Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

2016-02-21 Thread rupert THURNER
brion, there is 10'000 km between you and me so i only read mails on this list. would you mind detailing what you expect from your CEO to trigger "she benefits me"? best, rupert On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:41 AM, Brion Vibber wrote: > Lila, a few notes. > > First, many

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

2016-02-21 Thread geni
On 22 February 2016 at 01:06, Pete Forsyth wrote: > The discussion about post-mortems arose rather organically, not as a result > of a decision to use a certain medium. The participants were: Jonathan > Cardy, Erik Möller, Dariusz Jemielniak, myself, Ben Creasy, Asaf

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

2016-02-21 Thread Asaf Bartov
Please consider, Gerard: Maybe it is time you stopped explaining to us all what is and isn't the point. A. On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 9:26 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > > It is not that I am not with Brion. The problem is multi > faceted and I do not pretend

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

2016-02-21 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi, It is not that I am not with Brion. The problem is multi faceted and I do not pretend that I know personell and how Lila is appreciated. I am talking about community and about perceptions and maybe a bit of the sociology of all this. Being for or against is not the point, hearing

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

2016-02-21 Thread Oliver Keyes
I'm with Vibber too. I work in Engineering. This summary does not represent my views, or the views of anyone I know. On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:04 AM, Anna Stillwell wrote: > I'm with Vibber. He has seen things clearly. > > > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Gerard

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

2016-02-21 Thread Nathan
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 11:56 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > Where have you been when the search was on for a new director for the > WIkimedia Foundation? It was the vision that Lila refers to that made her > the chosen candidate. The fact that people object,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

2016-02-21 Thread Anna Stillwell
I'm with Vibber. He has seen things clearly. On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > Where have you been when the search was on for a new director for the > WIkimedia Foundation? It was the vision that Lila refers to that made her > the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

2016-02-21 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi, Where have you been when the search was on for a new director for the WIkimedia Foundation? It was the vision that Lila refers to that made her the chosen candidate. The fact that people object, frustrate and sometimes sabotage is an unfortunate micro level consequence of what is happening.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

2016-02-21 Thread Anthony Cole
I hope to see some rigorous, independent analysis of the current crisis, once the dust has settled. It'd be nice for that to be initiated and funded outside the WMF but with their full cooperation. Is there a charitable foundation whose mission would cover this? Anthony Cole On Mon, Feb 22,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

2016-02-21 Thread Nathan
Lila's statement of her vision for WMF is compelling and attractive. If properly and faithfully executed, it seems like it would make just the right adjustments to the culture of the WMF and its interaction with and support of the Wikimedia community. I have long been concerned that a number of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

2016-02-21 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 7:53 PM, SarahSV wrote: > ​Pete, I think having a "truth and reconciliation" period would be > helpful. I would like to see that process include Lila, which is why I > talked earlier about calling in a professional mediation service. > > But

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

2016-02-21 Thread Virgilio A. P. Machado
Lila, Congratulations for having such a clear and wise understanding of the present and future of Wikimedia. Your views collide with those of many who from positions of power both at the WMF and the communities have had a chance to impose them on everybody else, squashing, blocking and deleting

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

2016-02-21 Thread Kevin Smith
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Brion Vibber wrote: > First, many staff members feel that the accomplishments you claim under > "we" are not attributable to you. > I assumed that's why she used the word "we". I took it that she was taking some credit for pushing some of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems

2016-02-21 Thread Molly White
It would be fairly trivial to archive the discussions there someplace that was publicly viewable. However, it would require consent from the ~450 (at last glance) members that their comments and the names they use on Facebook be published, and I'm not sure that's feasible. Still, it's a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] "BuzzFeed: Days of Counting Pageviews and Unique Visitors Are Over"

2016-02-21 Thread Jeff Elder
These are good thoughts, Pine! I'm glad you brought them up. One of my favorite things about our social media in my five months at the WMF has been reaching people who are enthusiastic about the movement and eager to connect more. “Wikipedia is why, even though I spent most of my adult life out

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

2016-02-21 Thread Andreas Kolbe
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 3:42 AM, SarahSV wrote: > That was literally the first time we felt we were being listened to. There > was one point when Flow was introduced – and I have been trying to find > this diff but can't – where there was something on the talk page that >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

2016-02-21 Thread Andreas Kolbe
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:22 AM, Lila Tretikov wrote: > When we started, the open knowledge on Wikipedia was a large piece of the > internet. Today, we have an opportunity to be the door into the whole > ecosystem of open knowledge by: > > >- scaling knowledge (by

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

2016-02-21 Thread Brandon Harris
> On Feb 21, 2016, at 7:48 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote: > > Do you agree that an annotated summary of what has gone well and what > hasn't, in the case of discussion technology like Liquid Threads and Flow, > might help us to have generative conversations on this topic?

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

2016-02-21 Thread SarahSV
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:48 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote: > > Do you agree that an annotated summary of what has gone well and what > hasn't, in the case of discussion technology like Liquid Threads and Flow, > might help us to have generative conversations on this topic? Or do

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

2016-02-21 Thread Risker
On 21 February 2016 at 22:42, SarahSV wrote: > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Pete Forsyth > wrote: > > > > > Is it possible to imagine an effort that would not be shot down, but > > embraced? > > > > What would need to be different? > > > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

2016-02-21 Thread SarahSV
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote: > > Is it possible to imagine an effort that would not be shot down, but > embraced? > > What would need to be different? > > These are the kinds of questions I wish the Wikimedia Foundation would get > better at asking

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

2016-02-21 Thread Brandon Harris
> On Feb 21, 2016, at 7:19 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote: > > Here, Brandon, I think you're > implying that there is fundamental resistance to change. Let me disabuse you of a notion: I am not _implying_ this. I am _directly stating it._ --- Brandon Harris ::

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

2016-02-21 Thread Pete Forsyth
> On Feb 21, 2016, at 3:54 PM, Thyge wrote: > > I really wonder why wikimedia discussions have migrated to FB. ... On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Brandon Harris wrote: > Because Talk pages suck as a medium for conversation and all > attempts

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems

2016-02-21 Thread Risker
Meh, I'm fine with people talking in any venue they wish. Speaking only for myself, I don't need to read everything everyone has written; if it's something that needs to be brought to broader attention, chances are someone will facilitate it. But I think even those who are entirely happy to be

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems

2016-02-21 Thread Gergő Tisza
One example of the shortcomings of emails as a medium for complex discussions is how this thread about postmortems continues to be diverted into discussions about Facebook, despite Pete's best efforts. At the end of the day, people will prefer tools that work well over tools that align

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems

2016-02-21 Thread Andrew Lih
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 9:23 PM, Thyge wrote: > I acknowledge that a group of wikipedians may discuss in any forum, they > prefer. Doing > it in a closed forum on FB does not, however, constitute a discussion by > the community, > because it excludes a lot of people who

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems

2016-02-21 Thread Thyge
I acknowledge that a group of wikipedians may discuss in any forum, they prefer. Doing it in a closed forum on FB does not, however, constitute a discussion by the community, because it excludes a lot of people who reject i.e. the FB license, the FB terms of use, and last not least the FB privacy

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems

2016-02-21 Thread Andrew Lih
Hi all, it’s probably useful to paste in the “What for?” message for the Wikipedia Weekly Facebook group. Hopefully it will help clear things up. —- From: https://www.facebook.com/notes/wikipedia-weekly/introduction-to-the-ww-group/961015923946239 This is a quick note about what goes on here in

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

2016-02-21 Thread Brion Vibber
Lila, a few notes. First, many staff members feel that the accomplishments you claim under "we" are not attributable to you. Complaints about lack of strategy and confusing management have come from all levels of the staff; the implication that people who failed to be promoted might be behind

Re: [Wikimedia-l] "BuzzFeed: Days of Counting Pageviews and Unique Visitors Are Over"

2016-02-21 Thread Ed Erhart
Hi Pine, A big part of our efforts are to humanize the movement, surface our content, and reach new audiences—research shows that public awareness of Wikipedia and what it does is not as high as you'd think in emerging communities. The blog has been running in-depth and detailed articles like

[Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

2016-02-21 Thread Pete Forsyth
The discussion about post-mortems arose rather organically, not as a result of a decision to use a certain medium. The participants were: Jonathan Cardy, Erik Möller, Dariusz Jemielniak, myself, Ben Creasy, Asaf Bartov, Jon Beasley-Murray, Bence Damakos, Luis Villa, Eddie Erhart, Liam Wyatt, and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems

2016-02-21 Thread Risker
I can agree with what you're saying, Craig. I can also understand what Brandon is saying - that some people prefer that interface. Unlike many Facebook pages, though, this one is not public and cannot be viewed by anyone who does not have a FB account. It's the one venue that many interested

[Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

2016-02-21 Thread Lila Tretikov
Why we’ve changed I want to address some of the many questions that are coming up in this forum. From the general to the very concrete, they all touch on the fact that many things about the WMF have been changing. We are in the thick of transformation, and you all have the right to know more

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems

2016-02-21 Thread Craig Franklin
People will have discussions at a location that is personally convenient for them. Unless you're going to reprogram human nature, I don't see that there's anything to be done about the resulting balkanisation of the discussion. Cheers, Craig On 22 February 2016 at 09:54, Thyge

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems

2016-02-21 Thread Brandon Harris
Because Talk pages suck as a medium for conversation and all attempts to fix this have been shot down with venom. > On Feb 21, 2016, at 3:54 PM, Thyge wrote: > > I really wonder why wikimedia discussions have migrated to FB. Are we > applying for a grant? ---

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems

2016-02-21 Thread Thyge
I really wonder why wikimedia discussions have migrated to FB. Are we applying for a grant? Thyge 2016-02-22 0:51 GMT+01:00 Newyorkbrad : > I too am one of those people who is not to be found on Facebook. I > only have room in my life for one online timesink ... and I

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems

2016-02-21 Thread Newyorkbrad
I too am one of those people who is not to be found on Facebook. I only have room in my life for one online timesink ... and I already have Wikipedia :) Newyorkbrad On 2/21/16, Risker wrote: > As has already been explained on this list, many people do not have access > to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems

2016-02-21 Thread Risker
As has already been explained on this list, many people do not have access to Facebook. If this is something germane and useful to a lot of people on this list, perhaps it would be appropriate to ask Jonathan to post it here. Risker/Anne On 21 February 2016 at 18:34, Anthony Cole

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Access to pageviews (was: An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT)

2016-02-21 Thread Dan Andreescu
> > I have followed that process, been subscribed to > https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T44259 which I just reread > and thus rather surprised by your comment. I have never > seen any technical reason mentioned in the bug. It would > have been very helpful, because someone might have come up >

[Wikimedia-l] "BuzzFeed: Days of Counting Pageviews and Unique Visitors Are Over"

2016-02-21 Thread Pine W
An interesting article in Fortune: http://fortune.com/2016/02/19/buzzfeed-metrics/. "One of the biggest challenges in online publishing, Nguyen says, is the continual process of re-evaluating what criteria the company should be looking at in order to gauge its effectiveness in reaching an

[Wikimedia-l] Access to pageviews (was: An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT)

2016-02-21 Thread Tim Landscheidt
Dan Andreescu wrote: > […] > The pageview API, which is now being integrated into the Graph extension, > stats tools, iOS app, and generally making a lot of people happy, has a > long history. Various members of the community have been requesting this > feature with

Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

2016-02-21 Thread Pete Forsyth
Though my intent was neither ironic nor cynical, Jane is right -- my email last night was probably not as clear as it could have been. As I see it, senior leadership (the board and the executive director) have a special responsibility to help us all keep track of the bigger picture. But senior

Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

2016-02-21 Thread Andreas Kolbe
Hi Lila, Tony is the one who does interviews for the Signpost (I'm neither good at interviewing, nor have the right equipment), and he requested an interview with you last Wednesday, via Katherine Maher. We had a confirmation from Juliet on Friday that the request had been received, but nothing

Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

2016-02-21 Thread Yaroslav M. Blanter
On 2016-02-21 14:03, Dan Andreescu wrote: Allow me to give one specific limited example that touches on some of the themes you raised here, Yaroslav. My main point is that from the outside, correlation of what happened during Sue's and Lila's leadership might seem to imply causation,

[Wikimedia-l] Fwd: An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

2016-02-21 Thread philippe
I rarely like to add "me too" posts, but Dan buried the lead here... The most important thing he said, in the long term, was the last sentence, which I have quoted below. -- Philippe Beaudette philippe.beaude...@icloud.com Begin forwarded message: > From: Dan Andreescu

Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

2016-02-21 Thread Dan Andreescu
> > Again, I do not know who is right and who is wrong here, we have excellent > examples of WMF staff work all the time through (let me name Maggie Dennis > as an example of someone who is doing excellent work as both WMF staffer > and a project volunteer, and there are more examples), but things

Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

2016-02-21 Thread Yaroslav M. Blanter
On 2016-02-21 09:52, Jane Darnell wrote: Risker thanks for this. I would add that the biggest problem for outsiders is trying to sift through the emails in this thread, looking for valid concerns and first-hand accounts among the cynical and/or ironic comments only understandable to a few

Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

2016-02-21 Thread Theo10011
As I see it, there are 2 large issues here. The staff morale and distrust being the first. The exodus of a good chunk of staff was expected at the beginning - Erik and a few others were too much a part of Sue's leadership and it seemed natural. New leadership would entail, a new leadership style,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

2016-02-21 Thread Jane Darnell
Risker thanks for this. I would add that the biggest problem for outsiders is trying to sift through the emails in this thread, looking for valid concerns and first-hand accounts among the cynical and/or ironic comments only understandable to a few players. As more and more of our international