

I have to agree here. The WMF and its employees have forgotten that the mission 
is to support the work done on the various wikis, not make work for fireworks 
for themselves.
Nothing we are dealing with here is new. It is just the eruption of some very 
long-standing problems with the WMF and the tone it sets for the rest of the 
movement. While some might be celebrating now, Lila was not the problem.  IMHO, 
the problem is a lot of hidden hierarchies (denied of course). Add to that, 
that the lack of transparency allows the growth of hidden agendas.
Remember this blew when a community selected board member was tossed off the 
board unceremoniously. We find out through this that the community (or 
chapters) have no real voice on the board under the current set up. 


> From: dacu...@gmail.com
> Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 17:52:30 +0100
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization
> 
> I am starting a new thread because I disagree with the idea that the WMF
> should be a high-tech organization as the other thread by Brion seemed to
> suggest. Yes, technology is a tool that we use in our mission to gather and
> process all forms of human knowledge, but in the end the driving force is
> volunteership.
> 
> Without volunteers there wouldn't be any movement and there wouldn't be any
> need for tools, or any donations whatsoever. It is the concept of working
> for free for the common good that allows us to exist and fulfill our
> mission. The WMF is instrumental in providing the tools for it to happen,
> but those tools are not only technological, they are also legal,
> educational, and social, however when talking through computer screens we
> seem to forget that.
> 
> A hi-tech tool can work for a given task or not, but there are more
> important topics like trust, commitment, empowerment, motivation, and joy
> that cannot be assessed so easily, and that are at least as crucial as any
> software. What is the point of having a perfect tool Z if I don't enjoy
> working with my fellows on a common mission?
> 
> The role of nurturing volunteers is not exclusive of affiliate
> organizations, the WMF offer grants to volunteers and organizes several
> gatherings. Is that enough to strengthen the volunteer community? Then I
> look at organizations like WOOF or workaway that thrive with full-time
> volunteers and I wonder if more opportunities could be opened for our
> volunteers.
> Is there anything holding us back to try new things besides old patterns of
> participation?
> 
> It is a challenge to do more for the volunteer community without resorting
> to grants or payment, but that is the key to succeed as a volunteer
> organization, to provide an ecosystem where personal growth is possible.
> 
> I am interested in hearing what others have to say about it. Maybe it is
> possible to gather ideas or even a team of people who wants to research
> more information about the topic.
> 
> Cheers,
> Micru
> ___
> 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] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

[Brion Vibber]

David, you appear to be agreeing strongly with me, not disagreeing. :)

-- brion

On Sunday, February 28, 2016, David Cuenca Tudela  wrote:

> I am starting a new thread because I disagree with the idea that the WMF
> should be a high-tech organization as the other thread by Brion seemed to
> suggest. Yes, technology is a tool that we use in our mission to gather and
> process all forms of human knowledge, but in the end the driving force is
> volunteership.
>
> Without volunteers there wouldn't be any movement and there wouldn't be any
> need for tools, or any donations whatsoever. It is the concept of working
> for free for the common good that allows us to exist and fulfill our
> mission. The WMF is instrumental in providing the tools for it to happen,
> but those tools are not only technological, they are also legal,
> educational, and social, however when talking through computer screens we
> seem to forget that.
>
> A hi-tech tool can work for a given task or not, but there are more
> important topics like trust, commitment, empowerment, motivation, and joy
> that cannot be assessed so easily, and that are at least as crucial as any
> software. What is the point of having a perfect tool Z if I don't enjoy
> working with my fellows on a common mission?
>
> The role of nurturing volunteers is not exclusive of affiliate
> organizations, the WMF offer grants to volunteers and organizes several
> gatherings. Is that enough to strengthen the volunteer community? Then I
> look at organizations like WOOF or workaway that thrive with full-time
> volunteers and I wonder if more opportunities could be opened for our
> volunteers.
> Is there anything holding us back to try new things besides old patterns of
> participation?
>
> It is a challenge to do more for the volunteer community without resorting
> to grants or payment, but that is the key to succeed as a volunteer
> organization, to provide an ecosystem where personal growth is possible.
>
> I am interested in hearing what others have to say about it. Maybe it is
> possible to gather ideas or even a team of people who wants to research
> more information about the topic.
>
> Cheers,
> Micru
> ___
> 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,
> 
> ?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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

[Richard Ames]

See: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Volunteer_Management#References

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Brion Vibber  wrote:
> Two distinct issues, I think:

>
> 2) about support for volunteers to get stuff done effectively:


___
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 it means to be a high-tech organization

[Lodewijk]

If statements are hard to answer in real life. I don't think this issue is
as black-and-white as you paint it to be.

The question is about impact for your bucks. If it requires a relatively
small investment from WMF for Wikimedia content to be spread among more
people, to reach a wider audience, and if that cost somehow prohibits those
commercial players to do it in an open way or with other hurdles that
hinder further distribution - why not!

Why donors give money, is pure speculation. We only know one thing: we can
only spend it on our mission. So lets do that.

Lets not exclude whole ranges of issues based on some vague qualification
that may or may not have foundation in reality. If there is a specific
example that is terrible and you'd like to bring up, then do so.

Lodewijk

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 9:29 PM, Anthony Cole  wrote:

> Brion, are you aware of any WMF tech work aimed specifically at helping
> large for-profits engage with our projects? Andreas mentioned a
> side-project for Amazon.
>
> Regardless of specific instances, in principle, would that be a reasonable
> place to invest general donation revenue, or should we get the for-profits
> to fund such work if it arises?
>
> On Monday, 29 February 2016, Brion Vibber  wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, February 28, 2016, Andreas Kolbe  > > wrote:
> >
> > > Jimmy,
> > >
> > > I think the first step is for the Foundation to be more open and
> > > transparent about what work it is actually doing for commercial
> re-users,
> > > and to announce such work proactively to both donors and the community.
> > > There should be a dedicated space where such information is collected
> and
> > > available to the public. Major developments should be announced on the
> > > Wikimedia blog.
> > >
> > > If some engineering team does work *specifically* for Amazon Kindle,
> > Amazon
> > > Echo, Google Play, Siri etc., then in my view the companies concerned
> > > should pay for that work, or the work should be left to a for-profit
> > > contractor. It should not be paid for by donors.
> >
> >
> > What non-hypothetical work are you referring to?
> >
> > {{cn}}
> >
> > -- brion
> >
> >
> > > Donors do not give money to the Foundation so it can flood the
> knowledge
> > > market with a free product that a handful of companies then earn
> billions
> > > from.
> > >
> > > As for API use, if there are *generic* APIs that multiple commercial
> > > re-users can benefit from, then they should be charged according to
> their
> > > usage, with small users operating below a certain threshold being
> exempt
> > > from payment.
> > >
> > > Lastly, we should not seek world domination. :) It's unhealthy,
> > especially
> > > in the world of information and knowledge. Prices should be high enough
> > > that some competition is possible.
> > >
> > > Andreas
> > >
> > > On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 5:32 PM, Jimmy Wales  > 
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On the very specific topic of donor funding going to help commercial
> > > > re-users, we've had some interesting but inconclusive board
> discussions
> > > > about this topic.  Despite that he takes every opportunity to attack
> > me,
> > > > and surely it will disappoint him to know, but my general view is
> 100%
> > > > in agreement with him on the core issue - where commercial re-users
> are
> > > > getting enormous value from our work, they should be paying for the
> > > > engineering resources required for their support.
> > > >
> > > > Here are two push-backs on the idea that I do think are deserving of
> > > > serious consideration:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Part of our core mission as a community is free access - will a
> "pay
> > > > for service" model for APIs for commercial re-users alienate a
> > > > significant portion of the community?  Does requiring some to pay
> while
> > > > others get it free raise questions similar to those around "net
> > > > neutrality"?
> > > >
> > > > As a historical footnote, there was a deal many years ago with
> > > > Answers.com to give them access to an API which they used to present
> > our
> > > > content alongside many other resources.  They paid for that - not a
> > huge
> > > > amount, but it was meaningful back in those days.  I don't recall
> this
> > > > being particularly controversial.
> > > >
> > > > 2. In many cases it may be too simplistic to simply say "a company is
> > > > benefiting, so they should pay".  The point is that *we* also
> benefit,
> > > > from increased readership for example, from our work making it to end
> > > > users as technology changes and as the way people get information
> > > > changes.  There is certainly a situation where setting too high a
> price
> > > > would simply push commercial re-users to not use our content at all,
> so
> > > > sensible pricing would be key.  And with real serious ongoing
> analysis,
> > > > the right price 

[Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

[Mohammed Bachounda]

>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 17:54:26 +0100
> From: Florence Devouard 
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech
> organization
> Message-ID: 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> Le 27/02/16 22:41, SarahSV a écrit :
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:49 PM, Florence Devouard 
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Removing a COI is not the only issue at stake Sarah.
> >>
> >> Would WMF get involved into such a process, it would also possibly
> change
> >> its legal reponsibility. Right now, WMF does not get involved in the
> >> editorial process, which allows to claim WMF is only hosting the
> content.
> >> If WMF is somewhat involved in an editorial process which results in
> >> paying the authors, then WMF might lose the "host" status.
> >>
> >> Flo
> >>
> >>
> >> ​Hi Flo, I've heard so many contradictory positions about that over the
> > years that I have no idea what the implications would be.
> >
> > Moving away from the very complex issue of paid editing, Brion opened the
> > thread with different views of what a high-tech organization is, one of
> > which involves lack of diversity, overemphasis on engineering, and
> > exploitation of staff and users at the cost of their physical and
> emotional
> > health. He argued that the WMF should instead cultivate and support staff
> > and volunteers.
> >
> > So what can we do to move the WMF away from the bad aspects of high-tech
> > organizations and toward a position where the health of the paid and
> unpaid
> > workforces is actively nurtured?
>
>
> I had written a LONG email to tell the story of how "Wiki Loves Women"
> ended up NOT funded by Wikimedia Foundation (it is entirely funded and
> supported by partner Goethe Institute).
>
> But in the end... I thought the whole story would bore people here. So
> let me toss two ideas
>
>
> 1) It would be nice that it be possible to ask for grants from WMF that
> would not fall in either of the 4 options, currently
> - annual plan grants (for big official affiliates)
> - PEG (for groups and individuals)
> - individual grants
> - travel grants
>
> PEG is capped (roughly around 30.000 dollars apparently). So between PEG
> and affiliates... there is a big void.
>
>
> 2) It would be nice that WMF set up a system where it is officially
> supporting a project, even though it is not funding it with REAL cash (=
> it is easier to look for other funding organizations when WMF has
> already put a sort of "yeah great project" stamp on it.)
>
>
> Florence
>
>
Although cross grants are welcome; it helps so much to go as fast in the
implementation of the projects

Our Algerian UG in advance with the help of several Algerian organizations,
of course if WF supports our projects with strength
that's really nice :)

-- 

*Mohammed Bachounda*
___
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 it means to be a *volunteer* organization

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Brion,
so far in the discussions I have seen more weight to the idea of the WMF as
a tech provider for the community, and not so much conversation about other
roles that the organization could fulfill besides of tech / grant making.
So when you see that we are agreeing, do you mean that there should be more
power transferred to the communities and that there should be a greater
focus in empowering volunteers?
How would you increase the participation of volunteers in the direction of
the movement? And how to offer volunteers the opportunity to become more
dedicated without paying them directly?

Cheers
Micru

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 8:10 PM, Brion Vibber  wrote:

> David, you appear to be agreeing strongly with me, not disagreeing. :)
>
> -- brion
>
> On Sunday, February 28, 2016, David Cuenca Tudela 
> wrote:
>
> > I am starting a new thread because I disagree with the idea that the WMF
> > should be a high-tech organization as the other thread by Brion seemed to
> > suggest. Yes, technology is a tool that we use in our mission to gather
> and
> > process all forms of human knowledge, but in the end the driving force is
> > volunteership.
> >
> > Without volunteers there wouldn't be any movement and there wouldn't be
> any
> > need for tools, or any donations whatsoever. It is the concept of working
> > for free for the common good that allows us to exist and fulfill our
> > mission. The WMF is instrumental in providing the tools for it to happen,
> > but those tools are not only technological, they are also legal,
> > educational, and social, however when talking through computer screens we
> > seem to forget that.
> >
> > A hi-tech tool can work for a given task or not, but there are more
> > important topics like trust, commitment, empowerment, motivation, and joy
> > that cannot be assessed so easily, and that are at least as crucial as
> any
> > software. What is the point of having a perfect tool Z if I don't enjoy
> > working with my fellows on a common mission?
> >
> > The role of nurturing volunteers is not exclusive of affiliate
> > organizations, the WMF offer grants to volunteers and organizes several
> > gatherings. Is that enough to strengthen the volunteer community? Then I
> > look at organizations like WOOF or workaway that thrive with full-time
> > volunteers and I wonder if more opportunities could be opened for our
> > volunteers.
> > Is there anything holding us back to try new things besides old patterns
> of
> > participation?
> >
> > It is a challenge to do more for the volunteer community without
> resorting
> > to grants or payment, but that is the key to succeed as a volunteer
> > organization, to provide an ecosystem where personal growth is possible.
> >
> > I am interested in hearing what others have to say about it. Maybe it is
> > possible to gather ideas or even a team of people who wants to research
> > more information about the topic.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Micru
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> > ?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,
> 
>



-- 
Etiamsi omnes, ego non
___
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 it means to be a high-tech organization

[Dan Garry]

On 28 February 2016 at 07:31, Yaroslav M. Blanter  wrote:
>
> The relocation does not have to happen overnight. It can easily take
> several years (which is likely longer than the average time a WMF employee
> spends in the organization). But I think discussing this as a strategical
> direction would be beneficial for the movement. The topic was raised
> several times in the past, and I did not get the impression that there was
> any willingness to discuss it from the Board / WMF. (I might be wrong
> though, and pointing out to such discussions will be appreciated).
>

Considering relocation of the office (or, indeed, considering whether we
even need a centralised office at all) is a topic of debate amongst staff.
Lots of staff have opinions, some stronger than others. I imagine this
debate will ultimately inform whomever decides whether we should relocate
or not.

As an aside, this is an example of why I find statements like "the WMF has
no willingness to discuss X" to be problematic; like the larger Wikimedia
community, the Wikimedia Foundation is a collective of individuals with a
broad range of opinions. Statements like "WMF thinks X" or "Community
thinks Y" are almost always trivially false. I find it better to be
specific. :-)

Dan

-- 
Dan Garry
Lead Product Manager, Discovery
Wikimedia Foundation
___
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 it means to be a *volunteer* organization

[Brion Vibber]

On Sunday, February 28, 2016, Leigh Thelmadatter 
wrote:

> I have to agree here.


Yes.


>
> The WMF and its employees have forgotten that the mission is to support
> the work done on the various wikis, not make work for fireworks for
> themselves.


No.


> Nothing we are dealing with here is new. It is just the eruption of some
> very long-standing problems with the WMF and the tone it sets for the rest
> of the movement.


Yes.


> While some might be celebrating now,


No, except as sense of relief in an immediate part of problem bent
addressed.


> Lila was not the problem.  IMHO, the problem is a lot of hidden
> hierarchies (denied of course). Add to that, that the lack of transparency
> allows the growth of hidden agendas.

Remember this blew when a community selected board member was tossed off
> the board unceremoniously. We find out through this that the community (or
> chapters) have no real voice on the board under the current set up.


Yes.

-- brion


>
>
> > From: dacu...@gmail.com 
> > Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 17:52:30 +0100
> > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization
> >
> > I am starting a new thread because I disagree with the idea that the WMF
> > should be a high-tech organization as the other thread by Brion seemed to
> > suggest. Yes, technology is a tool that we use in our mission to gather
> and
> > process all forms of human knowledge, but in the end the driving force is
> > volunteership.
> >
> > Without volunteers there wouldn't be any movement and there wouldn't be
> any
> > need for tools, or any donations whatsoever. It is the concept of working
> > for free for the common good that allows us to exist and fulfill our
> > mission. The WMF is instrumental in providing the tools for it to happen,
> > but those tools are not only technological, they are also legal,
> > educational, and social, however when talking through computer screens we
> > seem to forget that.
> >
> > A hi-tech tool can work for a given task or not, but there are more
> > important topics like trust, commitment, empowerment, motivation, and joy
> > that cannot be assessed so easily, and that are at least as crucial as
> any
> > software. What is the point of having a perfect tool Z if I don't enjoy
> > working with my fellows on a common mission?
> >
> > The role of nurturing volunteers is not exclusive of affiliate
> > organizations, the WMF offer grants to volunteers and organizes several
> > gatherings. Is that enough to strengthen the volunteer community? Then I
> > look at organizations like WOOF or workaway that thrive with full-time
> > volunteers and I wonder if more opportunities could be opened for our
> > volunteers.
> > Is there anything holding us back to try new things besides old patterns
> of
> > participation?
> >
> > It is a challenge to do more for the volunteer community without
> resorting
> > to grants or payment, but that is the key to succeed as a volunteer
> > organization, to provide an ecosystem where personal growth is possible.
> >
> > I am interested in hearing what others have to say about it. Maybe it is
> > possible to gather ideas or even a team of people who wants to research
> > more information about the topic.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Micru
> > ___
> > 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,
> 
> ?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,
> 
> ?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, 

[Wikimedia-l] Jimmy Wales' potential conflict of loyalties for Wikia Inc. versus WMF

[Fæ]

ISSUE

Jimmy Wales has never declared a conflict of interest or loyalty when
acting as a WMF trustee. He is co-founder of Wikia Inc, set up in
2004, a commercial company that often benefits from new MediaWiki
developments, and clearly he benefits financially from resulting
profitability of Wikia. The original vision for Wikia was as a
"Google-killer" open search engine, so it would seem highly prudent
for Jimmy to have declared a conflict of interest and avoided WMF
board discussions and votes in relation to new development projects
around open Knowledge Engines / Search Engines.

I welcome some feedback as to whether the general perception of
Wikimedians is that WMF trustees should be seen to do more to declare
and manage their potential conflicts of interest, and whether Jimmy
Wales is perceived to have a conflict of loyalties when steering the
WMF board member in areas which overlap with Wikia Inc.'s marketing
strategy, and that they might otherwise fund commercially.

BACKGROUND

With regard to his potential conflict of loyalties when serving as a
voting unelected trustee on the WMF board, Jimmy Wales has stated:
"I did not have any conflict of loyalties during that process.
Spending a reasonable portion of our IT budget on an ambitious project
to improve search and discovery, and to conduct research and community
consultation on that, is a great idea for Wikipedia and for the
broader Wikimedia movement and I strongly support it."[1]

Most recently Jimmy Wales has been arguing the case against
introducing charges for commercial reusers of WMF services, with an
obvious reuser of MediaWiki code improvements and WMF supported open
project data being Wikia Inc.[2]

There is no record in the WMF board minutes for 2015 of Jimmy Wales
having ever declared a conflict of interest or loyalty for Wikia Inc
or for any other reason, nor of any other trustee doing so. In order
to comply with standard company law, these are expected on the
standing agenda for board meetings, and it is worrying for a
Foundation with control of $100m assets to never have a trustee or
director ever declare an interest as a reason to abstain from a vote
or discussion.[3]

Jimmy does not appear to see there may be a public perception of
conflict of interest or loyalties[6] when he is involved in steering
the WMF strategy for prioritizing new developments that are likely to
benefit Wikia Inc. The Knowledge Engine / Search Engine project was
discussed by the board during 2015 and Jimmy has been a public
advocate of the project since it was publicly leaked. The overlap of
what is thought to have been the original proposal to the Knight
Foundation with Jimmy Wales' original vision for wikia.com, being
"Search Wikia", described as a "Google-killer search engine", is an
obvious concern. Jimmy Wales: "Obsession: Currently, it’s wikia.com.
It is meant to take on Google by creating a search engine where all
the editorial decisions are made by the general public and all the
software is open."[5]

Nine years later Jimmy is promoting the same ideas but with the WMF
investing charitable donated funds to support a development that will
benefit Wikia, rather than it being commercially funded while using
much of the same rhetoric, such as the importance of transparency.[4]

Links
1. https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082678.html
2. https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082721.html
3. https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Meetings
4. Search Wikia interview
http://searchengineland.com/qa-with-jimmy-wales-on-search-wikia-10171
5. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/magazine/18wwln-domains-t.html
6. Company directors and trustees are expected to declare both
"conflicts of interest", normally interpreted as having a direct or
indirect financial interest, and "conflicts of loyalty" where their
non-financial interests may be seen to potentially influence their
judgement as a board member. There may be no demonstrable conflict for
this to be an issue, it only needs to be potentially be seen to be an
issue by others, in order to require a declaration.
7. "Take advantage of Wikia's custom research solutions to achieve
campaign objectives, including brand lift studies, target audience
insights, and more!", "Reach the right audience with the right message
using Wikia's multitude of targeting opportunities, including
demographic, psychographic, geographic, contextual, genre, devices,
conquesting, and more!" http://www.wikia.com/mediakit

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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] Jimmy Wales' potential conflict of loyalties for Wikia Inc. versus WMF

[Fæ]

Sorry, let me back peddle on that sentence, Todd is correct.  Dropping that
paragraph from my email does not stop the issue of perceived conflict of
interest and Wikia from being a valid concern worth open discussion.

Fae
On 28 Feb 2016 20:23, "Fæ"  wrote:

> Todd, putting the caveats before the main thrust of Jimmy Wales'
> email, is a strange way of reading it. I read the email the obvious
> way, and I encourage others to read the original for themselves,
> rather than relying on cherry-picked quotes towards the end.
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
>
> On 28 February 2016 at 20:17, Todd Allen  wrote:
> > Fae,
> >
> > Your second citation didn't at all match what I recall Jimmy saying on
> the
> > subject, so I went and read it. Even the specific email you cite is not,
> in
> > any way, "...arguing the case against
> > introducing charges for commercial reusers of WMF services...". Some
> quotes
> > from the email you cited:
> >
> > "...my general view is 100% in agreement with him on the core issue -
> where
> > commercial re-users are getting enormous value from our work, they should
> > be paying for the engineering resources required for their support."
> >
> > "...I come down firmly on the side of being careful about falling into a
> > trap of doing lots of expensive work for commercial re-users without
> having
> > them pay."
> >
> > He does say that there would be some caveats and it would be something to
> > step lightly on, but I don't think it could be any clearer that he does
> > want commercial reusers to pay for WMF services in at least some cases.
> >
> > I'm all for discussion and identification of potential conflicts of
> > interest. But if you're going to accuse someone of that, you really do
> need
> > to make sure you've got your facts straight. Misrepresenting someone, or
> > some things they said, will not get anyone to take you seriously.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Fæ  wrote:
> >
> >> ISSUE
> >>
> >> Jimmy Wales has never declared a conflict of interest or loyalty when
> >> acting as a WMF trustee. He is co-founder of Wikia Inc, set up in
> >> 2004, a commercial company that often benefits from new MediaWiki
> >> developments, and clearly he benefits financially from resulting
> >> profitability of Wikia. The original vision for Wikia was as a
> >> "Google-killer" open search engine, so it would seem highly prudent
> >> for Jimmy to have declared a conflict of interest and avoided WMF
> >> board discussions and votes in relation to new development projects
> >> around open Knowledge Engines / Search Engines.
> >>
> >> I welcome some feedback as to whether the general perception of
> >> Wikimedians is that WMF trustees should be seen to do more to declare
> >> and manage their potential conflicts of interest, and whether Jimmy
> >> Wales is perceived to have a conflict of loyalties when steering the
> >> WMF board member in areas which overlap with Wikia Inc.'s marketing
> >> strategy, and that they might otherwise fund commercially.
> >>
> >> BACKGROUND
> >>
> >> With regard to his potential conflict of loyalties when serving as a
> >> voting unelected trustee on the WMF board, Jimmy Wales has stated:
> >> "I did not have any conflict of loyalties during that process.
> >> Spending a reasonable portion of our IT budget on an ambitious project
> >> to improve search and discovery, and to conduct research and community
> >> consultation on that, is a great idea for Wikipedia and for the
> >> broader Wikimedia movement and I strongly support it."[1]
> >>
> >> Most recently Jimmy Wales has been arguing the case against
> >> introducing charges for commercial reusers of WMF services, with an
> >> obvious reuser of MediaWiki code improvements and WMF supported open
> >> project data being Wikia Inc.[2]
> >>
> >> There is no record in the WMF board minutes for 2015 of Jimmy Wales
> >> having ever declared a conflict of interest or loyalty for Wikia Inc
> >> or for any other reason, nor of any other trustee doing so. In order
> >> to comply with standard company law, these are expected on the
> >> standing agenda for board meetings, and it is worrying for a
> >> Foundation with control of $100m assets to never have a trustee or
> >> director ever declare an interest as a reason to abstain from a vote
> >> or discussion.[3]
> >>
> >> Jimmy does not appear to see there may be a public perception of
> >> conflict of interest or loyalties[6] when he is involved in steering
> >> the WMF strategy for prioritizing new developments that are likely to
> >> benefit Wikia Inc. The Knowledge Engine / Search Engine project was
> >> discussed by the board during 2015 and Jimmy has been a public
> >> advocate of the project since it was publicly leaked. The overlap of
> >> what is thought to have been the original proposal to the Knight
> >> Foundation with Jimmy Wales' original vision for wikia.com, being
> >> "Search Wikia", 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Brion Vibber  wrote:

>
> What non-hypothetical work are you referring to?
>
> {{cn}}
>
> -- brion
>


Brion,

You tell me. :) For what it's worth, Jimmy Wales has said in this thread
today,


---o0o---

On the very specific topic of donor funding going to help commercial
re-users, we've had some interesting but inconclusive board discussions
about this topic.

---o0o---


So this clearly has come up.

What originally triggered my curiosity was this: I noticed a couple of
weeks ago that the Kindle offered a Wikipedia look-up function. I couldn't
recall -- and cannot find -- any corresponding WMF announcement. So, how
did this happen?

The only thing I did find, as I was looking for a WMF announcement, was a
mention in an Engineering Report, which mentioned, in passing, a WMF team
doing work on this:


---o0o---

"In side project work, the team spent time on API continuation queries,
Android IP editing notices, Amazon Kindle and other non-Google Play
distribution, and Google Play reviews (now that the Android launch dust has
settled, mobile apps product management will be triaging the reviews)."

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Engineering/Report/2014/July

---o0o---


Google Play certainly contains a lot of Wikipedia content, and it's a
commercial service. I also recently was pointed to this 2008 email from Sue
Gardner, released as a court exhibit in the same antitrust case Arnnon
Geshuri was involved in. Sue said, in part:


---o0o---

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.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/sandberg.pdf

---o0o---


I don't recall any such business deal or umbrella agreement ever having
been announced publicly. So, what happened, and has it impacted in any way
what people at WMF have been working on since?

I believe that if the WMF does enter into business agreements with
companies like Google or Amazon, or does work designed to enhance their
product, then the community and the donating public should be told.

I'm sure you appreciate that it's very hard for me as a non-staff member to
gauge what's going on, but there were enough breadcrumbs here for me to
feel it was worth asking the question.

Does that help?

Andreas
___
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 it means to be a high-tech organization

[Risker]

Somewhat off-topic comment:

Andreas, the way you are formatting your messages  (especially with that
---o0o--- symbol), it's pretty much impossible to differentiate what you're
saying and what you're quoting from someone else.  Could you please be much
more clear on this?

Risker/Anne

On 28 February 2016 at 16:07, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Brion Vibber 
> wrote:
>
> >
> > What non-hypothetical work are you referring to?
> >
> > {{cn}}
> >
> > -- brion
> >
>
>
> Brion,
>
> You tell me. :) For what it's worth, Jimmy Wales has said in this thread
> today,
>
>
> ---o0o---
>
> On the very specific topic of donor funding going to help commercial
> re-users, we've had some interesting but inconclusive board discussions
> about this topic.
>
> ---o0o---
>
>
> So this clearly has come up.
>
> What originally triggered my curiosity was this: I noticed a couple of
> weeks ago that the Kindle offered a Wikipedia look-up function. I couldn't
> recall -- and cannot find -- any corresponding WMF announcement. So, how
> did this happen?
>
> The only thing I did find, as I was looking for a WMF announcement, was a
> mention in an Engineering Report, which mentioned, in passing, a WMF team
> doing work on this:
>
>
> ---o0o---
>
> "In side project work, the team spent time on API continuation queries,
> Android IP editing notices, Amazon Kindle and other non-Google Play
> distribution, and Google Play reviews (now that the Android launch dust has
> settled, mobile apps product management will be triaging the reviews)."
>
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Engineering/Report/2014/July
>
> ---o0o---
>
>
> Google Play certainly contains a lot of Wikipedia content, and it's a
> commercial service. I also recently was pointed to this 2008 email from Sue
> Gardner, released as a court exhibit in the same antitrust case Arnnon
> Geshuri was involved in. Sue said, in part:
>
>
> ---o0o---
>
> 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.
>
> http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/sandberg.pdf
>
> ---o0o---
>
>
> I don't recall any such business deal or umbrella agreement ever having
> been announced publicly. So, what happened, and has it impacted in any way
> what people at WMF have been working on since?
>
> I believe that if the WMF does enter into business agreements with
> companies like Google or Amazon, or does work designed to enhance their
> product, then the community and the donating public should be told.
>
> I'm sure you appreciate that it's very hard for me as a non-staff member to
> gauge what's going on, but there were enough breadcrumbs here for me to
> feel it was worth asking the question.
>
> Does that help?
>
> Andreas
> ___
> 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] Jimmy Wales' potential conflict of loyalties for Wikia Inc. versus WMF

[Gergő Tisza]

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Fæ  wrote:

> The original vision for Wikia was as a "Google-killer" open search

engine, so it would seem highly prudent for Jimmy to have declared

a conflict of interest and avoided WMF board discussions and votes

in relation to new development projects around open Knowledge

Engines / Search Engines.
>

Um, what? The vision for Wikia (then called Wikicities) was a wiki hosting
provider for small communities. See e.g. [1]. (And also, I suppose, to
capture the ad money that could not be captured on Wikipedia, and put it
into MediaWiki development. Today the contributions to MediaWiki from Wikia
are dwarfed by those from Wikimedia but that wasn't always so.)

Search Wikia was a (short-lived and thoroughly unsuccessful) experiment to
create a community of search engine developers and come up with an
open-source, transparent, community-curated Google-competitor. Which was a
nice idea, if unrealistic, and IMO more likely to end up in a new
Wikipedia-style thing than anything profitable to Wikia, given that there
was no lock-in. I'm not even sure if Wikia the company was involved in it
in any significant way, apart from providing the wiki used for discussion
and creating some media attention.


[1] http://www.sptimes.com/2005/04/04/Technology/Global_villages_conve.shtml
___
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] Jimmy Wales' potential conflict of loyalties for Wikia Inc. versus WMF

[Jimmy Wales]

I've been advised by more than one community member not to engage
further on this, but I need to correct what I see as a potentially
dangerous falsehood.

On 2/28/16 11:47 AM, Fæ wrote:
> ISSUE
> 
> Jimmy Wales has never declared a conflict of interest or loyalty when
> acting as a WMF trustee. 

This is absolutely 100% false.  I have always declared, formally and in
writing, my role at Wikia.  I have additionally worked to make sure that
all board members know about it, and I have on multiple occasions
recused myself from votes where there could be a perceived or actual
conflict of interest.

In the current case, the board has not voted on anything like having a
general purpose search engine.  That I tried to build an open source
search engine several years ago would not, in my view, have any bearing
on the decision not to do that, and if we were voting on doing something
like that, I would vote no - I think it's not possible with our
resources and therefore our limited resources are better used on
sensible things.

Additionally, as others have pointed out, Wikia is moving away from
Mediawiki.  So even the idea that me thinking that Mediawiki should be
improved as a dastardly conspiracy doesn't really seem very persuasive.

> Most recently Jimmy Wales has been arguing the case against
> introducing charges for commercial reusers of WMF services, with an
> obvious reuser of MediaWiki code improvements and WMF supported open
> project data being Wikia Inc.[2]

You'd be more persuasive smearing me if you bothered to read what I
wrote.  I support introducing charges for commercial reusers of WMF
services, in those cases where it makes sense to do so.  I listed some
objections to that idea which I think are worthy of consideration, but I
come down on balance that the idea, in principle, is a good one.

I won't be engaging further with this kind of nonsense.  There are
really important and interesting conversations that are happening here.

--Jimbo



___
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] Inspire Campaign on content curation & review launches today!

[Chris "Jethro" Schilling]

Hi everyone,

I am pleased to announce the launch of the second Inspire Campaign for
IdeaLab.[1]  The theme of this campaign is focused on improving tasks
related to content curation & review in our projects:



Reviewing and organizing tasks are fundamental to all WIkimedia projects,
and these efforts maintain and directly improve the quality of our projects
in addition to increasing the visibility of their content.  We invite
everyone to participate by sharing your ideas and proposals on how to
enhance these efforts. Constructive feedback and collaboration on ideas is
encouraged - your skills and advice can elevate a project into action. The
campaign runs until 29 March.

All proposals are welcome - research projects, technical solutions,
community organizing and outreach, or something completely new! Grants are
available from the Wikimedia Foundation for projects developed during this
campaign that need financial support.[2]  Google Hangout sessions are
available in March if you'd like to have a conversation about your ideas.[3]

Join the Inspire Campaign and let’s work together to improve review and
curation tasks so that we can make our content more meaningful and
accessible.

With thanks,

Jethro

[1] You can learn more about the results of the first Inspire Campaign
here: 
[2] 
[3]   (Note: If
another time would work better for you, feel free to e-mail me or ping me
on-wiki).

---
Chris "Jethro" Schilling
I JethroBT (WMF) 
Community Organizer, Wikimedia Foundation

___
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] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

[Chris Sherlock]

Chris, I think you are misreading something that I wrote. 

> On 2/28/16 1:03 AM, Chris Sherlock wrote: 
> > The Jimmy sent an email to the mailing list: 
> > 
> >> It was written at a time when there were efforts underway by 
> >> Patricio to get James to agree to a joint statement. It is an 
> >> encouragement to James to be honest with the community about what 
> >> happened. It is not a full explanation of what happened - he 
> >> already knew that. 
> > 
> > And yet, when he was advised by James that in fact that effort was 
> > spearheaded by James and not Patricio, he turns around and states 
> > that he didn’t know as he wasn’t involved. 
> 
> Both of those things are true. I knew they were talking, I didn't know who 
> who initiated it. 

Yes, but you need to be more clear. At the risk of playing semantic games, your 
exact words here are “efforts underway *by Patricio* to *get James to agree* to 
a joint statement. 

You are implying here that the effort was all on Patricio’s side, which has 
nothing to do with who initiated the conversation. I’m sure you didn’t mean 
that, but nonetheless you’ve said it now. 

Given that the Board asked James to leave their meeting, you wouldn’t be able 
to clarify a point that’s been puzzling me for some time?

1. When James was made to leave, then did anyone tell him that there was going 
to be a joint or prepared statement from the WMF? 
2. If so, did anyone ask James not to email the mailing list? And why did you 
feel that was so inappropriate? 
3. Please help me in understanding - do you feel that Chatham House Rules must 
apply in the removal of an executive even to the point they are unable to 
announce their own departure? 

> > Jimmy has just now written 
> > that it was the Wikimedia Foundation that “encouraged [him] to be 
> > honest with the community”. 
> 
> No, I said that I wrote him a personal letter to that effect.

I follow, the mistake here is mine. I apologise for getting that wrong. 

Jimmy, will you respond to some of the other points I made? In particular, what 
you wrote to James was dreadful. Even if you feel that his actions were wrong, 
surely you can see that your inflammatory words are unbecoming of someone of 
your stature within the Wikimedia Foundation? 

There are a lot of other questions that have been asked, but that would be a 
reasonable start. I don’t think you quite grasp how many people were shocked at 
the way you dealt with James when he was removed. 

Chris


___
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] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

[Jimmy Wales]

On 2/28/16 5:45 PM, Chris Sherlock wrote:
> Yes, but you need to be more clear. At the risk of playing semantic
> games, your exact words here are “efforts underway *by Patricio* to
> *get James to agree* to a joint statement.
> 
> You are implying here that the effort was all on Patricio’s side,
> which has nothing to do with who initiated the conversation. I’m sure
> you didn’t mean that, but nonetheless you’ve said it now.

Ok.  I didn't mean to imply anything.  All I knew was that efforts were
underway by Patricio to get James to agree to a joint statement.  That's
100% true.  I didn't know something else that is 100% true - that James
initiated the process and was, therefore, presumably trying to get
Patricio to agree to a joint statement.

In any event, that effort failed, so that's that.

> Given that the Board asked James to leave their meeting, you wouldn’t
> be able to clarify a point that’s been puzzling me for some time?
> 
> 1. When James was made to leave, then did anyone tell him that there
> was going to be a joint or prepared statement from the WMF? 2. If so,
> did anyone ask James not to email the mailing list? And why did you
> feel that was so inappropriate? 3. Please help me in understanding -
> do you feel that Chatham House Rules must apply in the removal of an
> executive even to the point they are unable to announce their own
> departure?

Wow, this is really getting into some nitty gritty.  1. I don't know.
2(a) I don't think so, but I don't know.  2(b) There was a general
feeling of surprise that he started spinning his version of events
before the meeting even ended.  It would have been better to at least
wait for the meeting to end and discuss how to best communicate it.  (3)
No, I don't think anything resembling that at all.

> Jimmy, will you respond to some of the other points I made? In
> particular, what you wrote to James was dreadful. Even if you feel
> that his actions were wrong, surely you can see that your
> inflammatory words are unbecoming of someone of your stature within
> the Wikimedia Foundation?

I was astonished that he made claims that were utterly false - remember
that this is 100% confirmed now with a statement from every board member
who was involved.  I'm sorry if the words upset some people, but I
really was astonished.



___
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] Movement representation vs WMF board reform

[Pharos]

Hi fellow Wikimedians,

If we are seriously going to consider an expanded Community Council as an
alternative to WMF BoT reform, we need to have a real discussion about what
"devolution" would mean, and what specific responsibilities we think should
be given up, and distributed to a broader community governance.

For example:

Should the WMF BoT devolve a non-core portion of the budget?  How would the
core portion be defined, and the non-core aspects?
Should the WMF BoT devolve aspects of the approval or closing of sister
sites? (Wiktionary, Wikidata, Wikinews, a potential genealogy project)
Should the WMF BoT devolve aspects related to Wikimania and related
regional meetings?

Thanks,
Pharos

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Emmanuel Engelhart 
wrote:

> On 28.02.2016 15:53, Brion Vibber wrote:
> > I just want to split out a concept that came up in the big threads of the
> > last few days:
> >
> > Some members of the WMF Board of Trustees are giving strong signals
> (like,
> > saying it outright) that the BoT can't fully take on the role of movement
> > leadership or community representation. Not because they think it
> shouldn't
> > happen, but because structurally and legally and practically the board of
> > Wikimedia Foundation Inc has different roles to fill.
> >
> > I think we should consider what roles and structures we *do* want as
> > members of the Wikimedia movement community. And I think we should think
> > about that and talk about that carefully before rushing into details like
> > board reform.
> >
> > Perhaps we should explicitly accept WMF as a "first among equals" org
> > within the movement, with specific roles like tech development and
> > fundraising (or other emphases as well) while other orgs concentrate on
> > different specific issues. Or even just "one among equals" that happens
> to
> > have specialized in those roles.
> >
> > This probably means we should think about "umbrella" structures to
> > coordinate and represent and look forward.
> >
> > And that's something we should *definitely* not rush into. If a mismatch
> in
> > hopes for what the WMF BoT can and should do has been a factor in
> > communication and leadership issues in the past, then it's very important
> > we not make the same kinds of mistakes in any new structures that might
> be
> > needed.
>
> Delighting to read this. That said, the path to achieve this looks
> pretty challenging. Would the WMF be able to organize such a move and
> "give-up" parts of its duties/activities to better focus on core business?
>
> Emmanuel
>
> --
> Kiwix - Wikipedia Offline & more
> * Web: http://www.kiwix.org
> * Twitter: https://twitter.com/KiwixOffline
> * more: http://www.kiwix.org/wiki/Communication
>
>
> ___
> 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] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

[SarahSV]

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 7:39 PM, SarahSV  wrote:

> Jimmy, would you please release the 30 December 2015 email you sent Doc
> James telling him why he had been removed?
>
> ​Jimmy, I see you responded to this in another thread, so I apologize for
the repetition. Thank you for the response.

Sarah​
___
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] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

[SarahSV]

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Jimmy Wales  wrote:

>
> No, this is wrong.  I think things should be much more transparent at
> the WMF generally, and with the board in particular.
>


Jimmy, would you please release the 30 December 2015 email you sent Doc
James telling him why he had been removed?

He has asked you to release it. [1] You have called for "full publication
of the details" around the dismissal. [2] Given those statements, there
doesn't appear to be a reason not to release it.

Sarah

[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales=700371563=700371273

[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales=prev=707188382
___
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] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

[Anthony Cole]

Jimmy's response on Sunday 28 February:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082685.html

"...
There are board discussions ongoing about more information being released -
and I hope those are productive. Within a few days time, I'll know whether
it's ok for me to publish this private email - it still touches on matters
that are not public.
..."


Anthony Cole


On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:52 AM, SarahSV  wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 7:39 PM, SarahSV  wrote:
>
> > Jimmy, would you please release the 30 December 2015 email you sent Doc
> > James telling him why he had been removed?
> >
> > ​Jimmy, I see you responded to this in another thread, so I apologize for
> the repetition. Thank you for the response.
>
> Sarah​
> ___
> 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] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

[David Emrany]

Hi Brion

When you refer to patches with other movements / affiliates, are you
proposing that WMF sponsors more Gibraltrapedias ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltarpedia

Have we forgotten so soon the adverse media publicity about these
stealth PR campaigns

"Once Wikipedia becomes a pay-to-play platform in any sense, it's no
longer a balanced, universal wellspring of information. It's just
another commercial website, with a particularly insidious brand of
camouflaged advertising. Any company with a sly enough PR person could
promote ostensibly fascinating facts about its products" [1]

"payment of money to Wikipedia editors represented "the greatest
threat the [Wikipedia] brand has seen to date" [2].

Lila had taken the first technical / automation /AI steps to identify
/ weed out the paid editing claques which rule the roost. That she was
eased out in this way shows that WMF is in terminal disrepair, and I
resent Flo's attempt to deflect this thread away from the numerous
paid editing controversies which have dogged the projects since the
very beginning and systematically driven away all competent potential
long-term contributors.

At the risk of being unpopular, I suggest the long-term health of our
projects require that its not about empowering our volunteers but
about regulating them.

David

[1]  
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/09/20/roger_bamkin_gibraltor_s_repeated_appearance_on_did_you_know_provkes_existential_crisis_for_wikipedia_.html

[2] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/20/wikimedia_uk_scandal/

On 2/29/16, Brion Vibber  wrote:
> Two distinct issues, I think:
>
> 1) about improving community representation in power structures, I think we
> have to think more about what representation we want and what structures
> would accomplish it. I have no answers but think we should consider looking
> beyond WMF alone:
>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082703.html
>
> 2) about support for volunteers to get stuff done effectively: I'll have
> mostly tech-focused thoughts on that because that's where my expertise is,
> so you need to hear from other people who interact with a wider set of
> volunteers than patch contributors and the people who manage to figure out
> our feedback systems. :) whether that should be funded by / staffed within
> WMF or our other movement orgs or both is an open question.
>
> -- brion
> On Feb 28, 2016 11:51 AM, "David Cuenca Tudela"  wrote:
>
>> Brion,
>> so far in the discussions I have seen more weight to the idea of the WMF
>> as
>> a tech provider for the community, and not so much conversation about
>> other
>> roles that the organization could fulfill besides of tech / grant making.
>> So when you see that we are agreeing, do you mean that there should be
>> more
>> power transferred to the communities and that there should be a greater
>> focus in empowering volunteers?
>> How would you increase the participation of volunteers in the direction of
>> the movement? And how to offer volunteers the opportunity to become more
>> dedicated without paying them directly?
>>
>> Cheers
>> Micru

___
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] Movement representation vs WMF board reform

[Anthony Cole]

A link to Pharos's (and others') Community Council Compact:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_Council_Compact

Your questions highlight the complexity of creating a new, representative
corporation. It would be a lot simpler to just convert WMF into a
membership organisation with members electing the majority of board
members, and the board appointing expert trustees.

The latter involves the acquiescence of the board, though. Without that,
the former - an new, representative body - is all we're left with if we
want the people who make and run the projects to control the purse strings,
as opposed to the current situation where the techie tail wags the
encyclopaedist dog.



Anthony Cole


On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Pharos 
wrote:

> Hi fellow Wikimedians,
>
> If we are seriously going to consider an expanded Community Council as an
> alternative to WMF BoT reform, we need to have a real discussion about what
> "devolution" would mean, and what specific responsibilities we think should
> be given up, and distributed to a broader community governance.
>
> For example:
>
> Should the WMF BoT devolve a non-core portion of the budget?  How would the
> core portion be defined, and the non-core aspects?
> Should the WMF BoT devolve aspects of the approval or closing of sister
> sites? (Wiktionary, Wikidata, Wikinews, a potential genealogy project)
> Should the WMF BoT devolve aspects related to Wikimania and related
> regional meetings?
>
> Thanks,
> Pharos
>
> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Emmanuel Engelhart 
> wrote:
>
> > On 28.02.2016 15:53, Brion Vibber wrote:
> > > I just want to split out a concept that came up in the big threads of
> the
> > > last few days:
> > >
> > > Some members of the WMF Board of Trustees are giving strong signals
> > (like,
> > > saying it outright) that the BoT can't fully take on the role of
> movement
> > > leadership or community representation. Not because they think it
> > shouldn't
> > > happen, but because structurally and legally and practically the board
> of
> > > Wikimedia Foundation Inc has different roles to fill.
> > >
> > > I think we should consider what roles and structures we *do* want as
> > > members of the Wikimedia movement community. And I think we should
> think
> > > about that and talk about that carefully before rushing into details
> like
> > > board reform.
> > >
> > > Perhaps we should explicitly accept WMF as a "first among equals" org
> > > within the movement, with specific roles like tech development and
> > > fundraising (or other emphases as well) while other orgs concentrate on
> > > different specific issues. Or even just "one among equals" that happens
> > to
> > > have specialized in those roles.
> > >
> > > This probably means we should think about "umbrella" structures to
> > > coordinate and represent and look forward.
> > >
> > > And that's something we should *definitely* not rush into. If a
> mismatch
> > in
> > > hopes for what the WMF BoT can and should do has been a factor in
> > > communication and leadership issues in the past, then it's very
> important
> > > we not make the same kinds of mistakes in any new structures that might
> > be
> > > needed.
> >
> > Delighting to read this. That said, the path to achieve this looks
> > pretty challenging. Would the WMF be able to organize such a move and
> > "give-up" parts of its duties/activities to better focus on core
> business?
> >
> > Emmanuel
> >
> > --
> > Kiwix - Wikipedia Offline & more
> > * Web: http://www.kiwix.org
> > * Twitter: https://twitter.com/KiwixOffline
> > * more: http://www.kiwix.org/wiki/Communication
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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 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 it means to be a *volunteer* organization

[Brion Vibber]

On Feb 28, 2016 7:23 PM, "David Emrany"  wrote:
>
> Hi Brion
>
> When you refer to patches with other movements / affiliates, are you
> proposing that WMF sponsors more Gibraltrapedias ?

Never heard of it, so can't comment.

-- brion

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltarpedia
>
> Have we forgotten so soon the adverse media publicity about these
> stealth PR campaigns
>
> "Once Wikipedia becomes a pay-to-play platform in any sense, it's no
> longer a balanced, universal wellspring of information. It's just
> another commercial website, with a particularly insidious brand of
> camouflaged advertising. Any company with a sly enough PR person could
> promote ostensibly fascinating facts about its products" [1]
>
> "payment of money to Wikipedia editors represented "the greatest
> threat the [Wikipedia] brand has seen to date" [2].
>
> Lila had taken the first technical / automation /AI steps to identify
> / weed out the paid editing claques which rule the roost. That she was
> eased out in this way shows that WMF is in terminal disrepair, and I
> resent Flo's attempt to deflect this thread away from the numerous
> paid editing controversies which have dogged the projects since the
> very beginning and systematically driven away all competent potential
> long-term contributors.
>
> At the risk of being unpopular, I suggest the long-term health of our
> projects require that its not about empowering our volunteers but
> about regulating them.
>
> David
>
> [1]
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/09/20/roger_bamkin_gibraltor_s_repeated_appearance_on_did_you_know_provkes_existential_crisis_for_wikipedia_.html
>
> [2] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/20/wikimedia_uk_scandal/
>
> On 2/29/16, Brion Vibber  wrote:
> > Two distinct issues, I think:
> >
> > 1) about improving community representation in power structures, I
think we
> > have to think more about what representation we want and what structures
> > would accomplish it. I have no answers but think we should consider
looking
> > beyond WMF alone:
> >
> >
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082703.html
> >
> > 2) about support for volunteers to get stuff done effectively: I'll have
> > mostly tech-focused thoughts on that because that's where my expertise
is,
> > so you need to hear from other people who interact with a wider set of
> > volunteers than patch contributors and the people who manage to figure
out
> > our feedback systems. :) whether that should be funded by / staffed
within
> > WMF or our other movement orgs or both is an open question.
> >
> > -- brion
> > On Feb 28, 2016 11:51 AM, "David Cuenca Tudela" 
wrote:
> >
> >> Brion,
> >> so far in the discussions I have seen more weight to the idea of the
WMF
> >> as
> >> a tech provider for the community, and not so much conversation about
> >> other
> >> roles that the organization could fulfill besides of tech / grant
making.
> >> So when you see that we are agreeing, do you mean that there should be
> >> more
> >> power transferred to the communities and that there should be a greater
> >> focus in empowering volunteers?
> >> How would you increase the participation of volunteers in the
direction of
> >> the movement? And how to offer volunteers the opportunity to become
more
> >> dedicated without paying them directly?
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >> Micru
>
> ___
> 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] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

[Oliver Keyes]

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 10:03 PM, David Emrany  wrote:
> Hi Brion
>
> When you refer to patches with other movements / affiliates, are you
> proposing that WMF sponsors more Gibraltrapedias ?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltarpedia
>
> Have we forgotten so soon the adverse media publicity about these
> stealth PR campaigns
>
> "Once Wikipedia becomes a pay-to-play platform in any sense, it's no
> longer a balanced, universal wellspring of information. It's just
> another commercial website, with a particularly insidious brand of
> camouflaged advertising. Any company with a sly enough PR person could
> promote ostensibly fascinating facts about its products" [1]
>
> "payment of money to Wikipedia editors represented "the greatest
> threat the [Wikipedia] brand has seen to date" [2].
>
> Lila had taken the first technical / automation /AI steps to identify
> / weed out the paid editing claques which rule the roost. That she was
> eased out in this way shows that WMF is in terminal disrepair, and I
> resent Flo's attempt to deflect this thread away from the numerous
> paid editing controversies which have dogged the projects since the
> very beginning and systematically driven away all competent potential
> long-term contributors.

Sure, there is technical/automation/AI work that's being done. It's
not being done by Lila, it's being done by Aaron Halfaker, who can
provide his own opinion on whether he feels that work has been
adequately resourced (in other words whether it's something the people
who determine resourcing can get much credit for, beyond allowing it
to exist).

It has nothing to do with paid editing: at the moment it identifies
whether something is likely to be reverted, whether it is likely to
have been made in good faith, or whether it is likely to be vandalism.

Is there some other AI work being done that you're referring to?

___
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 it means to be a *volunteer* organization

[James Heilman]

With respect to paid promotional editing, I have done a bit work trying to
address it. For example I reached out to Upworks the company behind Elance
and Fiverr and they are interested in working together on this. Have been a
little distracted and not sure if there is sufficient community or
foundation support to move forwards.

With respect to using AI to detect paid editing, I spoke with Aaron
Halfaker about the possibility in Nov 2015. What he needed was datasets of
confirmed paid promotional editors. I have sent him some details. If others
have details that would likely be useful. Things are in the very very early
stages from what I understand.

-- 
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

[SarahSV]

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 7:42 PM, Jimmy Wales  wrote:

> On 2/28/16 5:45 PM, Chris Sherlock wrote:
>
> > Jimmy, will you respond to some of the other points I made? In
> > particular, what you wrote to James was dreadful. Even if you feel
> > that his actions were wrong, surely you can see that your
> > inflammatory words are unbecoming of someone of your stature within
> > the Wikimedia Foundation?
>
> I was astonished that he made claims that were utterly false - remember
> that this is 100% confirmed now with a statement from every board member
> who was involved.  I'm sorry if the words upset some people, but I
> really was astonished.
>
> ​This is why we need to see as many documents as can be released.
Everything Doc James has said so far appears to have been correct, based on
the information we have.

Sarah
___
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] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

[James Heilman]

Per these questions:

1. When James was made to leave, then did anyone tell him that there was
going to be a joint or prepared statement from the WMF?

No one before I left the meeting suggested we come out with a joint
statement or that we prepare a joint statement.


2. If so, did anyone ask James not to email the mailing list? And why did
you feel that was so inappropriate?

No one requested I not announce my removal. Let me repost my removal
message here "On Dec 28th 2015 I was removed from the board of the
Wikimedia Foundation. Many thanks to all those who gave me their support
during the last election. I have worked in the last six month to honor the
trust placed in me by advocating for our values, communities, and
projects."
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-December/080472.html

I find it strange that this message is deemed controversial. I would
consider that me pretending that I was still on the board of the WMF for a
few weeks until the board could come out with a statement even when I was
not on the board to be dishonest. I am not sure if that is what Jimmy Wales
wanted but it was not an option.

Finally facts are not determined by a vote. That you got unanimity for "The
board.. has offered no objections to any board member discussing long term
strategy with the community at any time" should make all of us worry. I
have provided evidence that refutes this claim here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/In_focus


-- 
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

[Pete Forsyth]

Jimmy and James, I'm glad to see you both agreeing on some facts. That's
encouraging. But IMO you should both put some careful thought into this
part:

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 9:36 PM, James Heilman  wrote:

> Finally facts are not determined by a vote. That you got unanimity for "The
> board.. has offered no objections to any board member discussing long term
> strategy with the community at any time" should make all of us worry. I
> have provided evidence that refutes this claim here
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/In_focus


As somebody who's following this, but who's not locked in a dispute, it
seems there is a very natural explanation for this, that should not
especially make us worry:

Different people, reasonable people, can reasonably disagree about what
constitutes "discussing long term strategy" and what does not.

For the entire board to agree to a statement like that does not strike me
as especially bad; perhaps there was a dominant idea of what constituted
strategy and what didn't, and everybody voted with that idea in mind,
without insisting on a clearer definition in the text of the statement. Not
ideal, I think -- but also not the end of the world.

But Jimmy, you have repeatedly claimed that vote as evidence that James
told a lie.

That claim introduces a lot of drama into the discussion -- and does
exactly something you stated you didn't want to do, which is publicly
assaulting James' reputation.

I would suggest you both stop accusing each other of lying, long enough to
figure out what facts you *can* agree on. You're both Wikipedians, we do
this all the time. It might involve getting out of some of the language
patterns you've been using, e.g. getting away from abstract notions like
"long term strategy."

A skilled, professional mediator, facilitator, or ombudsman can be an
excellent resource for working through stuff like this.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
___
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,