Re: [Wikimedia-l] Exciting update about development of structured data on Commons

[Pete Forsyth]

Replying to Alex and Lisa (and Rogol) in one message:

Alex, thank you for linking the 32 page public version of the grant to the
Sloan Foundation. It is indeed an impressive quantity of information, and
I'm glad that this kind of transparency was built into the process --
having written grant proposals on behalf of WMF, I'm keenly aware of how
much of an additional challenge that creates, and applaud the team. That
said, it's a lot of info to look over, so if I have any more substantive
comments, it will take a little time.

Lisa, I also appreciate your timely response about restricted grants. It's
good to have a little insight into your thinking, which resonates. I do
hope for more, in time. In the past, I felt all of us associated with
Wikimedia could take legitimate pride in our connection to an organization
that took a leadership role in the thinking on philanthropic giving. (As
you may recall, I wrote up an overview about it last year:
https://wikistrategies.net/grant-transparency/ ) It was especially
distressing to see this issue play a central role in last year's crises, in
the sense that the Knowledge Engine was rooted in a strategy of restricted
grant opacity. I am still hoping the organization will take decisive steps
toward reclaiming its position as a significant thought leader on the topic.

Perhaps the strategic planning process will offer an opportunity to do so?

In general, my questions are strongly aligned with those Rogol Domedonfors
is asking, both in this thread and in the one about historical documents.
Restricted grants can be one of the more visible artifacts that reflect the
large-scale thinking of the organization; it's broadly important to the
movement that the large-scale thinking be visible.

It has not been very long since a broadcast video led by Lila Tretikov and
Jimmy Wales ended with a bit of open mockery of the value of long-term
strategic planning. That was in jest, I understand, but in the absence of a
more serious followup, not a great thing for Wikimedia stakeholders to
hear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-12-22/News_and_notes
We have a new executive director, new faces on the board, many things are
running very smoothly, and many good things are happening. But we still
lack a foundation for insight into how the rapidly expanding organization
is thinking. Billions of people have a stake in those questions.

If there are no readily-available answers that can be shared, I hope at
least that the strategic planning process will begin to flesh out some of
what has been driving the WMF, and what will drive it in the years to come.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Rogol Domedonfors 
wrote:

> Dear Wes
>
> Thank you for yet another prompt response.  It seems almost churlish to say
> that unfortunately that is not what I have been asking for -- I must be
> very bad at expressing myself to have given so many different people so
> many different mistaken impressions of my request.  To me a product roadmap
> would be a quite high-level view of the new products and major deveopments
> and their linkages looking out on a time scale significantly in excess of a
> single year, and at a level of detail significantly less than the
> aggregation of all the teams' quarterly plans.  The roadmap would have the
> level of abstraction, interconnection and timscale that allows you to say
> that a three-year project such as the one you have just announced will
> expedite features on your roadmap and that the grant enabled accelerating
> the already started work on Structured Commons into a quicker three-year
> time frame: so a roadmap on which you can locate a project with a time
> frame that was previously beyond three years let alone one.  It is also
> known that there are long-term projects such as parser unification, new
> editors and discussion systems which look out well beyond the current
> year.  Are there others -- we do not (yet) know.
>
> So again, my request is that you share this higher-level, longer-term, if
> not completely definitve roadmap with the community in the interests of
> transparency not only as an abstract  objective but in order to maximise
> the benefits of early engagement, discussion and co-creation.
>
> Yours
> "Rogol"
>
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:29 PM, Wes Moran  wrote:
>
> > Hello Rogol,
> >
> > Thanks for the question.  The Annual Plan we follow and share with the
> > community for review before we begin our work is available on Meta [1].
> We
> > update specific plans on a quarterly basis on our goals pages [2] as they
> > may evolve over the year. We also provide a number of links for the
> > specific teams on our Product page and welcome participation, discussion
> or
> > connection through those pathways and directly with the feature teams
> [3].
> >
> > Specifically the Wikidata, Community Tech, Editing and Discovery teams
> have
> > specific 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Exciting update about development of structured data on Commons

[Nabin K. Sapkota]

That's a great news!!

Thanks,
Nabin
Wikimedians of Nepal


On Jan 11, 2017 11:33 PM, "Rogol Domedonfors"  wrote:

> Rupert,
>
> A Happy New Year to you too.  I don't see why my personal motivation for
> asking this question would come into it.  The request is to publish the
> overall product roadmap to the community, for the community to collaborate
> with the WMF on planning the future products.  That does not sound to me
> like any kind of complaint about past actions – why would you assume that?
>
> In answer to Joseph's posting: this response was about current planning for
> the one product, while my request is about medium-to-long term planning for
> the whole product range.
>
> "Rogol"
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 6:47 AM, rupert THURNER 
> wrote:
>
> > Rogol, a good start into 2017! I have difficulties understanding your
> > question, especially why you are asking it now. This topic was discussed
> > quite often and for a long time to justify putting money behind talking
> at
> > least imo.
> >
> > you are unhappy a restricted grant was received without community
> consensus
> > on commons to have such a technology included? Or you are unhappy that
> WMF
> > builds up a Wikidata team when wikimedia Deutschland has already one? You
> > are unhappy that WMF cuts the money for WMDE and at the same time
> increases
> > spending in the same area of technology? Or you are unhappy that there
> will
> > be another technical lead while at WMDE there is a lot of experience
> which
> > you consider waste and unnecessary bureaucracy? Or you want to discuss
> how
> > it will be implemented? Or, to put it in other words, what input would
> you
> > give or expect if a document like you are requesting would exist?
> >
> > Best Rupert
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jan 10, 2017 11:28 PM, "Rogol Domedonfors" 
> > wrote:
> >
> > Dear Wes
> >
> > Thank you for yet another prompt response.  It seems almost churlish to
> say
> > that unfortunately that is not what I have been asking for -- I must be
> > very bad at expressing myself to have given so many different people so
> > many different mistaken impressions of my request.  To me a product
> roadmap
> > would be a quite high-level view of the new products and major
> deveopments
> > and their linkages looking out on a time scale significantly in excess
> of a
> > single year, and at a level of detail significantly less than the
> > aggregation of all the teams' quarterly plans.  The roadmap would have
> the
> > level of abstraction, interconnection and timscale that allows you to say
> > that a three-year project such as the one you have just announced will
> > expedite features on your roadmap and that the grant enabled accelerating
> > the already started work on Structured Commons into a quicker three-year
> > time frame: so a roadmap on which you can locate a project with a time
> > frame that was previously beyond three years let alone one.  It is also
> > known that there are long-term projects such as parser unification, new
> > editors and discussion systems which look out well beyond the current
> > year.  Are there others -- we do not (yet) know.
> >
> > So again, my request is that you share this higher-level, longer-term, if
> > not completely definitve roadmap with the community in the interests of
> > transparency not only as an abstract  objective but in order to maximise
> > the benefits of early engagement, discussion and co-creation.
> >
> > Yours
> > "Rogol"
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:29 PM, Wes Moran  wrote:
> >
> > > Hello Rogol,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the question.  The Annual Plan we follow and share with the
> > > community for review before we begin our work is available on Meta [1].
> > We
> > > update specific plans on a quarterly basis on our goals pages [2] as
> they
> > > may evolve over the year. We also provide a number of links for the
> > > specific teams on our Product page and welcome participation,
> discussion
> > or
> > > connection through those pathways and directly with the feature teams
> > [3].
> > >
> > > Specifically the Wikidata, Community Tech, Editing and Discovery teams
> > have
> > > specific objectives and goals in this years annual plan.
> > >
> > > Hope this answers your question and certainly engage in the ongoing
> > > discussion around the work on the Commons page [4].
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Wes
> > >
> > > Wes Moran
> > > Vice President of Product
> > > Wikimedia Foundation
> > >
> > >
> > > [1]
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_
> > > Annual_Plan/2016-2017/Final#Product
> > > [2] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Engineering/2016-17_Goals
> > > [3] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Product
> > > [4] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/
> Overview
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Rogol Domedonfors <
> > domedonf...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Exciting update about development of structured data on Commons

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Rupert,

A Happy New Year to you too.  I don't see why my personal motivation for
asking this question would come into it.  The request is to publish the
overall product roadmap to the community, for the community to collaborate
with the WMF on planning the future products.  That does not sound to me
like any kind of complaint about past actions – why would you assume that?

In answer to Joseph's posting: this response was about current planning for
the one product, while my request is about medium-to-long term planning for
the whole product range.

"Rogol"

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 6:47 AM, rupert THURNER 
wrote:

> Rogol, a good start into 2017! I have difficulties understanding your
> question, especially why you are asking it now. This topic was discussed
> quite often and for a long time to justify putting money behind talking at
> least imo.
>
> you are unhappy a restricted grant was received without community consensus
> on commons to have such a technology included? Or you are unhappy that WMF
> builds up a Wikidata team when wikimedia Deutschland has already one? You
> are unhappy that WMF cuts the money for WMDE and at the same time increases
> spending in the same area of technology? Or you are unhappy that there will
> be another technical lead while at WMDE there is a lot of experience which
> you consider waste and unnecessary bureaucracy? Or you want to discuss how
> it will be implemented? Or, to put it in other words, what input would you
> give or expect if a document like you are requesting would exist?
>
> Best Rupert
>
>
>
> On Jan 10, 2017 11:28 PM, "Rogol Domedonfors" 
> wrote:
>
> Dear Wes
>
> Thank you for yet another prompt response.  It seems almost churlish to say
> that unfortunately that is not what I have been asking for -- I must be
> very bad at expressing myself to have given so many different people so
> many different mistaken impressions of my request.  To me a product roadmap
> would be a quite high-level view of the new products and major deveopments
> and their linkages looking out on a time scale significantly in excess of a
> single year, and at a level of detail significantly less than the
> aggregation of all the teams' quarterly plans.  The roadmap would have the
> level of abstraction, interconnection and timscale that allows you to say
> that a three-year project such as the one you have just announced will
> expedite features on your roadmap and that the grant enabled accelerating
> the already started work on Structured Commons into a quicker three-year
> time frame: so a roadmap on which you can locate a project with a time
> frame that was previously beyond three years let alone one.  It is also
> known that there are long-term projects such as parser unification, new
> editors and discussion systems which look out well beyond the current
> year.  Are there others -- we do not (yet) know.
>
> So again, my request is that you share this higher-level, longer-term, if
> not completely definitve roadmap with the community in the interests of
> transparency not only as an abstract  objective but in order to maximise
> the benefits of early engagement, discussion and co-creation.
>
> Yours
> "Rogol"
>
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:29 PM, Wes Moran  wrote:
>
> > Hello Rogol,
> >
> > Thanks for the question.  The Annual Plan we follow and share with the
> > community for review before we begin our work is available on Meta [1].
> We
> > update specific plans on a quarterly basis on our goals pages [2] as they
> > may evolve over the year. We also provide a number of links for the
> > specific teams on our Product page and welcome participation, discussion
> or
> > connection through those pathways and directly with the feature teams
> [3].
> >
> > Specifically the Wikidata, Community Tech, Editing and Discovery teams
> have
> > specific objectives and goals in this years annual plan.
> >
> > Hope this answers your question and certainly engage in the ongoing
> > discussion around the work on the Commons page [4].
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Wes
> >
> > Wes Moran
> > Vice President of Product
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> >
> >
> > [1]
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_
> > Annual_Plan/2016-2017/Final#Product
> > [2] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Engineering/2016-17_Goals
> > [3] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Product
> > [4] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Overview
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Rogol Domedonfors <
> domedonf...@gmail.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks to both Lydia and Denny for these further replies.  I assume
> that
> > > the WMF has a clear stable and unified view of where it is taking its
> > > various products and the dependencies, which is what I understand by
> the
> > > phrase product roadmap.  "A single document" would be nice, but
> whatever
> > it
> > > is, I am asking for it to be shared 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Exciting update about development of structured data on Commons

[rupert THURNER]

Rogol, a good start into 2017! I have difficulties understanding your
question, especially why you are asking it now. This topic was discussed
quite often and for a long time to justify putting money behind talking at
least imo.

you are unhappy a restricted grant was received without community consensus
on commons to have such a technology included? Or you are unhappy that WMF
builds up a Wikidata team when wikimedia Deutschland has already one? You
are unhappy that WMF cuts the money for WMDE and at the same time increases
spending in the same area of technology? Or you are unhappy that there will
be another technical lead while at WMDE there is a lot of experience which
you consider waste and unnecessary bureaucracy? Or you want to discuss how
it will be implemented? Or, to put it in other words, what input would you
give or expect if a document like you are requesting would exist?

Best Rupert



On Jan 10, 2017 11:28 PM, "Rogol Domedonfors"  wrote:

Dear Wes

Thank you for yet another prompt response.  It seems almost churlish to say
that unfortunately that is not what I have been asking for -- I must be
very bad at expressing myself to have given so many different people so
many different mistaken impressions of my request.  To me a product roadmap
would be a quite high-level view of the new products and major deveopments
and their linkages looking out on a time scale significantly in excess of a
single year, and at a level of detail significantly less than the
aggregation of all the teams' quarterly plans.  The roadmap would have the
level of abstraction, interconnection and timscale that allows you to say
that a three-year project such as the one you have just announced will
expedite features on your roadmap and that the grant enabled accelerating
the already started work on Structured Commons into a quicker three-year
time frame: so a roadmap on which you can locate a project with a time
frame that was previously beyond three years let alone one.  It is also
known that there are long-term projects such as parser unification, new
editors and discussion systems which look out well beyond the current
year.  Are there others -- we do not (yet) know.

So again, my request is that you share this higher-level, longer-term, if
not completely definitve roadmap with the community in the interests of
transparency not only as an abstract  objective but in order to maximise
the benefits of early engagement, discussion and co-creation.

Yours
"Rogol"

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:29 PM, Wes Moran  wrote:

> Hello Rogol,
>
> Thanks for the question.  The Annual Plan we follow and share with the
> community for review before we begin our work is available on Meta [1]. We
> update specific plans on a quarterly basis on our goals pages [2] as they
> may evolve over the year. We also provide a number of links for the
> specific teams on our Product page and welcome participation, discussion
or
> connection through those pathways and directly with the feature teams [3].
>
> Specifically the Wikidata, Community Tech, Editing and Discovery teams
have
> specific objectives and goals in this years annual plan.
>
> Hope this answers your question and certainly engage in the ongoing
> discussion around the work on the Commons page [4].
>
> Thanks,
> Wes
>
> Wes Moran
> Vice President of Product
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
>
> [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_
> Annual_Plan/2016-2017/Final#Product
> [2] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Engineering/2016-17_Goals
> [3] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Product
> [4] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Overview
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Rogol Domedonfors  >
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks to both Lydia and Denny for these further replies.  I assume that
> > the WMF has a clear stable and unified view of where it is taking its
> > various products and the dependencies, which is what I understand by the
> > phrase product roadmap.  "A single document" would be nice, but whatever
> it
> > is, I am asking for it to be shared with the community.
> >
> > "Rogol"
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 6:12 PM, Denny Vrandečić 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Rogol,
> > >
> > > that is why I pointed you to the links in that document, which go all
> the
> > > way back to 2004 discussions of such a project, and further
discussions
> > > over the years. These pretty much establish for me that this item has
> > been
> > > a topic for commons for more than a decade now. But it seems I am
> > > misunderstanding you, and you are not looking for a documentation of
> the
> > > shared understanding of the roadmap for Commons and other Wikimedia
> > > products, but for a singular Foundation-written document that fixes
the
> > > Wikimedia product roadmap over several years instead?
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Denny
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:00 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Exciting update about development of structured data on Commons

[Saroj Dhakal]

Great news indeed!

Thanks,
Saroj

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 6:48 AM, Alex Stinson <astin...@wikimedia.org>
wrote:

> Specifically in response to Pete's questions about documents:
>
> We have posted the Grant application materials on Foundation Wiki, with a
> section linking to them on the Commons Grant Information page.[1]
>
> Cheers,
>
> Alex Stinson
>
>
> [1]
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/
> Sloan_Grant#What_did_the_grant_application_look_like.3F
>
>
>
> > Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2017 12:52:57 -0800
> > From: Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com>
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Exciting update about development of
> > structured data on Commons
> > Message-ID:
> > <CAGWts0GK8VErKG7tuPN3hQDHHXvq2_1RbYqh_xJp0+6W03=inQ@mail.
> > gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> >
> > Structured data on Commons is a huge and important area -- for one thing,
> > the whole Media Viewer project would have gone much more smoothly if
> there
> > were underlying structured data to rely on. Kudos to WMF and Sloan for
> the
> > focus on this issue!
> >
> > If I'm not mistaken, this is by far the most extravagant restricted grant
> > in the history of the WMF. I believe the Stanton Foundation's usability
> > grant ($890k in 2008)[1] and Public Policy Initiative grant ($1.2 million
> > in 2010)[2] are the only ones that comes close. In the past, WMF board
> > members have expressed great skepticism about -- specifically -- the
> Sloan
> > Foundation's influence, when it sought to place an observer in WMF board
> > meetings. A former WMF Executive Director has written at length about the
> > dangers of restricted grants.
> >
> > It appears there is a new theory in play around restricted grants. Will
> > somebody be expressing it publicly? Will the past practice of publishing
> > the details of the grant expectations be followed?[3]
> >
> > -Pete
> > --
> > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> >
> > [1] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2008/12/03/improved-usability-
> > in-our-future/
> > [2]
> > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/May_
> > 2010_Wikimedia_Foundation_will_engage_academic_experts_
> > and_students_to_improve_public_policy_information
> > [3]
> > https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Public_Policy_
> > Initiative_project_details
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Wes Moran <wmo...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello Wikimedia community,
> > >
> > > It’s our delight to inform you that we received a US$3,015,000 grant
> from
> > > the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
> > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_P._Sloan_Foundation> [1] to
> > expedite
> > > development of structured data on Commons. The grant will be given over
> > the
> > > course of three years, and will allow us to develop a team, in
> > > collaboration with the Wikidata team at Wikimedia Deutschland, that can
> > > focus on integrating the structured data features of Wikidata into
> > > describing the media files on Commons.
> > >
> > > This work will allow us to expedite features both on the Wikidata
> > > development roadmap, and in other products supported by the Wikimedia
> > > Foundation. The grant also provides funding to ensure that movement
> > > stakeholders, like Wiki Loves Monuments and GLAM-Wiki program leaders,
> > and
> > > external partners who contribute heavily to Commons, such as GLAMs, can
> > be
> > > involved in the development.
> > >
> > > We have drafted a high level overview of the grant and its scope,
> > available
> > > on Commons
> > > <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_
> data/Sloan_Grant>
> > > [2]. A blog post about the grant is also available on the Wikimedia
> blog
> > > <https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/01/09/sloan-foundation-
> structured-data>
> > > [3].
> > >
> > > We are currently in the process of identifying the technical lead for
> the
> > > project. If you have questions, Alex Stinson, the Foundation’s
> GLAM-Wiki
> > > strategist, will be leading the community engagement and communications
> > for
> > > the project until we hire a community liaison as part of the grant.
> Stay
> > > tuned for more details about the project in the coming months.
> > >
> > > We’re ex

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Exciting update about development of structured data on Commons

[Alex Stinson]

Specifically in response to Pete's questions about documents:

We have posted the Grant application materials on Foundation Wiki, with a
section linking to them on the Commons Grant Information page.[1]

Cheers,

Alex Stinson


[1]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Sloan_Grant#What_did_the_grant_application_look_like.3F



> Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2017 12:52:57 -0800
> From: Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Exciting update about development of
>     structured data on Commons
> Message-ID:
> <CAGWts0GK8VErKG7tuPN3hQDHHXvq2_1RbYqh_xJp0+6W03=inQ@mail.
> gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Structured data on Commons is a huge and important area -- for one thing,
> the whole Media Viewer project would have gone much more smoothly if there
> were underlying structured data to rely on. Kudos to WMF and Sloan for the
> focus on this issue!
>
> If I'm not mistaken, this is by far the most extravagant restricted grant
> in the history of the WMF. I believe the Stanton Foundation's usability
> grant ($890k in 2008)[1] and Public Policy Initiative grant ($1.2 million
> in 2010)[2] are the only ones that comes close. In the past, WMF board
> members have expressed great skepticism about -- specifically -- the Sloan
> Foundation's influence, when it sought to place an observer in WMF board
> meetings. A former WMF Executive Director has written at length about the
> dangers of restricted grants.
>
> It appears there is a new theory in play around restricted grants. Will
> somebody be expressing it publicly? Will the past practice of publishing
> the details of the grant expectations be followed?[3]
>
> -Pete
> --
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> [1] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2008/12/03/improved-usability-
> in-our-future/
> [2]
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/May_
> 2010_Wikimedia_Foundation_will_engage_academic_experts_
> and_students_to_improve_public_policy_information
> [3]
> https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Public_Policy_
> Initiative_project_details
>
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Wes Moran <wmo...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> > Hello Wikimedia community,
> >
> > It’s our delight to inform you that we received a US$3,015,000 grant from
> > the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_P._Sloan_Foundation> [1] to
> expedite
> > development of structured data on Commons. The grant will be given over
> the
> > course of three years, and will allow us to develop a team, in
> > collaboration with the Wikidata team at Wikimedia Deutschland, that can
> > focus on integrating the structured data features of Wikidata into
> > describing the media files on Commons.
> >
> > This work will allow us to expedite features both on the Wikidata
> > development roadmap, and in other products supported by the Wikimedia
> > Foundation. The grant also provides funding to ensure that movement
> > stakeholders, like Wiki Loves Monuments and GLAM-Wiki program leaders,
> and
> > external partners who contribute heavily to Commons, such as GLAMs, can
> be
> > involved in the development.
> >
> > We have drafted a high level overview of the grant and its scope,
> available
> > on Commons
> > <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Sloan_Grant>
> > [2]. A blog post about the grant is also available on the Wikimedia blog
> > <https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/01/09/sloan-foundation-structured-data>
> > [3].
> >
> > We are currently in the process of identifying the technical lead for the
> > project. If you have questions, Alex Stinson, the Foundation’s GLAM-Wiki
> > strategist, will be leading the community engagement and communications
> for
> > the project until we hire a community liaison as part of the grant. Stay
> > tuned for more details about the project in the coming months.
> >
> > We’re excited to be able to support this project, and look forward to
> your
> > participation in its development.
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > Wes Moran and Maggie Dennis
> >
> > *Wes Moran, Vice President of Product*
> > *Maggie Dennis, Interim Chief of Community Engagement *
> > *Wikimedia Foundation*
> >
> > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_P._Sloan_Foundation
> > [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/
> Sloan_Grant
> > [3] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/01/09/sloan-foundation-
> structured-data
> > __

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Exciting update about development of structured data on Commons

[Joseph Seddon]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Development

Of any use?

Seddon

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Rogol Domedonfors 
wrote:

> Dear Wes
>
> Thank you for yet another prompt response.  It seems almost churlish to say
> that unfortunately that is not what I have been asking for -- I must be
> very bad at expressing myself to have given so many different people so
> many different mistaken impressions of my request.  To me a product roadmap
> would be a quite high-level view of the new products and major deveopments
> and their linkages looking out on a time scale significantly in excess of a
> single year, and at a level of detail significantly less than the
> aggregation of all the teams' quarterly plans.  The roadmap would have the
> level of abstraction, interconnection and timscale that allows you to say
> that a three-year project such as the one you have just announced will
> expedite features on your roadmap and that the grant enabled accelerating
> the already started work on Structured Commons into a quicker three-year
> time frame: so a roadmap on which you can locate a project with a time
> frame that was previously beyond three years let alone one.  It is also
> known that there are long-term projects such as parser unification, new
> editors and discussion systems which look out well beyond the current
> year.  Are there others -- we do not (yet) know.
>
> So again, my request is that you share this higher-level, longer-term, if
> not completely definitve roadmap with the community in the interests of
> transparency not only as an abstract  objective but in order to maximise
> the benefits of early engagement, discussion and co-creation.
>
> Yours
> "Rogol"
>
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:29 PM, Wes Moran  wrote:
>
> > Hello Rogol,
> >
> > Thanks for the question.  The Annual Plan we follow and share with the
> > community for review before we begin our work is available on Meta [1].
> We
> > update specific plans on a quarterly basis on our goals pages [2] as they
> > may evolve over the year. We also provide a number of links for the
> > specific teams on our Product page and welcome participation, discussion
> or
> > connection through those pathways and directly with the feature teams
> [3].
> >
> > Specifically the Wikidata, Community Tech, Editing and Discovery teams
> have
> > specific objectives and goals in this years annual plan.
> >
> > Hope this answers your question and certainly engage in the ongoing
> > discussion around the work on the Commons page [4].
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Wes
> >
> > Wes Moran
> > Vice President of Product
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> >
> >
> > [1]
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_
> > Annual_Plan/2016-2017/Final#Product
> > [2] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Engineering/2016-17_Goals
> > [3] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Product
> > [4] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Overview
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Rogol Domedonfors <
> domedonf...@gmail.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks to both Lydia and Denny for these further replies.  I assume
> that
> > > the WMF has a clear stable and unified view of where it is taking its
> > > various products and the dependencies, which is what I understand by
> the
> > > phrase product roadmap.  "A single document" would be nice, but
> whatever
> > it
> > > is, I am asking for it to be shared with the community.
> > >
> > > "Rogol"
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 6:12 PM, Denny Vrandečić 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Rogol,
> > > >
> > > > that is why I pointed you to the links in that document, which go all
> > the
> > > > way back to 2004 discussions of such a project, and further
> discussions
> > > > over the years. These pretty much establish for me that this item has
> > > been
> > > > a topic for commons for more than a decade now. But it seems I am
> > > > misunderstanding you, and you are not looking for a documentation of
> > the
> > > > shared understanding of the roadmap for Commons and other Wikimedia
> > > > products, but for a singular Foundation-written document that fixes
> the
> > > > Wikimedia product roadmap over several years instead?
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Denny
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:00 AM Rogol Domedonfors <
> > > domedonf...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Denny
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you but the link you provide appears to be to be "Our
> > high-level
> > > > > roadmap for developing the project", namely the Structured Data in
> > > > Commons
> > > > > project.  Since Lisa wrote "Structured Data on Commons was in our
> > > product
> > > > > roadmap" I was referring to the product roadmap on which the
> > Structured
> > > > > Data in Commons project is included -- that is, I was asking for a
> > > > pointer
> > > > > to the roadmap for "features both on the Wikidata 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Exciting update about development of structured data on Commons

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Dear Wes

Thank you for yet another prompt response.  It seems almost churlish to say
that unfortunately that is not what I have been asking for -- I must be
very bad at expressing myself to have given so many different people so
many different mistaken impressions of my request.  To me a product roadmap
would be a quite high-level view of the new products and major deveopments
and their linkages looking out on a time scale significantly in excess of a
single year, and at a level of detail significantly less than the
aggregation of all the teams' quarterly plans.  The roadmap would have the
level of abstraction, interconnection and timscale that allows you to say
that a three-year project such as the one you have just announced will
expedite features on your roadmap and that the grant enabled accelerating
the already started work on Structured Commons into a quicker three-year
time frame: so a roadmap on which you can locate a project with a time
frame that was previously beyond three years let alone one.  It is also
known that there are long-term projects such as parser unification, new
editors and discussion systems which look out well beyond the current
year.  Are there others -- we do not (yet) know.

So again, my request is that you share this higher-level, longer-term, if
not completely definitve roadmap with the community in the interests of
transparency not only as an abstract  objective but in order to maximise
the benefits of early engagement, discussion and co-creation.

Yours
"Rogol"

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:29 PM, Wes Moran  wrote:

> Hello Rogol,
>
> Thanks for the question.  The Annual Plan we follow and share with the
> community for review before we begin our work is available on Meta [1]. We
> update specific plans on a quarterly basis on our goals pages [2] as they
> may evolve over the year. We also provide a number of links for the
> specific teams on our Product page and welcome participation, discussion or
> connection through those pathways and directly with the feature teams [3].
>
> Specifically the Wikidata, Community Tech, Editing and Discovery teams have
> specific objectives and goals in this years annual plan.
>
> Hope this answers your question and certainly engage in the ongoing
> discussion around the work on the Commons page [4].
>
> Thanks,
> Wes
>
> Wes Moran
> Vice President of Product
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
>
> [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_
> Annual_Plan/2016-2017/Final#Product
> [2] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Engineering/2016-17_Goals
> [3] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Product
> [4] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Overview
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Rogol Domedonfors  >
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks to both Lydia and Denny for these further replies.  I assume that
> > the WMF has a clear stable and unified view of where it is taking its
> > various products and the dependencies, which is what I understand by the
> > phrase product roadmap.  "A single document" would be nice, but whatever
> it
> > is, I am asking for it to be shared with the community.
> >
> > "Rogol"
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 6:12 PM, Denny Vrandečić 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Rogol,
> > >
> > > that is why I pointed you to the links in that document, which go all
> the
> > > way back to 2004 discussions of such a project, and further discussions
> > > over the years. These pretty much establish for me that this item has
> > been
> > > a topic for commons for more than a decade now. But it seems I am
> > > misunderstanding you, and you are not looking for a documentation of
> the
> > > shared understanding of the roadmap for Commons and other Wikimedia
> > > products, but for a singular Foundation-written document that fixes the
> > > Wikimedia product roadmap over several years instead?
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Denny
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:00 AM Rogol Domedonfors <
> > domedonf...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Denny
> > > >
> > > > Thank you but the link you provide appears to be to be "Our
> high-level
> > > > roadmap for developing the project", namely the Structured Data in
> > > Commons
> > > > project.  Since Lisa wrote "Structured Data on Commons was in our
> > product
> > > > roadmap" I was referring to the product roadmap on which the
> Structured
> > > > Data in Commons project is included -- that is, I was asking for a
> > > pointer
> > > > to the roadmap for "features both on the Wikidata development
> roadmap,
> > > and
> > > > in other products supported by the Wikimedia Foundation" referred to
> in
> > > Wes
> > > > Moran's initial post on this topic:
> > > >
> > > > But I appreciate the speed of your reply.
> > > >
> > > > "Rogol"
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 5:46 PM, Denny Vrandečić <
> vrande...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Rogol,
> > > > >
> > > > > this was the 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Exciting update about development of structured data on Commons

[Wes Moran]

Hello Rogol,

Thanks for the question.  The Annual Plan we follow and share with the
community for review before we begin our work is available on Meta [1]. We
update specific plans on a quarterly basis on our goals pages [2] as they
may evolve over the year. We also provide a number of links for the
specific teams on our Product page and welcome participation, discussion or
connection through those pathways and directly with the feature teams [3].

Specifically the Wikidata, Community Tech, Editing and Discovery teams have
specific objectives and goals in this years annual plan.

Hope this answers your question and certainly engage in the ongoing
discussion around the work on the Commons page [4].

Thanks,
Wes

Wes Moran
Vice President of Product
Wikimedia Foundation


[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2016-2017/Final#Product
[2] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Engineering/2016-17_Goals
[3] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Product
[4] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Overview


On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Rogol Domedonfors 
wrote:

> Thanks to both Lydia and Denny for these further replies.  I assume that
> the WMF has a clear stable and unified view of where it is taking its
> various products and the dependencies, which is what I understand by the
> phrase product roadmap.  "A single document" would be nice, but whatever it
> is, I am asking for it to be shared with the community.
>
> "Rogol"
>
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 6:12 PM, Denny Vrandečić 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Rogol,
> >
> > that is why I pointed you to the links in that document, which go all the
> > way back to 2004 discussions of such a project, and further discussions
> > over the years. These pretty much establish for me that this item has
> been
> > a topic for commons for more than a decade now. But it seems I am
> > misunderstanding you, and you are not looking for a documentation of the
> > shared understanding of the roadmap for Commons and other Wikimedia
> > products, but for a singular Foundation-written document that fixes the
> > Wikimedia product roadmap over several years instead?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Denny
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:00 AM Rogol Domedonfors <
> domedonf...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Denny
> > >
> > > Thank you but the link you provide appears to be to be "Our high-level
> > > roadmap for developing the project", namely the Structured Data in
> > Commons
> > > project.  Since Lisa wrote "Structured Data on Commons was in our
> product
> > > roadmap" I was referring to the product roadmap on which the Structured
> > > Data in Commons project is included -- that is, I was asking for a
> > pointer
> > > to the roadmap for "features both on the Wikidata development roadmap,
> > and
> > > in other products supported by the Wikimedia Foundation" referred to in
> > Wes
> > > Moran's initial post on this topic:
> > >
> > > But I appreciate the speed of your reply.
> > >
> > > "Rogol"
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 5:46 PM, Denny Vrandečić 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Rogol,
> > > >
> > > > this was the link previously provided on this project:
> > > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Overview
> > > > including
> > > > links to previous documents.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Denny
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:32 AM Rogol Domedonfors <
> > domedonf...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Lisa
> > > > >
> > > > > You say that "Structured Data on Commons was in our product
> roadmap,
> > so
> > > > > this grant is not diverting our attention.  The grant simply
> enables
> > us
> > > > to
> > > > > accelerate the work we were planning to do".  Please would you
> > publish,
> > > > or
> > > > > point to, a version of that product roadmap that can inform the
> > > > community's
> > > > > participation in such planning exercises as the 2017 Wikimedia
> > Movement
> > > > > Strategy and other more tactical product planning processes.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks in advance
> > > > > "Rogol"
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:01 PM, Lisa Gruwell <
> > lgruw...@wikimedia.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Pete and Gerard-
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I just wanted to give my thoughts on restricted gifts.  Like most
> > > > things,
> > > > > > there are both good and bad restricted gifts.  They can be bad
> if a
> > > > > funder
> > > > > > is making a well-intentioned gift that none-the-less pulls the
> > > > > organization
> > > > > > in direction that they were not planning to go.  Or even worse,
> > when
> > > a
> > > > > > funder pays for something outside of an org's plans that has
> > ongoing
> > > > > > maintenance cost that are not covered in the grant.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is why the WMF board reviews all restricted grants per our
> > gift
> > > > > policy
> > > > > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Exciting update about development of structured data on Commons

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Thanks to both Lydia and Denny for these further replies.  I assume that
the WMF has a clear stable and unified view of where it is taking its
various products and the dependencies, which is what I understand by the
phrase product roadmap.  "A single document" would be nice, but whatever it
is, I am asking for it to be shared with the community.

"Rogol"

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 6:12 PM, Denny Vrandečić 
wrote:

> Hi Rogol,
>
> that is why I pointed you to the links in that document, which go all the
> way back to 2004 discussions of such a project, and further discussions
> over the years. These pretty much establish for me that this item has been
> a topic for commons for more than a decade now. But it seems I am
> misunderstanding you, and you are not looking for a documentation of the
> shared understanding of the roadmap for Commons and other Wikimedia
> products, but for a singular Foundation-written document that fixes the
> Wikimedia product roadmap over several years instead?
>
> Cheers,
> Denny
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:00 AM Rogol Domedonfors 
> wrote:
>
> > Denny
> >
> > Thank you but the link you provide appears to be to be "Our high-level
> > roadmap for developing the project", namely the Structured Data in
> Commons
> > project.  Since Lisa wrote "Structured Data on Commons was in our product
> > roadmap" I was referring to the product roadmap on which the Structured
> > Data in Commons project is included -- that is, I was asking for a
> pointer
> > to the roadmap for "features both on the Wikidata development roadmap,
> and
> > in other products supported by the Wikimedia Foundation" referred to in
> Wes
> > Moran's initial post on this topic:
> >
> > But I appreciate the speed of your reply.
> >
> > "Rogol"
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 5:46 PM, Denny Vrandečić 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Rogol,
> > >
> > > this was the link previously provided on this project:
> > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Overview
> > > including
> > > links to previous documents.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Denny
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:32 AM Rogol Domedonfors <
> domedonf...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Lisa
> > > >
> > > > You say that "Structured Data on Commons was in our product roadmap,
> so
> > > > this grant is not diverting our attention.  The grant simply enables
> us
> > > to
> > > > accelerate the work we were planning to do".  Please would you
> publish,
> > > or
> > > > point to, a version of that product roadmap that can inform the
> > > community's
> > > > participation in such planning exercises as the 2017 Wikimedia
> Movement
> > > > Strategy and other more tactical product planning processes.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks in advance
> > > > "Rogol"
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:01 PM, Lisa Gruwell <
> lgruw...@wikimedia.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Pete and Gerard-
> > > > >
> > > > > I just wanted to give my thoughts on restricted gifts.  Like most
> > > things,
> > > > > there are both good and bad restricted gifts.  They can be bad if a
> > > > funder
> > > > > is making a well-intentioned gift that none-the-less pulls the
> > > > organization
> > > > > in direction that they were not planning to go.  Or even worse,
> when
> > a
> > > > > funder pays for something outside of an org's plans that has
> ongoing
> > > > > maintenance cost that are not covered in the grant.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is why the WMF board reviews all restricted grants per our
> gift
> > > > policy
> > > > > .  Those are the
> > > types
> > > > > of
> > > > > dynamics that the board considers when they review a restricted
> > grant.
> > > > >
> > > > > Structured Data on Commons was in our product roadmap, so this
> grant
> > is
> > > > not
> > > > > diverting our attention.  The grant simply enables us to accelerate
> > the
> > > > > work we were planning to do.  In terms of restrictions, we have to
> > > follow
> > > > > through with the plan we submitted.  In other words, do what we
> said
> > we
> > > > are
> > > > > going to do.  I think that accountability is a good thing.  And the
> > > Sloan
> > > > > Foundation is a great long-term funder of WMF.  If something
> changes
> > as
> > > > the
> > > > > work progress, I have no doubt we could have a reasonable
> > conversation
> > > > with
> > > > > them about adjusting the plan.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Lisa
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> > > > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hoi,
> > > > > > Maybe restricted but the subject matter is exactly what we want
> > > anyway.
> > > > > > Where I have my reservations is that Wikidata will be set in
> stone
> > > and
> > > > > > stuff that just is not right will be with us for forever. With
> more
> > > > money
> > > > > > it does 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Exciting update about development of structured data on Commons

[Denny Vrandečić]

Hi Rogol,

that is why I pointed you to the links in that document, which go all the
way back to 2004 discussions of such a project, and further discussions
over the years. These pretty much establish for me that this item has been
a topic for commons for more than a decade now. But it seems I am
misunderstanding you, and you are not looking for a documentation of the
shared understanding of the roadmap for Commons and other Wikimedia
products, but for a singular Foundation-written document that fixes the
Wikimedia product roadmap over several years instead?

Cheers,
Denny


On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:00 AM Rogol Domedonfors 
wrote:

> Denny
>
> Thank you but the link you provide appears to be to be "Our high-level
> roadmap for developing the project", namely the Structured Data in Commons
> project.  Since Lisa wrote "Structured Data on Commons was in our product
> roadmap" I was referring to the product roadmap on which the Structured
> Data in Commons project is included -- that is, I was asking for a pointer
> to the roadmap for "features both on the Wikidata development roadmap, and
> in other products supported by the Wikimedia Foundation" referred to in Wes
> Moran's initial post on this topic:
>
> But I appreciate the speed of your reply.
>
> "Rogol"
>
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 5:46 PM, Denny Vrandečić 
> wrote:
>
> > Rogol,
> >
> > this was the link previously provided on this project:
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Overview
> > including
> > links to previous documents.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Denny
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:32 AM Rogol Domedonfors  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Lisa
> > >
> > > You say that "Structured Data on Commons was in our product roadmap, so
> > > this grant is not diverting our attention.  The grant simply enables us
> > to
> > > accelerate the work we were planning to do".  Please would you publish,
> > or
> > > point to, a version of that product roadmap that can inform the
> > community's
> > > participation in such planning exercises as the 2017 Wikimedia Movement
> > > Strategy and other more tactical product planning processes.
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance
> > > "Rogol"
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:01 PM, Lisa Gruwell 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Pete and Gerard-
> > > >
> > > > I just wanted to give my thoughts on restricted gifts.  Like most
> > things,
> > > > there are both good and bad restricted gifts.  They can be bad if a
> > > funder
> > > > is making a well-intentioned gift that none-the-less pulls the
> > > organization
> > > > in direction that they were not planning to go.  Or even worse, when
> a
> > > > funder pays for something outside of an org's plans that has ongoing
> > > > maintenance cost that are not covered in the grant.
> > > >
> > > > This is why the WMF board reviews all restricted grants per our gift
> > > policy
> > > > .  Those are the
> > types
> > > > of
> > > > dynamics that the board considers when they review a restricted
> grant.
> > > >
> > > > Structured Data on Commons was in our product roadmap, so this grant
> is
> > > not
> > > > diverting our attention.  The grant simply enables us to accelerate
> the
> > > > work we were planning to do.  In terms of restrictions, we have to
> > follow
> > > > through with the plan we submitted.  In other words, do what we said
> we
> > > are
> > > > going to do.  I think that accountability is a good thing.  And the
> > Sloan
> > > > Foundation is a great long-term funder of WMF.  If something changes
> as
> > > the
> > > > work progress, I have no doubt we could have a reasonable
> conversation
> > > with
> > > > them about adjusting the plan.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Lisa
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> > > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hoi,
> > > > > Maybe restricted but the subject matter is exactly what we want
> > anyway.
> > > > > Where I have my reservations is that Wikidata will be set in stone
> > and
> > > > > stuff that just is not right will be with us for forever. With more
> > > money
> > > > > it does not need to be a huge problem because it makes it more
> > > > manageable.
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >   GerardM
> > > > >
> > > > > On 9 January 2017 at 21:52, Pete Forsyth 
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Structured data on Commons is a huge and important area -- for
> one
> > > > thing,
> > > > > > the whole Media Viewer project would have gone much more smoothly
> > if
> > > > > there
> > > > > > were underlying structured data to rely on. Kudos to WMF and
> Sloan
> > > for
> > > > > the
> > > > > > focus on this issue!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If I'm not mistaken, this is by far the most extravagant
> restricted
> > > > grant
> > > > > > in the history of the WMF. I believe the 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Exciting update about development of structured data on Commons

[Lydia Pintscher]

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 7:00 PM, Rogol Domedonfors
 wrote:
> Denny
>
> Thank you but the link you provide appears to be to be "Our high-level
> roadmap for developing the project", namely the Structured Data in Commons
> project.  Since Lisa wrote "Structured Data on Commons was in our product
> roadmap" I was referring to the product roadmap on which the Structured
> Data in Commons project is included -- that is, I was asking for a pointer
> to the roadmap for "features both on the Wikidata development roadmap, and
> in other products supported by the Wikimedia Foundation" referred to in Wes
> Moran's initial post on this topic:
>
> But I appreciate the speed of your reply.

For Wikidata please see
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Development_plan  (I really
need to update this page...)


Cheers
Lydia

-- 
Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher
Product Manager for Wikidata

Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24
10963 Berlin
www.wikimedia.de

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.

Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das
Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.

___
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] Exciting update about development of structured data on Commons

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Denny

Thank you but the link you provide appears to be to be "Our high-level
roadmap for developing the project", namely the Structured Data in Commons
project.  Since Lisa wrote "Structured Data on Commons was in our product
roadmap" I was referring to the product roadmap on which the Structured
Data in Commons project is included -- that is, I was asking for a pointer
to the roadmap for "features both on the Wikidata development roadmap, and
in other products supported by the Wikimedia Foundation" referred to in Wes
Moran's initial post on this topic:

But I appreciate the speed of your reply.

"Rogol"

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 5:46 PM, Denny Vrandečić 
wrote:

> Rogol,
>
> this was the link previously provided on this project:
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Overview
> including
> links to previous documents.
>
> Cheers,
> Denny
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:32 AM Rogol Domedonfors 
> wrote:
>
> > Lisa
> >
> > You say that "Structured Data on Commons was in our product roadmap, so
> > this grant is not diverting our attention.  The grant simply enables us
> to
> > accelerate the work we were planning to do".  Please would you publish,
> or
> > point to, a version of that product roadmap that can inform the
> community's
> > participation in such planning exercises as the 2017 Wikimedia Movement
> > Strategy and other more tactical product planning processes.
> >
> > Thanks in advance
> > "Rogol"
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:01 PM, Lisa Gruwell 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Pete and Gerard-
> > >
> > > I just wanted to give my thoughts on restricted gifts.  Like most
> things,
> > > there are both good and bad restricted gifts.  They can be bad if a
> > funder
> > > is making a well-intentioned gift that none-the-less pulls the
> > organization
> > > in direction that they were not planning to go.  Or even worse, when a
> > > funder pays for something outside of an org's plans that has ongoing
> > > maintenance cost that are not covered in the grant.
> > >
> > > This is why the WMF board reviews all restricted grants per our gift
> > policy
> > > .  Those are the
> types
> > > of
> > > dynamics that the board considers when they review a restricted grant.
> > >
> > > Structured Data on Commons was in our product roadmap, so this grant is
> > not
> > > diverting our attention.  The grant simply enables us to accelerate the
> > > work we were planning to do.  In terms of restrictions, we have to
> follow
> > > through with the plan we submitted.  In other words, do what we said we
> > are
> > > going to do.  I think that accountability is a good thing.  And the
> Sloan
> > > Foundation is a great long-term funder of WMF.  If something changes as
> > the
> > > work progress, I have no doubt we could have a reasonable conversation
> > with
> > > them about adjusting the plan.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Lisa
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > Maybe restricted but the subject matter is exactly what we want
> anyway.
> > > > Where I have my reservations is that Wikidata will be set in stone
> and
> > > > stuff that just is not right will be with us for forever. With more
> > money
> > > > it does not need to be a huge problem because it makes it more
> > > manageable.
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >   GerardM
> > > >
> > > > On 9 January 2017 at 21:52, Pete Forsyth 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Structured data on Commons is a huge and important area -- for one
> > > thing,
> > > > > the whole Media Viewer project would have gone much more smoothly
> if
> > > > there
> > > > > were underlying structured data to rely on. Kudos to WMF and Sloan
> > for
> > > > the
> > > > > focus on this issue!
> > > > >
> > > > > If I'm not mistaken, this is by far the most extravagant restricted
> > > grant
> > > > > in the history of the WMF. I believe the Stanton Foundation's
> > usability
> > > > > grant ($890k in 2008)[1] and Public Policy Initiative grant ($1.2
> > > million
> > > > > in 2010)[2] are the only ones that comes close. In the past, WMF
> > board
> > > > > members have expressed great skepticism about -- specifically --
> the
> > > > Sloan
> > > > > Foundation's influence, when it sought to place an observer in WMF
> > > board
> > > > > meetings. A former WMF Executive Director has written at length
> about
> > > the
> > > > > dangers of restricted grants.
> > > > >
> > > > > It appears there is a new theory in play around restricted grants.
> > Will
> > > > > somebody be expressing it publicly? Will the past practice of
> > > publishing
> > > > > the details of the grant expectations be followed?[3]
> > > > >
> > > > > -Pete
> > > > > --
> > > > > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Exciting update about development of structured data on Commons

[Denny Vrandečić]

Rogol,

this was the link previously provided on this project:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Overview including
links to previous documents.

Cheers,
Denny


On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:32 AM Rogol Domedonfors 
wrote:

> Lisa
>
> You say that "Structured Data on Commons was in our product roadmap, so
> this grant is not diverting our attention.  The grant simply enables us to
> accelerate the work we were planning to do".  Please would you publish, or
> point to, a version of that product roadmap that can inform the community's
> participation in such planning exercises as the 2017 Wikimedia Movement
> Strategy and other more tactical product planning processes.
>
> Thanks in advance
> "Rogol"
>
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:01 PM, Lisa Gruwell 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Pete and Gerard-
> >
> > I just wanted to give my thoughts on restricted gifts.  Like most things,
> > there are both good and bad restricted gifts.  They can be bad if a
> funder
> > is making a well-intentioned gift that none-the-less pulls the
> organization
> > in direction that they were not planning to go.  Or even worse, when a
> > funder pays for something outside of an org's plans that has ongoing
> > maintenance cost that are not covered in the grant.
> >
> > This is why the WMF board reviews all restricted grants per our gift
> policy
> > .  Those are the types
> > of
> > dynamics that the board considers when they review a restricted grant.
> >
> > Structured Data on Commons was in our product roadmap, so this grant is
> not
> > diverting our attention.  The grant simply enables us to accelerate the
> > work we were planning to do.  In terms of restrictions, we have to follow
> > through with the plan we submitted.  In other words, do what we said we
> are
> > going to do.  I think that accountability is a good thing.  And the Sloan
> > Foundation is a great long-term funder of WMF.  If something changes as
> the
> > work progress, I have no doubt we could have a reasonable conversation
> with
> > them about adjusting the plan.
> >
> > Best,
> > Lisa
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > Maybe restricted but the subject matter is exactly what we want anyway.
> > > Where I have my reservations is that Wikidata will be set in stone and
> > > stuff that just is not right will be with us for forever. With more
> money
> > > it does not need to be a huge problem because it makes it more
> > manageable.
> > > Thanks,
> > >   GerardM
> > >
> > > On 9 January 2017 at 21:52, Pete Forsyth 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Structured data on Commons is a huge and important area -- for one
> > thing,
> > > > the whole Media Viewer project would have gone much more smoothly if
> > > there
> > > > were underlying structured data to rely on. Kudos to WMF and Sloan
> for
> > > the
> > > > focus on this issue!
> > > >
> > > > If I'm not mistaken, this is by far the most extravagant restricted
> > grant
> > > > in the history of the WMF. I believe the Stanton Foundation's
> usability
> > > > grant ($890k in 2008)[1] and Public Policy Initiative grant ($1.2
> > million
> > > > in 2010)[2] are the only ones that comes close. In the past, WMF
> board
> > > > members have expressed great skepticism about -- specifically -- the
> > > Sloan
> > > > Foundation's influence, when it sought to place an observer in WMF
> > board
> > > > meetings. A former WMF Executive Director has written at length about
> > the
> > > > dangers of restricted grants.
> > > >
> > > > It appears there is a new theory in play around restricted grants.
> Will
> > > > somebody be expressing it publicly? Will the past practice of
> > publishing
> > > > the details of the grant expectations be followed?[3]
> > > >
> > > > -Pete
> > > > --
> > > > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2008/12/03/improved-usability-
> > > > in-our-future/
> > > > [2]
> > > > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/May_
> > > > 2010_Wikimedia_Foundation_will_engage_academic_experts_
> > > > and_students_to_improve_public_policy_information
> > > > [3]
> > > > https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Public_Policy_
> > > > Initiative_project_details
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Wes Moran 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello Wikimedia community,
> > > > >
> > > > > It’s our delight to inform you that we received a US$3,015,000
> grant
> > > from
> > > > > the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
> > > > >  [1] to
> > > > expedite
> > > > > development of structured data on Commons. The grant will be given
> > over
> > > > the
> > > > > course of three years, and will allow us to develop a team, in
> > > > > collaboration with the Wikidata team at Wikimedia 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Exciting update about development of structured data on Commons

[Florence Devouard]

Wow ! Awesome !

Florence

Le 09/01/2017 à 20:48, Wes Moran a écrit :

Hello Wikimedia community,

It’s our delight to inform you that we received a US$3,015,000 grant from
the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
 [1] to expedite
development of structured data on Commons. The grant will be given over the
course of three years, and will allow us to develop a team, in
collaboration with the Wikidata team at Wikimedia Deutschland, that can
focus on integrating the structured data features of Wikidata into
describing the media files on Commons.

This work will allow us to expedite features both on the Wikidata
development roadmap, and in other products supported by the Wikimedia
Foundation. The grant also provides funding to ensure that movement
stakeholders, like Wiki Loves Monuments and GLAM-Wiki program leaders, and
external partners who contribute heavily to Commons, such as GLAMs, can be
involved in the development.

We have drafted a high level overview of the grant and its scope, available
on Commons

[2]. A blog post about the grant is also available on the Wikimedia blog

[3].

We are currently in the process of identifying the technical lead for the
project. If you have questions, Alex Stinson, the Foundation’s GLAM-Wiki
strategist, will be leading the community engagement and communications for
the project until we hire a community liaison as part of the grant. Stay
tuned for more details about the project in the coming months.

We’re excited to be able to support this project, and look forward to your
participation in its development.

Thank you,

Wes Moran and Maggie Dennis

*Wes Moran, Vice President of Product*
*Maggie Dennis, Interim Chief of Community Engagement *
*Wikimedia Foundation*

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_P._Sloan_Foundation
[2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Sloan_Grant
[3] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/01/09/sloan-foundation-structured-data
___
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] Exciting update about development of structured data on Commons

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
You are right that this will be a concern. There are people that insist
that Wikipedia is the fount of all wisdom and that its labels are "correct"
even for Wikidata. When you observe Wikidata for as long as I do, I find
that many of what some people elevate to collective wisdom is faulty at
best. It makes your concern worse.

Technically there are two decisions that are detrimental to what we have.
One is that labels are "simple by design". The problem is that when labels
change as they often do, it is not possible to account for it. The other
thing is that while we need descriptions, the descriptions we have are
worse in quality than automated descriptions. Automated descriptions work
in any language and are updated based on the availability of statements.
Automated descriptions exist for over three years and when I need to
disambiguate in Wikidata I add labels and as a result I have my
disambiguation.

My point is that these concerns are not entertained. We are stuck with
decisions past that will haunt us as we move on. It is easy to have the
current automated and manual descriptions side by side and with Wiktionary
to be a next project it is worthwhile to consider that any and all labels
in Wikidata need at least conjugation.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 10 January 2017 at 04:58, Gnangarra  wrote:

> This is great news and look forward to seeing some good outcomes.
>
> I have a concern around the use of language as most people english a very
> dynamic language and what can hav eone meaning in one place doesnt
> necessarily hold true for everywhere simple uses like monuments when
> translated differs.   I would like to see caution taken to ensure the
> uniqueness of each locations use of isnt lost due a great scheme being
> fixed to one specific language use and spelling. As contributors we have
> already experienced that on en:WP with the standardisation of info boxes
> where local varients have been lost.
>
> As Wikimedia community influence on language and connectivity grows, and is
> strengthened by projects like WikiData we have to allow greater
> consideration into the moral, cultural, and linguistic impact we are having
> on communities and languages its potentially no longer just a technical
> advancement that we are leading.
>
> On 10 January 2017 at 07:12, Samuel Klein  wrote:
>
> > Thanks Wes and Lisa, this is really wonderful news.  Just the sort of
> area
> > where Commons can and should point the way forward for all the world's
> > archives.
> >
> > And thanks to Sloan for the support and  Commonists for maintaining one
> of
> > the quiet, consistent wonders of theodern Web.
> >
> > Sam
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> GN.
> President Wikimedia Australia
> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> ___
> 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] Exciting update about development of structured data on Commons

[Alessandro Marchetti]

it was time. Good luck. 

Il Martedì 10 Gennaio 2017 4:59, Gnangarra  ha scritto:
 

 This is great news and look forward to seeing some good outcomes.

I have a concern around the use of language as most people english a very
dynamic language and what can hav eone meaning in one place doesnt
necessarily hold true for everywhere simple uses like monuments when
translated differs.  I would like to see caution taken to ensure the
uniqueness of each locations use of isnt lost due a great scheme being
fixed to one specific language use and spelling. As contributors we have
already experienced that on en:WP with the standardisation of info boxes
where local varients have been lost.

As Wikimedia community influence on language and connectivity grows, and is
strengthened by projects like WikiData we have to allow greater
consideration into the moral, cultural, and linguistic impact we are having
on communities and languages its potentially no longer just a technical
advancement that we are leading.

On 10 January 2017 at 07:12, Samuel Klein  wrote:

> Thanks Wes and Lisa, this is really wonderful news.  Just the sort of area
> where Commons can and should point the way forward for all the world's
> archives.
>
> And thanks to Sloan for the support and  Commonists for maintaining one of
> the quiet, consistent wonders of theodern Web.
>
> Sam
> ___
> 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,
> 
>



-- 
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
___
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] Exciting update about development of structured data on Commons

[Gnangarra]

This is great news and look forward to seeing some good outcomes.

I have a concern around the use of language as most people english a very
dynamic language and what can hav eone meaning in one place doesnt
necessarily hold true for everywhere simple uses like monuments when
translated differs.   I would like to see caution taken to ensure the
uniqueness of each locations use of isnt lost due a great scheme being
fixed to one specific language use and spelling. As contributors we have
already experienced that on en:WP with the standardisation of info boxes
where local varients have been lost.

As Wikimedia community influence on language and connectivity grows, and is
strengthened by projects like WikiData we have to allow greater
consideration into the moral, cultural, and linguistic impact we are having
on communities and languages its potentially no longer just a technical
advancement that we are leading.

On 10 January 2017 at 07:12, Samuel Klein  wrote:

> Thanks Wes and Lisa, this is really wonderful news.  Just the sort of area
> where Commons can and should point the way forward for all the world's
> archives.
>
> And thanks to Sloan for the support and  Commonists for maintaining one of
> the quiet, consistent wonders of theodern Web.
>
> Sam
> ___
> 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,
> 
>



-- 
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
___
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] Exciting update about development of structured data on Commons

[Samuel Klein]

Thanks Wes and Lisa, this is really wonderful news.  Just the sort of area
where Commons can and should point the way forward for all the world's
archives.

And thanks to Sloan for the support and  Commonists for maintaining one of
the quiet, consistent wonders of theodern Web.

Sam
___
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] Exciting update about development of structured data on Commons

[Denny Vrandečić]

Also, to add, for this particular grant I can really only look positively
at the openness surrounding the writing of the grant. There have been
emails on this list inviting input and discussion when the grant proposal
was underway, a lot of content was available on-wiki, and an effort was
made to ensure that the project was not only aligned with the planning of
the Foundation but also with the community - which is indeed particularly
important given the restricted nature of the funding.

I congratulate everyone involved for securing this grant, for the process
with its improved transparency, and I am very much looking forward to see
the project implemented!

Denny




On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 3:01 PM Lisa Gruwell  wrote:

Hi Pete and Gerard-

I just wanted to give my thoughts on restricted gifts.  Like most things,
there are both good and bad restricted gifts.  They can be bad if a funder
is making a well-intentioned gift that none-the-less pulls the organization
in direction that they were not planning to go.  Or even worse, when a
funder pays for something outside of an org's plans that has ongoing
maintenance cost that are not covered in the grant.

This is why the WMF board reviews all restricted grants per our gift policy
.  Those are the types of
dynamics that the board considers when they review a restricted grant.

Structured Data on Commons was in our product roadmap, so this grant is not
diverting our attention.  The grant simply enables us to accelerate the
work we were planning to do.  In terms of restrictions, we have to follow
through with the plan we submitted.  In other words, do what we said we are
going to do.  I think that accountability is a good thing.  And the Sloan
Foundation is a great long-term funder of WMF.  If something changes as the
work progress, I have no doubt we could have a reasonable conversation with
them about adjusting the plan.

Best,
Lisa

On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Maybe restricted but the subject matter is exactly what we want anyway.
> Where I have my reservations is that Wikidata will be set in stone and
> stuff that just is not right will be with us for forever. With more money
> it does not need to be a huge problem because it makes it more manageable.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 9 January 2017 at 21:52, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
>
> > Structured data on Commons is a huge and important area -- for one
thing,
> > the whole Media Viewer project would have gone much more smoothly if
> there
> > were underlying structured data to rely on. Kudos to WMF and Sloan for
> the
> > focus on this issue!
> >
> > If I'm not mistaken, this is by far the most extravagant restricted
grant
> > in the history of the WMF. I believe the Stanton Foundation's usability
> > grant ($890k in 2008)[1] and Public Policy Initiative grant ($1.2
million
> > in 2010)[2] are the only ones that comes close. In the past, WMF board
> > members have expressed great skepticism about -- specifically -- the
> Sloan
> > Foundation's influence, when it sought to place an observer in WMF board
> > meetings. A former WMF Executive Director has written at length about
the
> > dangers of restricted grants.
> >
> > It appears there is a new theory in play around restricted grants. Will
> > somebody be expressing it publicly? Will the past practice of publishing
> > the details of the grant expectations be followed?[3]
> >
> > -Pete
> > --
> > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> >
> > [1] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2008/12/03/improved-usability-
> > in-our-future/
> > [2]
> > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/May_
> > 2010_Wikimedia_Foundation_will_engage_academic_experts_
> > and_students_to_improve_public_policy_information
> > [3]
> > https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Public_Policy_
> > Initiative_project_details
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Wes Moran  wrote:
> >
> > > Hello Wikimedia community,
> > >
> > > It’s our delight to inform you that we received a US$3,015,000 grant
> from
> > > the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
> > >  [1] to
> > expedite
> > > development of structured data on Commons. The grant will be given
over
> > the
> > > course of three years, and will allow us to develop a team, in
> > > collaboration with the Wikidata team at Wikimedia Deutschland, that
can
> > > focus on integrating the structured data features of Wikidata into
> > > describing the media files on Commons.
> > >
> > > This work will allow us to expedite features both on the Wikidata
> > > development roadmap, and in other products supported by the Wikimedia
> > > Foundation. The grant also provides funding to ensure that movement
> > > stakeholders, like Wiki Loves Monuments and GLAM-Wiki program leaders,
> > and
> > > external partners who contribute heavily to 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Exciting update about development of structured data on Commons

[Lisa Gruwell]

Hi Pete and Gerard-

I just wanted to give my thoughts on restricted gifts.  Like most things,
there are both good and bad restricted gifts.  They can be bad if a funder
is making a well-intentioned gift that none-the-less pulls the organization
in direction that they were not planning to go.  Or even worse, when a
funder pays for something outside of an org's plans that has ongoing
maintenance cost that are not covered in the grant.

This is why the WMF board reviews all restricted grants per our gift policy
.  Those are the types of
dynamics that the board considers when they review a restricted grant.

Structured Data on Commons was in our product roadmap, so this grant is not
diverting our attention.  The grant simply enables us to accelerate the
work we were planning to do.  In terms of restrictions, we have to follow
through with the plan we submitted.  In other words, do what we said we are
going to do.  I think that accountability is a good thing.  And the Sloan
Foundation is a great long-term funder of WMF.  If something changes as the
work progress, I have no doubt we could have a reasonable conversation with
them about adjusting the plan.

Best,
Lisa

On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Maybe restricted but the subject matter is exactly what we want anyway.
> Where I have my reservations is that Wikidata will be set in stone and
> stuff that just is not right will be with us for forever. With more money
> it does not need to be a huge problem because it makes it more manageable.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 9 January 2017 at 21:52, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
>
> > Structured data on Commons is a huge and important area -- for one thing,
> > the whole Media Viewer project would have gone much more smoothly if
> there
> > were underlying structured data to rely on. Kudos to WMF and Sloan for
> the
> > focus on this issue!
> >
> > If I'm not mistaken, this is by far the most extravagant restricted grant
> > in the history of the WMF. I believe the Stanton Foundation's usability
> > grant ($890k in 2008)[1] and Public Policy Initiative grant ($1.2 million
> > in 2010)[2] are the only ones that comes close. In the past, WMF board
> > members have expressed great skepticism about -- specifically -- the
> Sloan
> > Foundation's influence, when it sought to place an observer in WMF board
> > meetings. A former WMF Executive Director has written at length about the
> > dangers of restricted grants.
> >
> > It appears there is a new theory in play around restricted grants. Will
> > somebody be expressing it publicly? Will the past practice of publishing
> > the details of the grant expectations be followed?[3]
> >
> > -Pete
> > --
> > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> >
> > [1] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2008/12/03/improved-usability-
> > in-our-future/
> > [2]
> > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/May_
> > 2010_Wikimedia_Foundation_will_engage_academic_experts_
> > and_students_to_improve_public_policy_information
> > [3]
> > https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Public_Policy_
> > Initiative_project_details
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Wes Moran  wrote:
> >
> > > Hello Wikimedia community,
> > >
> > > It’s our delight to inform you that we received a US$3,015,000 grant
> from
> > > the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
> > >  [1] to
> > expedite
> > > development of structured data on Commons. The grant will be given over
> > the
> > > course of three years, and will allow us to develop a team, in
> > > collaboration with the Wikidata team at Wikimedia Deutschland, that can
> > > focus on integrating the structured data features of Wikidata into
> > > describing the media files on Commons.
> > >
> > > This work will allow us to expedite features both on the Wikidata
> > > development roadmap, and in other products supported by the Wikimedia
> > > Foundation. The grant also provides funding to ensure that movement
> > > stakeholders, like Wiki Loves Monuments and GLAM-Wiki program leaders,
> > and
> > > external partners who contribute heavily to Commons, such as GLAMs, can
> > be
> > > involved in the development.
> > >
> > > We have drafted a high level overview of the grant and its scope,
> > available
> > > on Commons
> > >  data/Sloan_Grant>
> > > [2]. A blog post about the grant is also available on the Wikimedia
> blog
> > >  structured-data>
> > > [3].
> > >
> > > We are currently in the process of identifying the technical lead for
> the
> > > project. If you have questions, Alex Stinson, the Foundation’s
> GLAM-Wiki
> > > strategist, will be leading the community engagement and communications
> > for
> > > the project until we hire a community liaison as part of the 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Exciting update about development of structured data on Commons

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Maybe restricted but the subject matter is exactly what we want anyway.
Where I have my reservations is that Wikidata will be set in stone and
stuff that just is not right will be with us for forever. With more money
it does not need to be a huge problem because it makes it more manageable.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 9 January 2017 at 21:52, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> Structured data on Commons is a huge and important area -- for one thing,
> the whole Media Viewer project would have gone much more smoothly if there
> were underlying structured data to rely on. Kudos to WMF and Sloan for the
> focus on this issue!
>
> If I'm not mistaken, this is by far the most extravagant restricted grant
> in the history of the WMF. I believe the Stanton Foundation's usability
> grant ($890k in 2008)[1] and Public Policy Initiative grant ($1.2 million
> in 2010)[2] are the only ones that comes close. In the past, WMF board
> members have expressed great skepticism about -- specifically -- the Sloan
> Foundation's influence, when it sought to place an observer in WMF board
> meetings. A former WMF Executive Director has written at length about the
> dangers of restricted grants.
>
> It appears there is a new theory in play around restricted grants. Will
> somebody be expressing it publicly? Will the past practice of publishing
> the details of the grant expectations be followed?[3]
>
> -Pete
> --
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> [1] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2008/12/03/improved-usability-
> in-our-future/
> [2]
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/May_
> 2010_Wikimedia_Foundation_will_engage_academic_experts_
> and_students_to_improve_public_policy_information
> [3]
> https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Public_Policy_
> Initiative_project_details
>
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Wes Moran  wrote:
>
> > Hello Wikimedia community,
> >
> > It’s our delight to inform you that we received a US$3,015,000 grant from
> > the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
> >  [1] to
> expedite
> > development of structured data on Commons. The grant will be given over
> the
> > course of three years, and will allow us to develop a team, in
> > collaboration with the Wikidata team at Wikimedia Deutschland, that can
> > focus on integrating the structured data features of Wikidata into
> > describing the media files on Commons.
> >
> > This work will allow us to expedite features both on the Wikidata
> > development roadmap, and in other products supported by the Wikimedia
> > Foundation. The grant also provides funding to ensure that movement
> > stakeholders, like Wiki Loves Monuments and GLAM-Wiki program leaders,
> and
> > external partners who contribute heavily to Commons, such as GLAMs, can
> be
> > involved in the development.
> >
> > We have drafted a high level overview of the grant and its scope,
> available
> > on Commons
> > 
> > [2]. A blog post about the grant is also available on the Wikimedia blog
> > 
> > [3].
> >
> > We are currently in the process of identifying the technical lead for the
> > project. If you have questions, Alex Stinson, the Foundation’s GLAM-Wiki
> > strategist, will be leading the community engagement and communications
> for
> > the project until we hire a community liaison as part of the grant. Stay
> > tuned for more details about the project in the coming months.
> >
> > We’re excited to be able to support this project, and look forward to
> your
> > participation in its development.
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > Wes Moran and Maggie Dennis
> >
> > *Wes Moran, Vice President of Product*
> > *Maggie Dennis, Interim Chief of Community Engagement *
> > *Wikimedia Foundation*
> >
> > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_P._Sloan_Foundation
> > [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/
> Sloan_Grant
> > [3] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/01/09/sloan-foundation-
> structured-data
> > ___
> > 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 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Exciting update about development of structured data on Commons

[Pete Forsyth]

Structured data on Commons is a huge and important area -- for one thing,
the whole Media Viewer project would have gone much more smoothly if there
were underlying structured data to rely on. Kudos to WMF and Sloan for the
focus on this issue!

If I'm not mistaken, this is by far the most extravagant restricted grant
in the history of the WMF. I believe the Stanton Foundation's usability
grant ($890k in 2008)[1] and Public Policy Initiative grant ($1.2 million
in 2010)[2] are the only ones that comes close. In the past, WMF board
members have expressed great skepticism about -- specifically -- the Sloan
Foundation's influence, when it sought to place an observer in WMF board
meetings. A former WMF Executive Director has written at length about the
dangers of restricted grants.

It appears there is a new theory in play around restricted grants. Will
somebody be expressing it publicly? Will the past practice of publishing
the details of the grant expectations be followed?[3]

-Pete
--
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

[1] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2008/12/03/improved-usability-in-our-future/
[2]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/May_2010_Wikimedia_Foundation_will_engage_academic_experts_and_students_to_improve_public_policy_information
[3]
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Public_Policy_Initiative_project_details

On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Wes Moran  wrote:

> Hello Wikimedia community,
>
> It’s our delight to inform you that we received a US$3,015,000 grant from
> the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
>  [1] to expedite
> development of structured data on Commons. The grant will be given over the
> course of three years, and will allow us to develop a team, in
> collaboration with the Wikidata team at Wikimedia Deutschland, that can
> focus on integrating the structured data features of Wikidata into
> describing the media files on Commons.
>
> This work will allow us to expedite features both on the Wikidata
> development roadmap, and in other products supported by the Wikimedia
> Foundation. The grant also provides funding to ensure that movement
> stakeholders, like Wiki Loves Monuments and GLAM-Wiki program leaders, and
> external partners who contribute heavily to Commons, such as GLAMs, can be
> involved in the development.
>
> We have drafted a high level overview of the grant and its scope, available
> on Commons
> 
> [2]. A blog post about the grant is also available on the Wikimedia blog
> 
> [3].
>
> We are currently in the process of identifying the technical lead for the
> project. If you have questions, Alex Stinson, the Foundation’s GLAM-Wiki
> strategist, will be leading the community engagement and communications for
> the project until we hire a community liaison as part of the grant. Stay
> tuned for more details about the project in the coming months.
>
> We’re excited to be able to support this project, and look forward to your
> participation in its development.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Wes Moran and Maggie Dennis
>
> *Wes Moran, Vice President of Product*
> *Maggie Dennis, Interim Chief of Community Engagement *
> *Wikimedia Foundation*
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_P._Sloan_Foundation
> [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Sloan_Grant
> [3] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/01/09/sloan-foundation-structured-data
> ___
> 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] Exciting update about development of structured data on Commons

[Tanweer Morshed]

This is indeed a great opportunity to develop structured environment in
Commons as well as its allied projects!

Regards,
Tanweer


On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 1:49 AM, Andrea Zanni 
wrote:

> This is great news.
> Very excited for the future :-)
>
> Thanks!
>
> Aubrey
>
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 8:48 PM, Wes Moran  wrote:
>
> > Hello Wikimedia community,
> >
> > It’s our delight to inform you that we received a US$3,015,000 grant from
> > the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
> >  [1] to
> expedite
> > development of structured data on Commons. The grant will be given over
> the
> > course of three years, and will allow us to develop a team, in
> > collaboration with the Wikidata team at Wikimedia Deutschland, that can
> > focus on integrating the structured data features of Wikidata into
> > describing the media files on Commons.
> >
> > This work will allow us to expedite features both on the Wikidata
> > development roadmap, and in other products supported by the Wikimedia
> > Foundation. The grant also provides funding to ensure that movement
> > stakeholders, like Wiki Loves Monuments and GLAM-Wiki program leaders,
> and
> > external partners who contribute heavily to Commons, such as GLAMs, can
> be
> > involved in the development.
> >
> > We have drafted a high level overview of the grant and its scope,
> available
> > on Commons
> > 
> > [2]. A blog post about the grant is also available on the Wikimedia blog
> > 
> > [3].
> >
> > We are currently in the process of identifying the technical lead for the
> > project. If you have questions, Alex Stinson, the Foundation’s GLAM-Wiki
> > strategist, will be leading the community engagement and communications
> for
> > the project until we hire a community liaison as part of the grant. Stay
> > tuned for more details about the project in the coming months.
> >
> > We’re excited to be able to support this project, and look forward to
> your
> > participation in its development.
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > Wes Moran and Maggie Dennis
> >
> > *Wes Moran, Vice President of Product*
> > *Maggie Dennis, Interim Chief of Community Engagement *
> > *Wikimedia Foundation*
> >
> > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_P._Sloan_Foundation
> > [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/
> Sloan_Grant
> > [3] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/01/09/sloan-foundation-
> structured-data
> > ___
> > 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] Exciting update about development of structured data on Commons

[Andrea Zanni]

This is great news.
Very excited for the future :-)

Thanks!

Aubrey

On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 8:48 PM, Wes Moran  wrote:

> Hello Wikimedia community,
>
> It’s our delight to inform you that we received a US$3,015,000 grant from
> the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
>  [1] to expedite
> development of structured data on Commons. The grant will be given over the
> course of three years, and will allow us to develop a team, in
> collaboration with the Wikidata team at Wikimedia Deutschland, that can
> focus on integrating the structured data features of Wikidata into
> describing the media files on Commons.
>
> This work will allow us to expedite features both on the Wikidata
> development roadmap, and in other products supported by the Wikimedia
> Foundation. The grant also provides funding to ensure that movement
> stakeholders, like Wiki Loves Monuments and GLAM-Wiki program leaders, and
> external partners who contribute heavily to Commons, such as GLAMs, can be
> involved in the development.
>
> We have drafted a high level overview of the grant and its scope, available
> on Commons
> 
> [2]. A blog post about the grant is also available on the Wikimedia blog
> 
> [3].
>
> We are currently in the process of identifying the technical lead for the
> project. If you have questions, Alex Stinson, the Foundation’s GLAM-Wiki
> strategist, will be leading the community engagement and communications for
> the project until we hire a community liaison as part of the grant. Stay
> tuned for more details about the project in the coming months.
>
> We’re excited to be able to support this project, and look forward to your
> participation in its development.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Wes Moran and Maggie Dennis
>
> *Wes Moran, Vice President of Product*
> *Maggie Dennis, Interim Chief of Community Engagement *
> *Wikimedia Foundation*
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_P._Sloan_Foundation
> [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Sloan_Grant
> [3] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/01/09/sloan-foundation-structured-data
> ___
> 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] Exciting update about development of structured data on Commons

[Wes Moran]

Hello Wikimedia community,

It’s our delight to inform you that we received a US$3,015,000 grant from
the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
 [1] to expedite
development of structured data on Commons. The grant will be given over the
course of three years, and will allow us to develop a team, in
collaboration with the Wikidata team at Wikimedia Deutschland, that can
focus on integrating the structured data features of Wikidata into
describing the media files on Commons.

This work will allow us to expedite features both on the Wikidata
development roadmap, and in other products supported by the Wikimedia
Foundation. The grant also provides funding to ensure that movement
stakeholders, like Wiki Loves Monuments and GLAM-Wiki program leaders, and
external partners who contribute heavily to Commons, such as GLAMs, can be
involved in the development.

We have drafted a high level overview of the grant and its scope, available
on Commons

[2]. A blog post about the grant is also available on the Wikimedia blog

[3].

We are currently in the process of identifying the technical lead for the
project. If you have questions, Alex Stinson, the Foundation’s GLAM-Wiki
strategist, will be leading the community engagement and communications for
the project until we hire a community liaison as part of the grant. Stay
tuned for more details about the project in the coming months.

We’re excited to be able to support this project, and look forward to your
participation in its development.

Thank you,

Wes Moran and Maggie Dennis

*Wes Moran, Vice President of Product*
*Maggie Dennis, Interim Chief of Community Engagement *
*Wikimedia Foundation*

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_P._Sloan_Foundation
[2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Sloan_Grant
[3] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/01/09/sloan-foundation-structured-data
___
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,