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 staff members feel that th
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 Bartov,
> Jon Beasley-Murray,
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 that I know personell and ho
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 arguments
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 Meijssen
> wrote:
>
>> Hoi,
>>
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, frustrate and sometimes
> sabota
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 chosen candidate. The fact that p
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.
Y
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, 2016
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 pos
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 leaving that aside, for the Fou
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
di
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 the initiatives, but not
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 thought.
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 o
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
> amounted to "if you agre
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 building smart editing tool
> 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?
Not in the slightest.
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 you
> disagree? What ki
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?
> >
> > These are the kinds of questions I wish the Wikimedi
Brandon and Sarah:
I'm going to resist the urge to delve into the specifics of Flow here, as
I'd really like to stay on the topic of whether post-mortems on divisive
issues are valuable, and how they should be approached.
Do you agree that an annotated summary of what has gone well and what
hasn'
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 and exploring.
>
> Lila
> 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 :: bhar...@gaijin.com :: made o
> 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 to fix this have been shot down with venom.
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 on
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 philosophic
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 reject i.e. the FB licens
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
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 t
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 dis
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 "Ne
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 Ti
I think the discussion about post-mortems is vitally important, so I'm
adding a new subject line for the discussion about the venue. I was one of
the people involved in the discussion of post-mortems, and I'll add my
comments to the original thread (and summarize what others have said) in a
moment.
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 par
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 abou
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 wrote:
> I reall
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?
---
Brandon Harris :: bhar...
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 already
> have Wikipedia :
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 Facebook. If this is
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 wrote:
> For
For those not following, I recommend the discussion in response to Jonathan
Cardy's comment here:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediaweekly/permalink/960989863948845/
Anthony Cole
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedi
>
> 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
> 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 audience,
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 increasing fervor for over a
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 lea
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 fu
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, bu
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
> Date: February 21, 20
>
> 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
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 playe
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,
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
com
52 matches
Mail list logo
