Today I announced a new initiative, outside of my Wikimedia activities,
to combat fake news. It is important to me that I share directly with
all of you information about this new initiative early on.
The new project will use a wiki-style setup and experiment with
bringing together professional
On 8/21/17 6:48 PM, Rogol Domedonfors wrote:
> I'm know that the WMF has determined that it should have some form of
> endowment, The question is -- as is usual in question of this sort -- one
> of balance: in this case, balance between current spending for the benefit
> of the projects today, and
Speaking only for myself, not as a member of the board, I don't know of
any legal or other reason why this should not be done. I think we
should be very careful about links or appearance of endorsement
especially on article pages, but outreach to people in the world should
take place wherever we f
Hi
all,
I am writing to let you know that I am doing an auction with
Christie’s auction house, commencing today and closing on
December 15th.
We’re auctioning two things - the original Strawberry iMac that
I used during t
On 2/27/16 12:15 AM, Brion Vibber wrote:
> When it comes to your employees, setting the bozo bit is a *really* bad
> antipattern. Doubly so when they're coming out of a bad situation and have
> a lot to tell you.
I completely agree with this - let me remind the context of my remark.
For employees
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 any
On 2/25/16 2:14 AM, Craig Franklin wrote:
> One could argue that any action that would injure the movement would also
> injure the Foundation by definition. Denny is quite correct that trustees
> have a legal obligation to put the Foundation before anything else, however
> there's usually a fair b
On 2/27/16 5:28 PM, SarahSV wrote:
> Doc James has asked Jimbo to release a 30 December 2015 email from Jimbo to
> James, which explained the reasons for the removal. [1]
It isn't primarily about reasons for the removal, and in fact only
partly touches on that topic. It's primarily about why I th
On 2/27/16 7:50 PM, James Heilman wrote:
> Jimmy to clarify some of facts. It was I who reached out to Patricio to put
> together a joint statement.
>
> We worked on it in a Google document that I started and as such I am the
> own. We were unable to come to an agreement.
Ok. I wasn't involved i
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
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
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 t
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
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,
>
On 2/29/16 2:42 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Pete,
> Can you help me figure out how Jimmy and the board could have "assumed"
> that there was community discussion and consultation about the Knowledge
> Engine project when James Heilman
>
> 1. had started a board discussion in mid-October specifical
One of the things that someone asked me privately to discuss is what I
think of the possibility of James running for the board again.
First, I have no opinion about whether or not he will be eligible at the
next election. That's a matter for people other than me to decide. I
don't know.
Second
On 2/29/16 5:52 AM, Nathan wrote:
> There is a simple and easy way to rectify this: you and the other members
> of the board can honestly and fully describe the circumstances that led you
> to eject Heilman from the board. I've seen lots of indirect and
> non-specific claims from both sides; I wis
On 2/29/16 2:25 AM, Molly White wrote:
> Thank you for your reply, and I apologize for how late this one is. When
> I asked how you intend to speak with the Board of Trustees and with staff, I
> did not mean what technical means you will use. It doesn't much matter to me
> whether you speak with th
ired of this mystery.
>>
>> I'm not blaming anybody - it's part of the unfortunate atmosphere of
>> unnecessary secrecy, which plagued us for way too long. That's what creates
>> the accusations and the wild rumors in all sides. We all have to fix it in
>> our
On 2/29/16 7:00 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> A few days ago, Oliver Keyes said[1] here on this list that, even though he
> had already quit his job, he was scared to share with people the content of
> the non-disclosure agreement he had to sign as a WMF staff member.
>
> Do you believe the various n
On 2/29/16 6:46 AM, Chris Sherlock wrote:
> Unfortunately though, the WMF very much did have internal documents
> that were positioning the WMF into building a search engine. In fact,
> it was a grand idea. But one that was done in secret. James was not
> wrong, and he wasn’t lying. You may not hav
I agree with Dariusz on this, and have 2 additional thoughts:
1. I'm not sure that Silicon Valley organizations as a whole are more
secretive than many NGOs. Some are famously super secretive - Apple.
Others are not really - Automattic (Wordpress). Some NGOs tend to be
very controlling of messag
(People keep mentioning a post limit, and I'm sure I'm going to hit it.
I'll see if someone can give me a temporary exception, but I also
wanted to warn that I'm in back to back meetings for the next 3 days and
intend to deliberately go quiet because of that. In the evenings, I
plan to be writing
I'm switching to this email address for posting, because apparently
there is some kind of weird problem between yahoo and google such that
gmail users see all or most of my messages in their SPAM folder.
If you've asked me something and think that I didn't respond, I
recommend looking there.
___
On 2/29/16 6:15 PM, Richard Ames wrote:
> 'Deals' and other 'preferential' arrangements can be easily avoided
> The WMF can deal with others in public at competitive rates.
>
> If the vendor wishes to make donations to the WMF they can do so and
> get a tax deduction!
It wasn't a great exam
On 3/5/16 8:28 AM, Chris Sherlock wrote:
>> In it's decision making capacity, the Board should:
>>
>> * Select, evaluate and (if necessary) remove the Executive Director;
>
> Whilst I'm sure that C-level managers are up to the task, that's rather
> abrogating the responsibility of the Board.
I
On 3/5/16 3:07 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
> I don't see it as a sign of strength to abdicate your responsibility in
> this way.
There are at least two things I disagree with about this remark - one
that seeking the advice and participation and buy-in of those best
placed to give it is in some way "abdic
On 3/9/16 4:29 AM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
> This strikes me as highly significant:
> Frieda surely knew that the vote would be successful, and that she would
> then be faced with serving alongside a colleague who she had publicly
> opposed. I do not know Frieda at all, but this strikes me as an action
On 3/9/16 3:46 PM, Chris Sherlock wrote:
> Jimmy, could the Board at least provide an explanation for why it has taken
> such a long time to publish the minutes?
I don't see why not. I've not been involved with the publishing of the
minutes personally, so I don't know the details. I am unaware
On 3/9/16 2:29 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees oversees the foundation and
> appoints its Executive Director. It seems very worrying that this body has
> now admitted that it's so out-of-touch with the workings of the
> organization that it ostensibly manages that
On 3/3/16 11:19 PM, Craig Franklin wrote:
> Rather than solving the transparency problem through gimmicks like wheeling
> a video camera into the board room, we should look at reasons why the Board
> of Trustees might not feel comfortable being transparent. The only real
> solution will involve cu
On 3/10/16 8:18 AM, Benjamin Lees wrote:
> I was glad when I saw Jimbo indicate he was reaching out to James. At
> the risk of sounding hopelessly naive, maybe Jimbo should send James
> another email, this time extending a clearer olive branch. If we're
> past the point of no return on that, then
from my Samsung device
Original message
From: George Herbert
Date: 2016/03/10 9:49 AM (GMT+00:00)
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?
> On Mar 10, 2016, at 1:25 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> ...
> Those ideas never got tract
that was going to be
published, right?
On 10 March 2016 at 11:01, jimmy wales wrote:
>
>
> Indeed George I agree with everything you have said about the internal
> effects of lack of transparency and openness. Assuming I and other board
> members who continue to press for full ope
I think all will be clear by Monday. Maybe sooner, but I'm not
promising any sooner.
On 3/10/16 12:13 AM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:51 AM, SarahSV wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 4:42 PM, John Mark Vandenberg
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Are we still waiting for Jimmy
On 3/22/16 12:15 AM, James Salsman wrote:
> Is there a list of equipment that WMF uses without viable FLOSS
> alternatives, please?
Since the context here is t-shirts, I think we can understand Coren's
remarks in a very broad context, and so of course he's right. We might
choose to only do busine
On 3/22/16 6:18 PM, Lodewijk wrote:
> Hey Jimmy, thanks for this commitment. I would definitely be interested.
> Were you successful in getting clarity?
Still waiting to see if the board allows another board member to publish
something that will then allow me to publish further. But I did publish
16 02:09, James Heilman wrote:
Following my removal from the WMF board, Jimmy Wales publicly stated
“But in this case, it isn't relevant as this was a removal for
cause.--Jimbo Wales
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales>(talk
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_tal
First, some context:
I was in Philadelphia for the Democratic National Convention earlier
this week, where I had been invited to speak (in a small side event)
about connectivity and global development. I spoke about our work in
the languages of the developing world, and made a point to say that b
On 7/28/16 9:04 AM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> I think that depends on the skin used. When logged put (so with
> default skin) I get a toolbar with the options to which your refer
> hidden behind its "advanced search" option.
Ah, that makes sense and is good.
> I've made the former a disambiguation pag
On 7/28/16 11:53 AM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
> We recently had a huge amount of discussion about the importance of search,
> on this list and elsewhere. My strong takeaway from that was, nobody
> disagrees with the position you're advocating here, Jimmy - that our search
> is problematic, and is worth
#x27;re investigating that more right now.
> Stay tuned!
>
> Thanks,
> Dan
>
> [1]:
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Engineering/2016-17_Q1_Goals#Discovery
> [2]: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T125083
> [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okapi_BM25
>
> On 28
It is worth noting in this context that although in-person board
meetings take place at fixed times, the board is in constant
communication between meetings, and it is possible and welcomed to bring
forward issues to board members at any time, and the kinds of issues
that the board grapples with ar
On 11/13/16 5:57 PM, Rogol Domedonfors wrote:
> Jimmy
>
> You seem anxious to deflect my question by making an unfounded accusation
> of distortion.
I'm afraid you have misunderstood me. It is never appropriate to quote
part of a conversation when the issue is broader.
The board welcomes enga
ion Vibber, who I hired as the first ever employee of the Foundation,
said this to me on Facebook recently: "Jimmy Wales welcome back to the
conversation. I look forward to how you address the current crisis, and
hope it will involve the kind of careful listening and thoughtful
consideration
On 2/25/16 1:08 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> And the first part, as it wasn't well formatted initially: There is
> specific Board culture, transferred from generation to generation of
> Board members. The culture of siege, where the community is the
> archenemy.
As the longest standing member of the
On 2/25/16 2:16 AM, Risker wrote:
> And I'll say that if I was going to favour paying anyone, it would be paying
> qualified translators to
> support smaller projects...
I'd find a pilot project to do something like this very exciting.
___
Wikimedia-
On 2/26/16 10:39 AM, GorillaWarfare wrote:
> How do you plan to communicate what you learn to the
> rest of the Board of Trustees, and to those who will be instrumental in
> shaping the changes that will happen to the WMF in the near future?
Through email, Google hangout meetings, and in person me
On 2/26/16 3:46 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
> Hmm. I wonder if Jimmy is going to be named the interim bosssomeone has
> to be.
No, that isn't going to happen. There has been some staff and board
advocacy of it - the idea has been floated - but although I took the
idea seriously enough to think about
On 7/16/12 6:57 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
What community? Jimbo often declares that en.wiki community should
rule Commons, for instance;[1] will an en.wiki community plan be
considered enough to impose something on everyone?
I have not said any such thing, and indeed in the very text you q
Speaking only for myself, out of curiosity, some real world examples
might be helpful here. I don't have access to Bing's
version yet, but I do have access to chat.openai.com which is very
impressive but deeply flawed.
I asked "Who is Kate Garvey?" (my wife, known a bit to the media, but
not
One way I think we can approach this is to think of it as being the
latest in this progression:
spellchecker -> grammar checker -> text generation support
We wouldn't have any sort of footnote or indication of any kind that a
spellchecker or grammar checker was
used by an editor, it's just bui
A screenshot might be helpful - I just gave this a try myself and I did
get the 1.5 screen one
(which isn't a big deal to me) but the part that sounded important to me
- "can't be dismissed"
wasn't true. There was a clear link to dismiss that said "No thanks" as
well as one that said "Maybe
la
53 matches
Mail list logo
