The BoT have made some mistakes in the past few days, in the ways they've
handled information, silent on critical situation that requires urgent
clarification, and how they kept the community in the dark about certain
decision. This is painful and that was a poor decision on their part. We have
every right to be disappointed in them but that doesn't mean we should give up
on them. The WMF's mission is not about us, it's not about them but about
millions of people across the world that find the Wikimedia projects useful and
helpful. It is easy to believe in people when they are succeeding and it's easy
to be disappointed in them when they are failing. The BoT should understand
that the Wikimedia projects we have today was built by the community with the
efforts of thousands of volunteers across the world and it took many years to
build this amazing resources. Patricio Lorente and his team should focus on
what is productive and try as much as they can to avoid anything that is
counterproductive. They should learn to consult the community and staffs in
taking some decision that is likely to generate controversies.
Best,
Olatunde Isaac
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile.
-----Original Message-----
From: wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
Sender: "Wikimedia-l" <wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org>Date: Sat, 20
Feb 2016 09:25:07
To: <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Reply-To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 143, Issue 111
Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT (Ziko van Dijk)
2. Technical issues of Wikimedia [was: Particular interests and
common ground] (Amir Ladsgroup)
3. Re: Technical issues of Wikimedia [was: Particular interests
and common ground] (Szymon Grabarczuk)
4. Re: Technical issues of Wikimedia [was: Particular interests
and common ground] (Milos Rancic)
5. Re: An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT (Chris Keating)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 01:50:49 +0100
From: Ziko van Dijk <zvand...@gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT
Message-ID:
<CADut_2+aCvreKL=xdcuse6tjopu8edmhvasx-berxwg-t4l...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Dear Ido,
Thank you for your e-mail. I am also grateful to many other people who have
contributed to give us a better understanding of the past and the present
(it is a lot of work).
I would like to read your opinion about two things that I find astonishing
and urging for a remedy:
* How it could come so far that staff members so openly applaud critical
voices about their boss, Lila Tretikov. This is a really terrible signal
about the state of the Foundation. Ido, do you agree with William Beutler
in the Signpost that it is not possible to imagine how the staff and Lila
Tretikov can go on together?
* We have heard from some of the board members. I actually miss the voice
of the chair. It is the task of a chair, certainly in a crisis like this,
to contribute to more clearness, what the Board is thinking, what it
intends to do next. Ido, imagine that the board makes a new start possible,
which would include a new community election. Would you regard that to be
helpful?
Kind regards
Ziko
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 02:02:57 +0000
From: Amir Ladsgroup <ladsgr...@gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Technical issues of Wikimedia [was: Particular
interests and common ground]
Message-ID:
<CA+ttme1o1v+6cC3rxHtr1OrHY=iA-a6k8Qhcb=aW7jrOG4=j...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Hey Milos,
You talked about things that I'm in no place to comment but I want to
emphasize on this part of your email:
"For the last 8 years, just two things have been working without
problems in WMF: Money and tech infrastructure (servers, "plain"
MediaWiki, optimizations etc.)."
We hear about technical issues of Wikipedia a lot. We hear Wikipedia is
behind in technology, that it's underperforming. etc. etc. It's not just
you. It's a lot of people in the community of editors too. I highly doubt
that I can comment on this matter, there are definitely better people but I
can't keep it anymore. Maybe my perspective as a non-WMF employee who works
in technical issues would be worth publishing.
The process of getting something technical done is as the same as editing
in wiki. It needs a certain amount of expertise like editing most of the
articles as well. Anyone can make a patch for every part of Wikipedia and
after some code review. it's there. IMO saying "technical parts of
Wikipedia sucks" is as the same as "Wikipedia sucks". Technical space of
Wikimedia is filled with volunteers. I saw unimaginable times that people
work over the weekend, take a day off and then work again because unlike
most companies people care about their job in a good way. Helping in
technical issues just need passion and caring. Let me tell you a story. I
didn't know how to write a line of code in my first three years of editing
Wikipedia. I was just a teenage boy who was making articles about movies he
watched, songs he liked, etc. and then I cared about Wikipedia so much that
I wanted to help more and I heard about cool things called robots (and
believe me, for a very long time I thought bots are physical things that
edit Wikipedia) so I tried to read about it, there was virtually no help in
Persian and my English was so bad that I needed dictionary for everything I
read (google translate was a sci-fi idea back then) but I learned and
learned and I'm still learning just to make Wikipedia a better place, I
hate programming as a goal, it's just a mean.
I just want to remind you people done a hell out of job in technical
aspects. It wasn't just in their working time. It was also a huge volunteer
time too, either by staff or non-WMF employees. Feeling this advantages is
not hard. Just take a look at Google's Knol. It was done by *the* Google
and it's this. We, as a movement, are competing with companies like Google,
Facebook or twitter the same way we are competing with Britannica.
Honestly, I think if someone just published a statement saying "There is a
cool project called Knowledge Engine but we don't have money for it, We can
just give you a space to put your source code and test it, and running it."
We would be knocking over google by 2020, as what we did with Britannica.
I think, maybe I'm wrong please correct me if I am, the biggest problem is
the user interface design of Wikipedia. It looks boring. I know there were,
and there are great designers who also love Wikipedia the same way you do.
I saw what they are capable of. Look at Winter or preferences redesign [1].
They are capable of making Wikipedia ten times more user-friendly and
beautiful. I don't know why it hasn't happened, maybe the community is too
conservative, maybe it's some kind of branding. I asked my life partner and
he said Wikipedia looks beautiful to the most of its readers, the same way
a fresh cupcake smells good, because Wikipedia is awesome. I guess people
who work in bakeries doesn't like the smell of cupcakes as much as other
people.
My last words: If you encounter any technical issues, please report and if
you think it's important to solve technical problems you are more than
welcome to join the club. Just check out the developer hub [2] and
there are tons of manuals in the internet, also there are people in IRC
channels willing to help.
[1]: It aches my heart every time I see it:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Redesign_user_preferences
[2]: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Developer_hub
I hope more people chime in and comment to fix this misconception or
correct me.
Best
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 04:01:38 +0100
From: Szymon Grabarczuk <tar.locesil...@gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Technical issues of Wikimedia [was:
Particular interests and common ground]
Message-ID:
<CAPv2NmcCGf9fVeDRhK_S6FhpPh81=-dxj_sduqtvxx+2nnq...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
+1 for "saying 'technical parts of Wikipedia sucks' is as the same as
'Wikipedia sucks' ".
+1 for "the biggest problem is the user interface design of Wikipedia" and
your Winter-related thoughts (I may be also wrong).
Thanks for all the message.
On 20 February 2016 at 03:02, Amir Ladsgroup <ladsgr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey Milos,
> You talked about things that I'm in no place to comment but I want to
> emphasize on this part of your email:
> "For the last 8 years, just two things have been working without
> problems in WMF: Money and tech infrastructure (servers, "plain"
> MediaWiki, optimizations etc.)."
> We hear about technical issues of Wikipedia a lot. We hear Wikipedia is
> behind in technology, that it's underperforming. etc. etc. It's not just
> you. It's a lot of people in the community of editors too. I highly doubt
> that I can comment on this matter, there are definitely better people but I
> can't keep it anymore. Maybe my perspective as a non-WMF employee who works
> in technical issues would be worth publishing.
>
> The process of getting something technical done is as the same as editing
> in wiki. It needs a certain amount of expertise like editing most of the
> articles as well. Anyone can make a patch for every part of Wikipedia and
> after some code review. it's there. IMO saying "technical parts of
> Wikipedia sucks" is as the same as "Wikipedia sucks". Technical space of
> Wikimedia is filled with volunteers. I saw unimaginable times that people
> work over the weekend, take a day off and then work again because unlike
> most companies people care about their job in a good way. Helping in
> technical issues just need passion and caring. Let me tell you a story. I
> didn't know how to write a line of code in my first three years of editing
> Wikipedia. I was just a teenage boy who was making articles about movies he
> watched, songs he liked, etc. and then I cared about Wikipedia so much that
> I wanted to help more and I heard about cool things called robots (and
> believe me, for a very long time I thought bots are physical things that
> edit Wikipedia) so I tried to read about it, there was virtually no help in
> Persian and my English was so bad that I needed dictionary for everything I
> read (google translate was a sci-fi idea back then) but I learned and
> learned and I'm still learning just to make Wikipedia a better place, I
> hate programming as a goal, it's just a mean.
>
> I just want to remind you people done a hell out of job in technical
> aspects. It wasn't just in their working time. It was also a huge volunteer
> time too, either by staff or non-WMF employees. Feeling this advantages is
> not hard. Just take a look at Google's Knol. It was done by *the* Google
> and it's this. We, as a movement, are competing with companies like Google,
> Facebook or twitter the same way we are competing with Britannica.
> Honestly, I think if someone just published a statement saying "There is a
> cool project called Knowledge Engine but we don't have money for it, We can
> just give you a space to put your source code and test it, and running it."
> We would be knocking over google by 2020, as what we did with Britannica.
>
> I think, maybe I'm wrong please correct me if I am, the biggest problem is
> the user interface design of Wikipedia. It looks boring. I know there were,
> and there are great designers who also love Wikipedia the same way you do.
> I saw what they are capable of. Look at Winter or preferences redesign [1].
> They are capable of making Wikipedia ten times more user-friendly and
> beautiful. I don't know why it hasn't happened, maybe the community is too
> conservative, maybe it's some kind of branding. I asked my life partner and
> he said Wikipedia looks beautiful to the most of its readers, the same way
> a fresh cupcake smells good, because Wikipedia is awesome. I guess people
> who work in bakeries doesn't like the smell of cupcakes as much as other
> people.
>
> My last words: If you encounter any technical issues, please report and if
> you think it's important to solve technical problems you are more than
> welcome to join the club. Just check out the developer hub [2] and
> there are tons of manuals in the internet, also there are people in IRC
> channels willing to help.
>
> [1]: It aches my heart every time I see it:
>
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Redesign_user_preferences
>
> [2]: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Developer_hub
>
> I hope more people chime in and comment to fix this misconception or
> correct me.
> Best
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
--
*Szymon Grabarczuk*
Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU
Head of Research & Development Group, Wikimedia Polska
pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_Lócesilion
<http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_L%C3%B3cesilion>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 09:29:15 +0100
From: Milos Rancic <mill...@gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Technical issues of Wikimedia [was:
Particular interests and common ground]
Message-ID:
<cahpiq2elrap49gjfuu381twcgbk8lx_ro-a+hfexnk4cqma...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 3:02 AM, Amir Ladsgroup <ladsgr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You talked about things that I'm in no place to comment but I want to
> emphasize on this part of your email:
> "For the last 8 years, just two things have been working without
> problems in WMF: Money and tech infrastructure (servers, "plain"
> MediaWiki, optimizations etc.)."
> We hear about technical issues of Wikipedia a lot. We hear Wikipedia is
> behind in technology, that it's underperforming. etc. etc. It's not just
> you. It's a lot of people in the community of editors too. I highly doubt
> that I can comment on this matter, there are definitely better people but I
> can't keep it anymore. Maybe my perspective as a non-WMF employee who works
> in technical issues would be worth publishing.
> ...
Just to be clear, as mails like my previous one could be wrongly
understood, obviously.
I said "without problems" vs. "with problems", not "competent" vs.
"incompetent" or "good" vs. "bad" etc. Both money and infrastructure
have been no issues for almost a decade (servers longer than money). I
am not waking up with the thought that Wikimedia won't have enough
money or that servers wouldn't work. (OK, there are some invisible
things, like accounting, which obviously haven't been a problem at any
point of time.)
Everything else has been a kind of problem, but I wasn't going into
details. If we are talking about MediaWiki itself, the core is going
with infrastructure and it's no issue. In relation to the features,
which are the problem, it's related to the articulation of the needed
features and allocating resources to create them. Thus, it's the
problem of upper management. I know we have a lot of quite competent
developers.
But I didn't want to go into this kind of analysis. In some cases the
causes are obvious, in some other they are not. I just wanted to
detect that, besides very limited number of no issues, we have tons of
problems, the most of them being the same as a decade ago.
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 09:25:03 +0000
From: Chris Keating <chriskeatingw...@gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT
Message-ID:
<cafche1qibspnfmvhrjlu_k69ld0thczfgdeuesagmdsgphx...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On 19 Feb 2016 23:49, "Denny Vrandecic" wrote
> # The alternative is to allow every member of the Board to engage
> individually as they like. This will mean that there are much more
> individual conversations going on, things can be better explained. But
this
> also means that the individual Trustee's statement must not be taken as
> golden representations of the Board's thinking. If ten Board members
engage
> with the community (which won't happen anyway, but even if it's five), do
> expect five different voices and opinions, and don't expect that
everything
> said will actually become a resolution (which, in the end, is the only way
> the Board as a Board can communicate anyway). This obviously can lead to
> plenty of "that Trustee said that" or "no, I talked with Trustee X, and
she
> said that this change is a bad idea", etc. - never mind possible legal
> implications.
Hi Denny (and the rest of the Board),
>From my experience of Wikimedia movement conversations (and other
conversations from similar organisations) it is usually better to have
Board members contributing to debates with their own voices. It's really
reassuring to know that someone is saying something. Silence, by contrast,
results in a lot of doubts. Thinking back to the Haifa letter and the
discussion around fundraising and so on in 2011-2 - it was really helpful
in that discussion when WMF board members started sharing their
(conflicting) views rather than communicating through agreed statements (
which took hours to write and then ended up being really unclear anyway ).
It meant that the Board started to look like a bunch of people trying to do
the best job given conflicting perspectives, and stopped looking like an
uncontrollable monolith.
Of course it doesn't help that there are some people on this list who will
leap at every statement to find fault with it - but usually those people
are fed more by silence than by engagement.
And of course it is not always possible to talk publically about
differences of approach or upcoming issues - particularly where staff are
concerned - but it is best to talk as far as you can, in my view.
Chris
>
> Since I have been on the Board there was never even really a discussion
> which of these options we should take. And I am not surprised by it -
> considering how creative and dissective some community members can be with
> the statements from Board members. Seriously, I am not feeling comfortable
> with sharing any of my thoughts here, and even this mail I hope I will
> press send before I just delete it.
>
> This mail, please, do not read it as an excuse for the Board. I am not
> trying to downplay the current situation nor to take responsibility away
> from the Board. I am not trying to blame anyone at all, but merely trying
> to explain why the heck we act so fucking dumb sometimes.
>
> Again, thanks,
> Denny
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 8:17 AM, Delphine Ménard <notafi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I believe that Dariusz' comment was somewhat blown out of proportions
> > (due in part to difficulties in communication inherent to our
> > multicultural movement). I also think that some of the statements he
> > made were too "blanket" to let go, so I understand the frustration.
> >
> > This said, Ori, I want to thank you for what I believe is the most
> > daring, heartfelt and bold emails ever written to this list.
> >
> > And I use the word bold very specifically because I believe that this
> > is what is missing today. Boldness. Boldness does not only translate
> > in taking (un)calculated risks, it also comes in the capacity of
> > admitting failure.
> >
> > I'll tell you where I think we, as an organisation, have failed. It
> > was already a long time ago, when we started to talk about efficiency.
> > When the Foundation started working and acting like an American Global
> > Corporation, and stopped cherishing our diversity and leverage it to
> > do that thing we once all dreamed of "taking over the world". I will
> > give you a few examples which I think illustrate the failure to be
> > bold in organisational ways. They might shed a light on today's
> > governance chaos.
> >
> > Fundraising & Trademark: For the longest time, we've been analyzing
> > what risks there were if Chapter/Entity XYZ fundraised, or used the
> > trademark. What are the terrible things that would happen if someone
> > got in trouble at the other end of the world and they had anything to
> > do with Wikimedia or Wikimedia money. No-one ever said: "let us find a
> > solution to leverage our diversity and fundraise all over the world,
> > and make sure that we get all there is to get, together". Or: "Let us
> > recognize how every single person using the trademark is an asset to
> > that trademark". No one said, let us work together to make sure that
> > our organisational network represents our diversity, our collective
> > core. We're only afraid of what may happen if. We are afraid, or cosy.
> > After 10 years, Wikimedia Germany and Wikimedia Switzerland are the
> > only parts of the world where fundraising is happening locally. And
> > it's not because anyone ever thought that they did it better (well, I
> > do ;)), but because of technicalities. We have never thanked the
> > thousands of volunteers handing out flyers for their part in making
> > our trademark an amazing thing. instead, we're calculating all the
> > risks, the "what happens if". The "product" by definition is owned by
> > all of us, and more. While protecting it is a good thing, keeping it
> > behind bars isn't. We are diverse, we will make mistakes and learn
> > from them. We freaking built an encyclopedia, of course we can take
> > care of it without having to fear everyone and their brother! And
> > while an organisation is not a wiki, and revert not always an option,
> > I'm pretty sure that
> >
> > Governance: No members at the Foundation. OK, I am not for or against
> > it, but the whole speech "we answer to 80000 volunteers" which has
> > been served to me over the years (as opposed to a mere 300 members in
> > that chapter or that other) is a load of BS. Because what I have
> > observed in the past few years, the Board only serves itself or the ED
> > (your pick), or "the Foundation" (the word "fiduciary responsibility"
> > still makes me cringe today). I am questioning who feels "served"
> > today. Doesn't seem like a lot of people. But you know, nobody
> > represents anyone, they're only "selected"...
> >
> > Governance again: 10 board members. No clear cut majority, ever.
> > Impossible. No-one can take charge and make things change drastically.
> > Not the community and "chapter" seats, not the appointed people. An
> > inertia of the likes I have *never* seen. I have been very close to
> > the board in extremely different contexts, extremely different
> > constellations and I have come to the conclusion that however smart
> > the people on it were, the sum of their intelligence as a collective
> > body amounted to less than their average intelligence when taken as
> > individuals. Insane. You cannot "govern" when the gap in opinions is
> > so huge that you can only always go for the "middle", which makes
> > nobody happy. I have seen people on the board get lashed at because
> > their vote on the outside looked like they were betraying the people
> > they were close to. But we don't know what the options on the table
> > were, and who knows, how they might have been so much worse. So middle
> > it is. Bold is but a faint memory (and the bold ones still get lashed
> > at, look at Dariusz being the only one talking here, and the one who
> > takes the blows).
> >
> > Loyalty: We never really prodded for loyalty. Chapters were left to
> > develop in their own chaotic ways, pushed away because they were a
> > risk, and when they strayed they were put back under the iron hand of
> > the Foundation and handled like kids. We never said: "gals and guys,
> > we're all in this together, let us work together to be better,
> > together". I know I am not doing justice to all the amazing work that
> > has been done in the grants department, among others, but hear me out.
> > I want chapters and affiliates and communities and staff to feel they
> > owe and own the Foundation at the same time. Back to "governance
> > again", no representation, a self-serving body. There are still (too
> > many) people out there who feel "the Foundation" does not represent
> > them. How do we change that? How do we make sure that people feel they
> > have a voice, and give them the will to give back to the whole?
> >
> > Impact: Wow, that one is a big one. We don't know the impact we have
> > because we never really asked ourselves what impact in our context
> > really means. Oh, we do have data, tons of it. But what does it mean
> > to have impact when you're Wikimedia? page views? Number of mobile
> > devices in the Global South (sorry kittens) accessing the content for
> > free? Number of mentions of Wikipedia at dinner parties to check who's
> > right or who's wrong on who last won the Superbowl? We're trying hard,
> > but not finding a common definition. Or even agreeing on the fact that
> > there might not be one. Again, how do we find a common direction? It
> > takes leadership in thinking out difficult questions and strength in
> > making them heard and embraced. One thing is sure, there are many
> > people asking others to show impact, but no-one within our governance
> > ranks making a real and beneficial one in giving a strong sense of
> > direction.
> >
> > So yes, I think I understand your frustration. And I wish that someone
> > had the boldness to take their fingers out of their... ears, and make
> > things change. Too many people in too little time have been "moving
> > on" or "exploring other opportunities". And this is indeed a strong
> > sign that something must be done. You pointed out in a direction, I am
> > of a mind that it is not the only direction, even if it might be the
> > most acute and the (relatively) easiest to address.
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Delphine
> >
> >
> > PS. For history's sake, I have worked for the Foundation, I have left
> > it too, I know the feeling, to my bones. It was not an easy decision
> > and today, 8 years later, there are times where I regret it, and
> > others when I think to myself "good riddance". I also had quite a few
> > other volunteer roles in chapters, committees and whatnots.
> >
> > PPS. I say *we* and take my part of responsibility, as I have been in
> > positions where I should have worked harder at changing things.
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 7:33 PM, Ori Livneh <o...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 4:47 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak <dar...@alk.edu.pl
>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> There is way too much blaming/bashing/sour expectations
> > >> working both ways - we almost forget how unique we are, irrespective
of
> > >> many slips and avoidable failures we make (and WMF is definitely
> > leading
> > >> here, too! ;)
> > >>
> > >
> > > No, we're not. My peers in the Technology department work incredibly
hard
> > > to provide value for readers and editors, and we have very good
results
> > to
> > > show for it. Less than two years ago it took an average of six
seconds to
> > > save an edit to an article; it is about one second now. (MediaWiki
> > > deployments are currently halted over a 200-300ms regression!). Page
load
> > > times improved by 30-40% in the past year, which earned us plaudits in
> > the
> > > press and in professional circles. The analytics team figured out how
to
> > > count unique devices without compromising user anonimity and privacy
and
> > > rolled out a robust public API for page view data. The research team
is
> > in
> > > the process of collecting feedback from readers and compiling the
first
> > > comprehensive picture of what brings readers to the projects. The
TechOps
> > > team made Wikipedia one of the first major internet properties to go
> > > HTTPS-only, slashed latency for users in many parts of the world by
> > > provisioning a cache pop on the Pacific Coast of the United States,
and
> > is
> > > currently gearing up for a comprehensive test of our failover
> > capabilities,
> > > which is to happen this Spring.
> > >
> > > That's just the activity happening immediately around me in the org,
and
> > > says nothing of engineering accomplishments like the Android app being
> > > featured on the Play store in 93 countries and having a higher user
> > rating
> > > than Facebook Messenger, Twitter, Netflix, Snapchat, Google Photos,
etc.
> > Or
> > > the 56,669 articles that have been created using the Content
Translation
> > > tool.
> > >
> > > This is happening in spite of -- not thanks to -- dysfunction at the
top.
> > > If you don't believe me, all you have to do is wait: an exodus of
people
> > > from Engineering won't be long now. Our initial astonishment at the
> > Board's
> > > unwillingness to acknowledge and address this dysfunction is wearing
off.
> > > The slips and failures are not generalized and diffuse. They are local
> > and
> > > specific, and their location has been indicated to you repeatedly.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > @notafish
> >
> > NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will
get
> > lost.
> > Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive -
> > http://blog.notanendive.org
> > Photos with simple eyes: notaphoto - http://photo.notafish.org
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
------------------------------
End of Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 143, Issue 111
*********************************************
_______________________________________________
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>
