Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[SarahSV]

On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 7:44 AM, Denny Vrandecic 
wrote:

> I’ll tell you how I experienced it from my point of view: a few weeks ago,
> I had to turn to the Board in a confidential and important matter for me.
> And while writing my email, I felt that I probably should not write it as
> openly and frankly as I would desire; I was unconvinced that it would be
> held in confidence. I rewrote the mail because I had concerns about James'
> being on the Board, as I had lost my trust in him. This is, I think many
> will agree, not a healthy situation.
>
> At the next executive session I raised this issue to the whole Board -
> James included.
>

Denny, you seem to be acknowledging that you initiated Doc James's removal.
I think your email will strengthen calls for a review.
​

I'm troubled that the decision was rushed through, over the holidays with
James in Japan, because two board members who supported his removal were
leaving.

The removal has caused a loss of trust in the board. Does this idea of a
"knowledge engine" have anything to do with it; was James denied access to
documents; and so on. People are completely perplexed at this point. How do
we fix this?

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] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

[SarahSV]

On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

>
> > I give Lila 100% credit for this change and thank the Board for
> supporting
> > this change (and also to have recruited Lila with this as main purpose)
> >
>
> I would have to give this final point a big "citation needed" tag.
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
>
> ​Pete, it does seem that since Lila arrived a lot of the tension between
the Foundation and community has gone. I've several times heard her talk of
the need to respect the community because Wikipedia is nothing without it. ​


​You wrote above: "​As I understand it, we are still very much in the
'Superprotect disaster' era -- one which began under the same Executive
Director we have today."

Superprotect was implemented just after Lila arrived, but it was a decision
of Erik's. The tensions behind it were very much a product of the pre-Lila
era, and had been growing for years. It appeared that Lila quickly
understood that it needed to go.

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] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

[SarahSV]

On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> I do think there are two significant issues with Mr. Geshuri's appointment,
> though -- the second of which has not been brought up yet:
> (1) The Board did not apparently do basic due diligence in looking into his
> background
> (2) Mr. Geshuri himself did not highlight the Google firing issue to the
> board prior to his appointment, which makes me wonder about his judgment.
>
​
Do we know who suggested ​
Arnnon Geshuri
​ for a board seat?

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] WMF Board of Trustees

[SarahSV]

On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 3:43 PM, James Heilman  wrote:

> 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.
>
> Sincerely
> James Heilman
>

​James, this is disappointing. Can you say more about what happened?

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] Announcement about changes to the Board

[SarahSV]

On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

>
> With this action, eight Trustees with little accountability overruled
> several hundred volunteers and another Trustee who literally earned the
> most support votes of any Trustee in the organization's history.
>
> Any explanation of the reasons should be commensurate, in my view, to the
> points outlined above.
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
​
James was elected

by 1,857 people ​

​and removed by eight.​ I hope an explanation is forthcoming very soon.
___
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] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

[SarahSV]

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
wrote:

>
> It was tenth several days ago, in Google.com. unfortunate and silly as it
> may sound, it was not in top ten on Google.pl or .de / .it for that matter.
> I'm not making excuses, just stating the fact.
>
> I'm investigating with the BGC what went wrong with the whole process (that
> some Board members did not have full information) and we're hoping to come
> back with learning from this failure, as it was just one point of several
> that were suboptimal.
>
> ​Okay, thank you, ​
Dariusz
​, I appreciate that you're responding and trying to find out what happened.

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] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

[SarahSV]

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Matthew Flaschen <
matthew.flasc...@gatech.edu> wrote:


> The board had an obligation to fully research both candidates, and insist
> on more time as needed to do so.
>
> Boryana Dineva, the Foundation's Vice-President of Human Resources
​, wrote [1] to this mailing list in October 2015:

"Having narrowed down the number in several rounds of review​ ... we are
meeting with finalists to collect more information and get acquainted over
this week and next. After that, all finalists will interview with Lila, and
finally with our panel comprised by the BGC ​[Board Governance Committee]
​(and likely also the Board Chair). The BGC will decide and present
recommendations of chosen candidates to the whole Board. ... I am copying
Dariusz, our BGC chair, in case he would like to add anything also."

But a few days ago Dariusz said on this list that he wasn't aware of the
background of Geshuri's that is causing concern, even though it was fourth
in a Google search for Geshuri's name.

Sarah

[1]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-October/079583.html
___
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] Announcement about changes to the Board

[SarahSV]

On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 8:40 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Fæ  wrote:
>
> > Thanks for talking about it Dariusz.


​Dariusz, would you please tell us who suggested​
 Arnnon Geshuri
​ for a seat on the Board?

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] Announcement about changes to the Board

[SarahSV]

On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
wrote:

>
>> ​Dariusz, would you please tell us who suggested​
>>  Arnnon Geshuri
>> ​ for a seat on the Board?
>>
>>
> AFAIK we have not been sharing this information historically, and I don't
> think we are going to now - even the Board members themselves don't know,
> and quite likely should not know who nominated them. I also fail to see why
> it would matter - people should stand or fail on their own.
>
> I can, however, generally add that we have not collected any nominations
> from our donors, if this helps.
>
>
>
Dariusz, my request is that you make it public on this occasion. Given the
new trustee's involvement in this
,
the nomination is surprising. I'm also concerned that you seemed not to be
aware of the background, but you supported the appointment, so it raises a
general question about how these decisions are made.​

Trust in the Board is low at the moment. Transparency will go a long way to
restoring it.
___
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] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[SarahSV]

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
wrote:

> If we are to survive the next 10 years as the top 10 website, we should
> focus externally more, and start building more stuff that our readers care
> about. I totally agree that WMF has failed on many occasions here, and we,
> the community, were right (when I recall the first deployment of the VE I
> grit my teeth). But ultimately we need to be really able to move on, to be
> able to move forward.
>
> dj
>
>
Dariuz, when I first heard about this, I understood it to mean that the
Foundation was seeking to fix the Wikimedia search function, which is
really very poor. But this seems to be a proposal to create an entirely new
search engine to complement Google, which will cost many millions.

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] Another goodbye

[SarahSV]

Siko, I'm very sorry to see this. You were a strong supporter of women on
Wikipedia and of improved community harmony. It was a pleasure to work with
you on the grant application that led to the Ally Skills Workshops. I wish
you all the very best.

Sarah

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Steven Crossin  wrote:

> Wow Siko. This comes as a massive surprise. It was a pleasure working with
> you on dispute resolution on my time as a Wikimedia Fellow. I'll always
> remember the support you gave me and how I grew as a result. I consider you
> a great friend and I'll miss you a lot. I wish you all the best in your
> future endeavours. You will be sorely missed.
>
> Steve
>
> *Steven Crossin*
> *cro0...@gmail.com *
>
> On 12 February 2016 at 12:24, Siko Bouterse 
> wrote:
>
> > Dear friends and colleagues,
> >
> > I’ve had the amazing privilege of serving this movement in a staff
> capacity
> > for the past 4 ½ years, but I’ve now decided to move on from my role at
> the
> > Wikimedia Foundation.
> >
> > Transparency, integrity, community and free knowledge remain deeply
> > important to me, and I believe I will be better placed to represent those
> > values in a volunteer capacity at this time. I am and will always remain
> a
> > Wikimedian, so you'll still see me around the projects (User:Seeeko),
> > hopefully with renewed energy and joy in volunteering.
> >
> > This movement has become my home in so many unexpected ways, and I’m
> truly
> > honored to have learned from so many of you. It was an amazing experience
> > to have partnered with smart, bold, and dedicated community folks to
> > experiment with projects like Teahouse, IdeaLab, Inspire, Individual
> > Engagement Grants, and Reimagining Grants. I’ve seen you create some
> really
> > incredible content, ideas, tools, programs, processes, committees and
> > organizations, all in the service of free knowledge.
> >
> > I expect my last day to be Thursday, February 25th. I have full
> confidence
> > in Maggie Dennis's abilities to lead the Community Engagement Department,
> > and I trust that my team will remain available to support the community’s
> > needs for grants and other resources throughout this time of transition.
> >
> > Much love,
> > Siko
> >
> > --
> > Siko Bouterse
> > Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> >
> > *Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
> the
> > sum of all knowledge. *
> > *Donate  or click the "edit" button today,
> > and help us make it a reality!*
> > ___
> > 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] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[SarahSV]

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <dar...@alk.edu.pl>
wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 6:11 PM, SarahSV <sarahsv.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>> Dariuz, when I first heard about this, I understood it to mean that the
>> Foundation was seeking to fix the Wikimedia search function, which is
>> really very poor. But this seems to be a proposal to create an entirely new
>> search engine to complement Google, which will cost many millions.
>>
>>
>>
> My understanding is essentially that we want to engage in a search engine
> that would encompass all Wikimedia projects. I can't imagine us effectively
> competing Google and I would not consider this to be a sensible direction
> (not because it is not tempting, but because it is too costly and risky).
>
>
> ​Hi ​
Dariusz,

​T​
he grant application doesn't restrict the search engine to Wikimedia
projects. It says that the "Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia [is a] system for
discovering reliable and trustworthy public information on the Internet."
And that it will "democratize the discovery of media, news and information
– it will make the Internet's most relevant information more accessible and
openly curated ... It will be the Internet's first transparent search
engine ..."

It also says that one of the challenges that could "disrupt the project" is
​"Third-party influence or interference. Google, Yahoo or another big
commercial search engine could suddenly devote resources to a similar
project, which would reduce the success of the project. This is the biggest
challenge, and an external one."

It's hard to see how Google developing a new search engine would disrupt
the Foundation improving search within Wikimedia projects.

The document says the "Search Engine by Wikipedia" budget for 2015–2016
($2.4 million) was approved by the ​board. Can you point us to which board
meeting approved it and what was discussed there?

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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Was the Wikimedia Foundation's removal of membership in 2006 legal?

[SarahSV]

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Florence Devouard 
wrote:

I read you Sarah. Good point. Hmmm.
> But ianal...
>
> I am sure it was discussed back then, but I forgot the details.
>
> I contacted Brad on Facebook to suggest him to read the list. Perhaps he
> might be willing to comment on this ?
>
>
> Flo
>
> ​Hi Flo, thanks for doing that.

There's another reference to this in the 22 October 2004 board meeting,
where you agreed certain changes to the bylaws, including "​A volunteer
member is not required to complete or sign and send any form to the
Foundation." [1]

Sarah

1. https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Meetings/October_22,_2004
___
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] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

[SarahSV]

Patrick, I also want to thank you and the team for having done this work.
It's extremely interesting and informative, and I think it will be very
helpful moving forward.

Sarah



On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 4:17 PM, Lila Tretikov  wrote:

> Patrick,
>
> Thank you for posting this -- excellent work done by our team and deep
> engagement with the community. I encourage everyone to review as we
> continue to assess best ways to support healthy and safe Wikimedia
> environment for all our contributors and readers.
>
> Lila
>
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 1:20 PM, Patrick Earley 
> wrote:
>
> > Hello all,
> >
> > The preliminary report of the results of the 2015 Harassment survey is
> now
> > available on Commons, as linked from Meta.[1]  This is the first version
> of
> > our analysis of the results, and while it is nearly completed, it will be
> > amended and updated within a week as we finish developing it. The data
> set
> > is large, involving sixteen languages with several free text questions,
> and
> > it has also been linked from the Meta page.
> >
> > This information is an important factor in gaining a better understanding
> > of both the forms harassment takes and the impact it has on the Wikimedia
> > projects.  We welcome your feedback and impressions on the Research talk
> > page on Meta.[2]
> >
> > We want to thank the many Wikimedia volunteers, academics, and Wikimedia
> > Foundation staff who helped prepare and translate the survey, and who
> gave
> > feedback on the report.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Patrick, for the Support and Safety team[3]
> >
> >
> > [1]
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Harassment_survey_2015#Results
> >
> > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Harassment_survey_2015
> >
> > [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Support_and_Safety
> >
> > --
> > Patrick Earley
> > Community Advocate
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> > pear...@wikimedia.org
> > (1) 415 975 1874
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
>
>
>
>
> --
> Lila Tretikov
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> *“Be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid.”*
> ___
> 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] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[SarahSV]

Lila, thank you for posting this. I have no technical background, so I only
have a limited understanding of how the Discovery project works. But as an
editor and reader I've been frustrated by the limitations of Wikipedia
search. Even things that I know are there, because I added them myself, are
regularly not returned. Sometimes for reasons I can't fathom; sometimes
because I've mistyped something.

It's the same with Siri on iPhone. I ask it something that I know is on
Wikipedia and it can't seem to find it. Or it will return a link to
articles in which certain terms appear. But people don't want to have to
look at whole articles.

We have this enormous and wonderful amount of knowledge to some extent
trapped inside Wikipedia. How do we unlock it? How do we teach computers
how to find and deliver it? In future, could Wikipedia reply to questions
on people's phones, instead of Siri?

This kind of research sounds very exciting, and the Foundation is
well-placed to do it.

Sarah


On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Lila Tretikov  wrote:

> Hi Anthony,
>
> I know this request was for the Board, but I took time to explain as much
> as I could about the context of this grant and the work it funds as well as
> to answer as many questions as possible that I have seen. I realize many
> people a curious about what it actually funds, so you will find the
> statement of work cut and pasted there.
>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)#Knowledge_Engine_grant
> <
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fmeta.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FUser_talk%3ALilaTretikov_%28WMF%29%23Knowledge_Engine_grant=D=1=AFQjCNHbv_CPFd5d3dh7WKET5YlNSZvHdA
> >
>
> Hope this answers some of your questions,
> Lila
>
>
___
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

[SarahSV]

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Brion Vibber  wrote:

>
> I believe a high-tech organization should invest in smart people creating
> unique technology. But I also think it should invest in people, period.
> Staff and volunteers must be cultivated and supported -- that's how loyalty
> and passion are developed, and I believe they pay dividends in productivity
> and recruitment.
>

​Brian, I'd be interested to hear how volunteers could be cultivated and
supported. We felt under attack by the Foundation until Lila arrived, and I
think a lot of editors are grateful to her for having improved that
relationship. But not feeling attacked isn't the same as feeling supported.

The Foundation often boasts that it only has around 200 employees, but the
truth is that it has an enormous unpaid workforce. Most of us don't go to
meet-ups, so we don't even see travel expenses. We're grateful if we can
get a free JSTOR subscription.

Sue Gardner once declared that the Foundation would never pay for content,
which was a blow to those of us who produce it. Unpaid workers with
technical skills might one day be paid, but if your skills are editorial,
forget it. That very much supports the idea that the Foundation is a tech
organization and not an educational one.

So – how does a tech organization nurture and support its unpaid workforce
of mostly writers and researchers?

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] What it means to be a high-tech organization

[SarahSV]

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Brion Vibber  wrote:

>
>
> I think first we have to ask: why did many people feel attacked or in
> unwanted adversarial positions before (both among volunteers, and among
> staff)? What sort of interactions and behavior were seen as problematic,
> and what led up to them?
>

​The crux of the problem is that we all see ourselves as bosses.
​The paid workers don't want to be told what to do by the unpaid, and vice
versa.

There were clashes around the introduction of software, but these were only
flashpoints. There was (and remains) a simmering resentment of the paid
among the unpaid, for obvious reasons. And the paid staff seemed to regard
experienced editors as "power users" who need to be chased off, missing the
point that (a) "power users" have invaluable experience and a very unusual
skill set that should be used not discarded, and (b) that the new users the
Foundation wants to cultivate will become "power users" too one day if
they're cultivated well – unless the idea is to appeal only to occasional
users who want to fix typos, but you won't get an encyclopaedia that way.

You mentioned the "exploitation of employees and users for their labor
" in your email, and I'm glad you did, because that's almost never
discussed. It was in part why there was such a strong reaction to the
misunderstanding about the Knowledge Engine. We had visions of the
Foundation trying to create yet another unpaid workforce to "curate" search
results.

I don't want this email to be essay-length, but let me raise an issue
that's closely related to exploitation, namely addiction. A lot of the
unpaid workers are addicted to what they do, and I've seen staffers discuss
how to keep them that way (e.g. by creating feedback loops of responses to
keep people going). Should the Foundation be paying for that kind of work
and thinking in those ways? I would say not.
​
So the question of how to support volunteers involves:

1. Recognizing that we are an unpaid workforce.

2. Recognizing that there are questions about exploitation and addiction
that should be discussed, and that these are serious ethical and perhaps
even public-health issues.

3. Developing an attitude of social responsibility toward us within the
Foundation, rather than seeing us as a nuisance and an obstacle.

4. Rethinking Sue's decision that the Foundation would never pay for
content. I can think of several ways in which the Foundation could either
pay or facilitate payment.

I'll leave it there, because this is long, and perhaps reply to your other
points in another email. Just one final thought. When I lived in London
years ago, a new newspaper started for homeless people, The Big Issue. It
is sold by the homeless on the streets, with the idea of giving them a way
to earn an income. The homeless and other volunteers also used to help
write it. The idea was that, as it became more successful, everyone would
be paid, because the concept of it was to lift everyone up.

I would love to see the Wikimedia Foundation embrace that philosophy,
namely that part of its job is to nurture its workforce (paid and unpaid),
offer them opportunity where it can, lift them up, educate them, show them
how to educate others, and respect them, so that everyone who gets involved
seriously with Wikipedia finds their lives improved because of that
involvement.

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] What it means to be a high-tech organization

[SarahSV]

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).

These are examples of how WMF engineers could show that the WMF is
committed to being an ethical high-tech organization.

Sarah

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tech=15386522#Request

[2] http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/02/25/we-are-hopelessly-hooked/
___
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] The reinstatement of James Heilman

[SarahSV]

Doc James has asked Jimbo to release a 30 December 2015 email from Jimbo to
James, which explained the reasons for the removal. [1]

Apparently referring to James's removal, Jimbo has called for "full
publication of the details." [2]

Given that both parties have requested transparency, and that James seems
to regard that email as significant, is anything preventing its release?

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

On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 5:14 PM, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Thanks for the contributions.
>
> I can imagine that it is reasonable
> * that the WMF Board deems it impossible to work together with a
> specific board member;
> * that the WMF Board deems it impossible to publish the reasons for the
> removal;
> * that the WMF Board calls the removed board member to be ineligible
> for future elections.
>
> What my problem is, is that the WMF Board takes all these decisions by
> itself. The WMF Board acted as prosecutor, judge and executioner in
> one organ. The Dutch would say: The butcher is reviewing his own meat.
> It becomes easy to criticise such a board.
>
> The present situation is unfair to the removed member who is blamed in
> public without a public information about the reason. The removed
> board member also can only appeal to the very organ that removed him.
>
> The present situation is furthermore a devastating signal to the
> voters. The removal decreases the value of the community elections and
> makes all board seats questionable. The ultimate election is made by
> the WMF Board, not the community, it seems.
>
> As solutions I can imagine
> * to create an arbitration organ for these decisions; or
> * to let the voters decide whether they want to send the removed board
> member back to the board.
>
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
>
>
>
> 2016-02-27 20:02 GMT+01:00 Kevin Gorman :
> > Hi all -
> >
> > Maria's appointment should be viewed as a replacement to that of Arnnon
> > Geshuri.  I like her, and I think she'd stand a fair chance in a
> community
> > election, but she is not and cannot be described as a community selected
> > trustee at present.  It's perfectly possible for boards to have members
> on
> > it that don't get along, even of large organizations.  I've been a
> trustee
> > of a sizable organization and had significant disagreements with at least
> > one other trustee - more significant than those between Jimmy and James.
> > The fact that there is animosity between board members isn't a barrier to
> > having a productive board.  It's disingenious, at best, to say that James
> > was dismissed because he spoke out about the knowledge engine, etc.
> James
> > had conversations with employees not related to the knowledge engine, but
> > related to other significant issues at the WMF.  It's best practice to
> > inform the ED when board talks to staff, but only if informing the ED
> would
> > not harm the purpose of those conversations - and in this case it would.
> > I'm also going to state here that I've had a number of conversations with
> > employees in the same time frame James was having them, and that combined
> > with other details is why I am absolutely convinced they were necessary.
> >
> > One of the first leveled and oftened returned to statements as to why
> James
> > was removed was that he had conversations with employees that were
> > inappropriate.  Every employee who has come forward stating they had
> > conversations with James has stated that those conversations were
> > necessary, and exactly the type of conversation that a trustee should be
> > having when the situation has gotten to a point where they are,
> > unfortunately, necessary.  James had the trust of both the community and
> > many WMF employees, which is why so many people who felt they needed to
> > talk went to him.  I have no doubt that many other trustees were doing
> > important less visible work, many probably even about the same problem,
> but
> > James was handling an element of it - direct communication with
> employees -
> > that was absolutely necessary for the continued success of the
> Foundation,
> > even if all other aspects had been handled.
> >
> > It's unfortunate that James and Jimmy have gotten in to it in public,
> but -
> > I hate to say this, but there's no other way around it - Jimmy should be
> > embarassed.  He's been exceptionally disrespectful of a respected
> community
> > member, but worse than that, he's flat out lied on multiple occasions
> about
> > the situation involving James.  If someone challenges me on that
> statement,
> > as I have time, I will compile a list of diffs and archived emails in
> which
> > he's done so. If the situation between James and Jimmy is such that a
> > healthy board dynamic with both as trustees is not possible, then frankly
> > Jimmy should 

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

[SarahSV]

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter 
wrote:

- Possibly POV will be compromised in paid articles.
> - Unhealthy situation within the editing community. In the debates with
> WMF staff when we disagreed, I always felt awkward, because they were paid
> arguing with me, and would do it until they convince me or I give up, and I
> was doing this in my free time, and got tired very quickly. I also had very
> unpleasant experiences interacting with some chapter people whose only goal
> was to keep their position. They did not care about the quality,
> efficiency, anything, only about their personal good. And if somebody
> defends their personal good, you know, thy usually win, and the quality
> loses. Now, imagine there is a content dispute between a user who is paid
> (and is afraid to lose the salary) and a user who is unpaid and have to do
> the same for free - I am sure a paid user will be way more persistent.
>
>
> ​Yaroslav, we already have a lot of paid editors on the English Wikipedia.
Some are Wikimedians in residence, and this has always been regarded as
okay, though I believe they're expected not to edit articles about the
institution that employs them.

But we also have a lot of paid PR editing and obvious COI problems because
of that, as well as the problems you highlight (e.g. the paid editor being
more persistent).

Introducing the Foundation as a broker between organizations that want
articles and editors who want to write them would not solve all the
problems you highlight, but it would remove the COI aspect. So my thinking
was that it would be better than the current situation.

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 7:39 PM, SarahSV <sarahsv.w...@gmail.com> 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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[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] Transition plans for WMF leadership - Board Reform

[SarahSV]

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 7:09 PM, Anthony Cole  wrote:

> Sarah, if the volunteer community was organised and had its own, functional
> representative body that had the community's trust and respect, that would,
> to some degree, correct the present asymmetry between us and the WMF.
>
> Our only rights in relation to them are to fork or leave. While we are
> atomised, the latter is our only option. Organised, forking becomes a
> serious possibility. Of course, I hope it never comes to that. But without
> that possibility, we are in the position of just having to take whatever
> from the WMF - good and bad.
>
> Anthony Cole
>
> ​Anthony, I do agree that the community should organize. ​

​I would prefer to see the Foundation become a membership organization with
different bylaws so that we are actually electing​ the trustees. A separate
body would be good, although the Board could ignore that body too if it
wanted. But yes, any kind of organizing is better than the present
situation.

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] What it means to be a high-tech organization

[SarahSV]

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 4:20 PM, phoebe ayers  wrote:

>
> And here I thought you were going to suggest giving each editor a pool
> of $$ to assign to their favorite skunkworks projects.
>
> If we divide the current WMF budget ($58M) by the current number of
> monthly active editors (71K), then take 60% off the top for keeping
> the lights on, infrastructure, etc. -- this is a fairly typical
> overhead percentage for grants at universities -- we're still left
> with $325/editor.
>
> ​As of January 2016, the English WP had 3,492 editors that the Foundation
calls "very active," but that's only 100 edits a month. [1] The core
workforce is considerably smaller, and they're the ones who keep the place
running by tidying and writing/rewriting articles, creating and maintaining
various processes and policies, creating templates, and so on.

The Foundation could pay that number of workers, especially if it found
imaginative ways to do it.

For example, it could set up a department that accepts contracts from
individuals and groups who want certain articles to be written or
rewritten. Instead of paying a PR company, those people would pay the
Foundation. The Foundation would maintain a list of excellent editors and
would offer the contract to the most appropriate, taking a percentage of
the fee for itself.

The brief would specify that any article produced must adhere to the core
content policies, so there would be no whitewashing, but there would be an
effort to be fair. As things stand, unpaid editors have to clean up PR
efforts anyway, so they might as well get paid to produce something decent
from the start. It might only take a few ethical companies to sign up for
the thing to take off.

Sarah



[1] https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/SummaryEN.htm
___
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] Transition plans for WMF leadership - Board Reform

[SarahSV]

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Denny Vrandecic 
wrote:

> To make a few things about the Board of Trustees clear - things that will
> be true now matter how much you reorganize it:
>
> - the Board members have duties of care and loyalty to the Foundation - not
> to the movement.
>
> ​Hi Denny,

Blue Avocado, the non-profit magazine, offers a somewhat different view.
They have published a board-member "contract" to give non-profit directors
an idea of what's expected of them. It includes:

​

​"... ​
I will interpret our constituencies' needs and values to the organization,
speak out for their interests, and on their behalf, hold the organization
accountable.
​" [1]

Sarah

[1] http://www.blueavocado.org/content/board-member-contract
​
___
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] My posts going to spam

[SarahSV]

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 3:10 PM, George Herbert 
wrote:

>
> Just to confirm, all Jimmy's email in these threads were in my Gmail spam
> folder when I looked.
>
> If you're using Gmail, go look at the spam folder and bring his messages
> back in...
>
>
That is why I asked Jimmy a question yesterday that he had already answered
in another thread. I wasn't aware that he had been replying until I saw
someone else answer one of his emails.

So yes, everyone using gmail, check your spam folders.
___
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 Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 8:00 AM, Jimmy Wales 
wrote:

>
> James had gotten, from somewhere, the idea that there really was a
> secret project to build a Google-competing search engine.  We had a
> discussion where I told him that wasn't right.  We had further
> discussions at the board level of what it means, and eventually James
> himself made the motion to approve the Knight grant, and voted in favor
> of it.
>
>

​Jimmy, this is something I find disturbing.

In October 2015 James opposed accepting the grant application because of
the lack of clarity and transparency around it. [1] But on 7 November he
not only formally supported its acceptance, but actually proposed it to the
Board. [2]

James has written that he did this "following pressure which included
comments about potentially removing members of the Board." [3] He wrote:
"Jimmy Wales had made comments about removing other board members during
the days before the Knight grant vote. I believed that my opposing at that
point in time would have changed nothing (because there were not enough
opposing votes to block it), and doing so would have led to my removal." [4]

After his removal, you used that he had proposed accepting the grant to
show that he was being inconsistent. You later called it a "flat out lie"
that any board member had put pressure on him. [5]

James is an honest and independent-minded person. If he says he acted under
pressure, he did. That doesn't mean anyone intended him to feel that way,
of course. But please say whether you said anything about removing board
members during, or in the days leading up to, that meeting.

If James did feel so much pressure that he acted against his own views, it
raises the question of whether other trustees have been similarly affected,
now or in the past. When we elect trustees, we need to know that they're
going to make their own decisions.

This is one of the many reasons we need all the emails to be released, as
well as all documentation around the Knowledge Engine and Knight grant.

Sarah

[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/In_focus

[2]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2015-11-07#Knight_Foundation_Grant

[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/In_focus

[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James=prev=704867811

[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales=prev=704228495
___
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

[SarahSV]

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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Was the Wikimedia Foundation's removal of membership in 2006 legal?

[SarahSV]

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 1:58 AM, Florence Devouard 
wrote:

> Hi Adam
>
> The WMF has never been a membership based organization.
>
>
> ​Hi Anthere,

The bylaws as of September 2004 said: [1]

"​
This membership [
​v​
olunteer active membership] shall consist of all persons interested in
supporting the activities of the Foundation who have contributed under a
user name to any Wikimedia project prior to the election ballot request
deadline. The only other qualification for membership shall be the creation
of a user account on some Wikimedia project."
​

And:

"Each Volunteer Active Member and each Contributing Active Member shall
have the right to vote for the Volunteer User Representative to the Board
of Trustees."


Does that not suggest that the Foundation had a voting membership, and that
one form of membership was extended to anyone who had created a user
account? It did not set up dues, but is that necessary to establish
membership?

The bylaws were changed in 2006 and now say: "The Foundation does not have
members."

Sarah


[1]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Bylaws=620#ARTICLE_III:_MEMBERSHIP

___
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] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[SarahSV]

The grant application to the Knight Foundation says that the "Search Engine
by Wikipedia" budget for 2015–2016 is $2.4 million, and that this was
approved by the Board of Trustees. [1]

I can't find any reference to this in the minutes. Could one of the
trustees tell us which meeting approved it and what was discussed there?

​Sarah​

[1]
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/a/a7/Knowledge_engine_grant_agreement.pdf
___
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] Your questions about KE.

[SarahSV]

Lila, thank you for setting this up. I think it will help a lot.

Sarah

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Bence Damokos  wrote:

> Thanks Lila for posting this.
> Just as a courtesy to those who follow the topic here on the mailing list,
> can you please send an update to this list whenever there is new content on
> the page, or at least when there are significant changes?
>
> Best regards,
> Bence
>
> 2016-02-17 18:40 GMT+01:00 Lila Tretikov :
>
> > Hello, everyone.
> >
> > There are a lot of questions still floating around around the Knowledge
> > Engine, in a lot of different places. I want to answer them fully,
> directly
> > and in one central place. To that end, I’m going to be putting together
> an
> > FAQ
> > page  on Meta to
> ask
> > and answer questions and - with the help of our staff -- to address them.
> > We will release answers as we are able to collect and address them, so
> > depending on the number of questions we get it may take a while, but we
> > will begin responding during Pacific working hours today.
> >
> > If you have questions, please send them or leave them there. We may
> > aggregate similar questions, but we will do our best to answer all of
> them
> > to your satisfaction.
> >
> > Thank you for sharing,
> >
> > Lila
> > ___
> > 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] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

[SarahSV]

On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 5:16 PM, James Alexander 
wrote:
It is probably best for me not to get into a long count/counterpoint here
but I couldn't avoid not responding at all.

James, several staffers have talked about feeling unappreciated and
demoralized.​
​But that's how quite a few WMF staff made us feel before Lila arrived.
WMF-community relations couldn't have been worse. It certainly looks from
the outside as though Lila fixed a lot of that.

The question now is how we move forward, with no more casualties.

The best thing is surely for WMF staff to help Lila weather this storm,
which seems to have blown up around mistaken ideas about the Knowledge
Engine proposal.

In the longer term we need to brainstorm about how to manage
Foundation-community relations. Lila wanted to speak to the community
earlier about the Knowledge Engine grant, but was afraid to. Why was that?
A lot of the community's suspicion of change stems from us feeling we could
be separated from our work at any minute. That conservatism causes a lot of
frustration within the WMF. How can it be fixed?

Does the Board give enough support to the ED and leadership to the rest of
us? Can something be put in place within the WMF to help staffers so that
things like this don't blow up in public? We also ought to discuss asking
the WMF to become a membership organization with different bylaws so that
we really do elect the Board.

These are the discussions that will move us forward, because the real
problem here is not about individuals. It is about structure.

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] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

[SarahSV]

On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Asaf Bartov  wrote:

> Despite everything, Anders, it is inappropriate for staff to publicly
> prosecute Lila.  The board is aware of the many issues, quite a few not yet
> public on any forum.  And it is for the board to solve.
>
>
Asaf, I agree, but it's happening, here and elsewhere. I hope there won't
be any more public attacks.

This isn't about how much people know. It's obvious that the KE was just a
flashpoint. It's about how to move forward without further casualties. I
don't believe that that isn't possible.

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] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

[SarahSV]

On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 10:23 PM, Milos Rancic <mill...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 5:43 AM, SarahSV <sarahsv.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > This isn't about how much people know. It's obvious that the KE was just
> a
> > flashpoint. It's about how to move forward without further casualties. I
> > don't believe that that isn't possible.
>
> From the point of person who knows just a tinny bit more than the
> non-staff non-Board participant of this list (but definitely far less
> than staff and Board), I tend to be a misanthrope. You know, the same
> answer to the question "Why do wars exist?": Because people are
> morons.
>
> But despite of this, I still share your hope as I tend to believe that
> Wikimedians are not just ordinary morons.
>

​Right. So can't we fix this? Lila is part of the movement too, and
everyone is clearly in a lot of pain here.

What can be done to help? Can an outside broker be brought in to hold a
meeting with staff and Lila and find solutions?​

​Perhaps the Board could organize something like this.

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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[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 and exploring.
>
> ​Lila is good at asking the right questions of the community, which is why
(so far as I can tell) editors like her. If you look at her meta talk page,
you can see her asking good questions about Flow and trying to find out
what editors need.

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 agree with us that x and y, then you're welcome to join
the discussion."

So from the start, it felt as though staffers had ruled out the community
as people who might know something about what tools are needed to
collaborate on an article (which is not the same as chatting). People who
had been doing something for years were not regarded as experts in that
thing by the Foundation.

We would say "we need pages," and they would explain why we didn't. We
would say "we need archives," and they would explain why good search was a
better idea. We would say "there's too much white space," and they would
explain that people like white space. And so on.

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] Post mortems (second attempt)

[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 you
> disagree? What kinds of approaches do you think might help the organization
> and the community learn the best lessons from past efforts, avoid repeating
> mistakes, and find ever more effective ways to engage with each other?
>
> ​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 Foundation and community a period of honest
exchange and understanding could be very healing.

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] Fwd: A conversation?

[SarahSV]

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 9:26 PM, Keegan Peterzell 
wrote:

> But whatever, let's open up yet another thread for people to go after each
> other.
>
> ​Keegan, we've been told since the end of December that Jimmy favours
radical transparency regarding James's removal and surrounding issues. But
it's now March, and nothing has been released except under pressure or
thanks to others. The result
​has been a huge loss of trust. Trying to stifle discussion will only make
things worse.

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] Fwd: A conversation?

[SarahSV]

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 11:18 PM, Erik Moeller  wrote:

> And no, I'm not a fan how things have played out so far, and I'm not
> arguing for just moving on without addressing remaining grievances.
> But this isn't how we should move forward.
>

​Erik, what do you see as the alternative?

There is a pattern here. For example, when James was removed in December,
Jimmy said he was not releasing information about it out of concern for
James.​

He wrote: "a man's reputation is at stake here." [1] "Our choice might have
been to post something blunt and damaging to him ... Remember, a man's
public reputation is at risk here." [2] And "Because a man's reputation is
at stake here, I think it wise to take it slow here. I care more about
James' future than I care about your foot stamping impatience." [3]

Those posts were troubling – on a par with someone on the Board making
James feel that he ought to propose accepting the Knight grant, when in
fact he was the one who objected to it. That James proposed it was then
held up as evidence that he wasn't telling the truth about other issues. [4]

Is this the kind of Board we want? How are we to move forward if we're not
allowed to talk about it?

Sarah


[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales=prev=697333942
[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales=prev=697407110
[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales=prev=697407275
[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales=prev=704228495
​
___
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] Fwd: A conversation?

[SarahSV]

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 2:25 AM, Jimmy Wales 
wrote:

>
> ​... ​
> The truth is, I am genuinely
> bewildered and finding it very hard to understand why James says things
> that the entire rest of the board find contrary to fact.
>
> With one exception that I can think of, everything James has said has
​so far ​
turned out to be true.​ The exception is that he said Dariusz had seconded
the motion to accept the Knight grant, but in fact it was Denny. When the
error was pointed out, he corrected himself. [1]

If you're saying he got
​ ​
other things wrong, i
​t would be​
better to show us
​ where.​


For example, in your 29 February 2016 email to James, you wrote that James
had "said publicly that you wrote to me in October that we were building a
Google-competing search engine and that I more or less said that I'm fine
with it. Go back and read our exchange. There's just now [sic] way to get
that from what I said ..."

It would help if you would publish the October 2015 exchange so that we can
judge it for ourselves. James has published his 7 October email to the
Board. [2]

Also, please point to where James said publicly that you more or less said
you were fine with building a Google-competing search engine. I don't
recall him saying anything like that. (If he had, someone would have asked
for more information about your statement, and I don't recall anyone asking
that either.)

Sarah

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWikimedia_Foundation_Board_of_Trustees=revision=15396717=15396673
[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/In_focus
___
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] any open search engine for web project starting

[SarahSV]

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 5:17 PM, carl hansen 
wrote:

> https://about.commonsearch.org/
>
> "We are building a nonprofit search engine for the Web"
>
> Sounds alot like Knowledge Engine, if there were such a thing.
> Any overlap with wikimedia projects?
>

​Thanks for the link, Carl. Erik and Lydia are advisors, so perhaps they
could say a bit more about it. ​

https://about.commonsearch.org/people

​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 and recorded WMF Board meetings

[SarahSV]

​​
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 4:42 PM, John Mark Vandenberg 
wrote:

>
> Are we still waiting for Jimmy to agree/reject to James' request to
> release an email?
>

​Yes. Jimmy said on 28 February that he wanted to speak to others about
whether it was okay to release his 30 December 2015 email to James. [1]

There's also the question of releasing the more recent email he sent to
James and cc-ed to Pete.

James has said nothing needs to be kept confidential for his sake. [2]

Sarah

[1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/083058.html
[2]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082815.html
___
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] WMF non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement clauses

[SarahSV]

On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 7:09 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

>
> This seems to be a recurring (and daunting) pattern. People call for
> transparency about a particular issue. Eventually, someone in a leadership
> position responds that yes, demands for transparency about this issue are
> quite reasonable, and in fact more transparency would be absolutely
> desirable.
>
> At this point, people relax, feeling they have been heard. The clamouring
> crowd disperses. But in fact, nothing happens, and the same questions arise
> again some weeks, months, years down the line.
>
> ​It would be wonderful if we had a dedicated transparency officer within
the community engagement department. Perhaps we could open a page on meta
listing transparency requests.

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] WMF non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement clauses

[SarahSV]

On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 8:11 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> As Sarah says, a dedicated transparency officer within the community
> engagement department would be a great idea, because this is a
> community-facing issue. I'd be interested in hearing Maggie's views on
> that.
>
​
I've started a page where we can post requests and keep track of replies.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_transparency

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] [Wiki-research-l] Research showcase: Evolution of privacy loss in Wikipedia

[SarahSV]

Dario and Aaron, thanks for letting us know about this. Is the research
available in writing for people who don't want to sit through the video?

Sarah

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Aaron Halfaker 
wrote:

> Reminder, this showcase is starting in 5 minutes.  See the stream here:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xle0oOFCNnk
>
> Join us on Freenode at #wikimedia-research
>  to ask Andrei
> questions.
>
> -Aaron
>
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Dario Taraborelli <
> dtarabore...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> > This month, our research showcase
> > 
> hosts
> > Andrei Rizoiu (Australian National University) to talk about his work
> >  on *how private traits of
> > Wikipedia editors can be exposed from public data* (such as edit
> > histories) using off-the-shelf machine learning techniques. (abstract
> below)
> >
> > If you're interested in learning what the combination of machine learning
> > and public data mean for privacy and surveillance, come and join us this
> *Wednesday
> > March 16* at *1pm Pacific Time*.
> >
> > The event will be recorded and publicly streamed
> > . As usual, we will be
> > hosting the conversation with the speaker and Q on the
> > #wikimedia-research channel on IRC.
> >
> > Looking forward to seeing you there,
> >
> > Dario
> >
> >
> > Evolution of Privacy Loss in WikipediaThe cumulative effect of collective
> > online participation has an important and adverse impact on individual
> > privacy. As an online system evolves over time, new digital traces of
> > individual behavior may uncover previously hidden statistical links
> between
> > an individual’s past actions and her private traits. To quantify this
> > effect, we analyze the evolution of individual privacy loss by studying
> > the edit history of Wikipedia over 13 years, including more than 117,523
> > different users performing 188,805,088 edits. We trace each Wikipedia’s
> > contributor using apparently harmless features, such as the number of
> edits
> > performed on predefined broad categories in a given time period (e.g.
> > Mathematics, Culture or Nature). We show that even at this unspecific
> level
> > of behavior description, it is possible to use off-the-shelf machine
> > learning algorithms to uncover usually undisclosed personal traits, such
> as
> > gender, religion or education. We provide empirical evidence that the
> > prediction accuracy for almost all private traits consistently improves
> > over time. Surprisingly, the prediction performance for users who stopped
> > editing after a given time still improves. The activities performed by
> new
> > users seem to have contributed more to this effect than additional
> > activities from existing (but still active) users. Insights from this
> work
> > should help users, system designers, and policy makers understand and
> make
> > long-term design choices in online content creation systems.
> >
> >
> > *Dario Taraborelli  *Head of Research, Wikimedia Foundation
> > wikimediafoundation.org • nitens.org • @readermeter
> > 
> >
> > ___
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > wiki-researc...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[SarahSV]

On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 10:11 PM, jytdog  wrote:

> How do we work out what actually happened, and how do we resolve the
> contradictions?
>

​Several people have asked Jimmy to release his 30 December 2015 email to
James, in which he apparently explains in part why James was removed.

Jimmy said on 28 February that he would know within a few days' whether it
was okay to publish it. [1]  James has said that nothing needs to be kept
secret for his sake. [2]

It would be good to have an update regarding that email.

Sarah

[1]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082685.html
[2]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082815.html
___
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] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

[SarahSV]

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 9:57 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Denny Vrandečić 
> wrote:
>
> > The formal task force was created end of October. This task force
> involved
> > outside legal counsel and conducted professional fact finding.
> >
>
>
> What were the prime motivations for involving outside legal counsel, and
> how much money did this cost the Foundation?
> ___
>

​
And why was James excluded from the task force?

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] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

[SarahSV]

Denny, you wrote: "I was particularly worried about James’ lack of
understanding of confidential matters ..." But you seem to be saying that
James wanted to respect the confidentiality that had been promised to staff.

Sarah


On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Michel Vuijlsteke 
wrote:

> Just to be sure I understand the issue: staff members reached out
> specifically to the four of you and asked for confidentiality, and then the
> Board demanded 'all documents', presumably including some confidential
> staff information, and James only very reluctantly shared it?
>
> Michel
>
___
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] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

[SarahSV]

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Denny Vrandečić 
wrote:

> The protection of any personal or confidential information was, to the best
> of my knowledge, at all time guaranteed and has not been compromised. The
> official task force, set up by the Trustees, worked under the standards of
> keeping confidentiality, obviously. I thought this goes without saying, but
> I am explicating it.
>
> Was information passed to people on the task force without the original
sources' consent?
​
___
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] [Wikimedia Announcements] Invitation for review: Technical Collaboration Guideline

[SarahSV]

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Keegan Peterzell  wrote:

>
> Greetings,
>
> Wikimedians, please review something we are working on for the Wikimedia
> Foundation, the Technical Collaboration Guideline [0].
>
>
>
Keegan, thank you for this, to you and everyone who has worked on it. It's
a very welcome development.

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,