Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 146, Issue 90

2016-05-27 Thread Stephen Philbrick
I've been surprised at the number of editors who watchlist my talk page, but the experiences invariably been positive. In some cases my talk page has been vandalized, and I don't think I've ever been the first to see the vandalism, I invariably see that the TPS has reverted it. More importantly,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 147, Issue 43

2016-06-20 Thread Stephen Philbrick
I would urge caution at reading too much into the A.T.Kearney study. It is quite plausible that companies in trouble may decide they need a turn-around specialist, almost certainly an outsider. While some will succeed, companies in trouble are almost certainly going to underperform those that were

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiProject Accuracy

2016-03-25 Thread Stephen Philbrick
Improved accuracy is like motherhood and apple pie — I trust no one will be opposed to the goal. However the initial proposal to achieve that goal needs a fair amount of work. *Clarify scope* – the page WikiProject_Accuracy is in the English Wikipedia, so implicitly, the initial scope is the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

2016-03-07 Thread Stephen Philbrick
I would also like to more about the decision to remove James — I am not yet able to reconcile the public statements I’ve seen from James and Jimmy. However, I am less concerned about the apparent disconnect between the board statement of unanimous support and James claim that there was not

[Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia is basically just another giant bureaucracy

2016-04-29 Thread Stephen Philbrick
I just scanned an article: "Wikipedia is basically just another giant bureaucracy", http://www.sciencealert.com/wikipedia-is-basically-just-another-old-fashioned-bureaucracy-study-finds and it is astonishing how bad it is. I don't really quibble with the headline - it is a bureaucracy, but some

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 146, Issue 9

2016-05-02 Thread Stephen Philbrick
I have some comments on Denny’s summary of events but I would like to preface my comments by noting that I have Board experience. I served several years on the Board of an organization of professions, two years on a governmental board, and (currently) on the board of a non-profit organization. I

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 148, Issue 20

2016-07-14 Thread Stephen Philbrick
Congratulations Geoff. I've had the good fortune to work with you, and know that YouTube is getting a good one. Best of luck. Sphilbrick On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 2:27 AM, wrote: > Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to >

[Wikimedia-l] Kevin Gorman

2016-07-30 Thread Stephen Philbrick
So sorry to hear the news. I've had to good fortune to meet him at several Wiki-events. On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 8:00 AM, wrote: > Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to > wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 148, Issue 29

2016-07-18 Thread Stephen Philbrick
Sorry but I had a very different reaction to that essay. While there are some useful kernels of truth, they were overshadowed by dreck. I get why nonprofits prefer unrestricted grants. I get why donors prefer restricted grants. In general, my sympathy is with the donors. There may be times,

[Wikimedia-l] Support for Yair Rand's post

2017-02-03 Thread Stephen Philbrick
the potential of tearing apart the community interested in bring the sum of all knowledge to the world. Stephen Philbrick (Sphilbrick) ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages

[Wikimedia-l] Foundation official response re Daily Mail issue

2017-02-09 Thread Stephen Philbrick
Does anyone have a link to the recent Foundation Statement about the Daily Mail? We are receiving inquires at OTRS, and it would be nice if I see see our official position. Sphilbrick On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 10:25 AM, wrote: > Send Wikimedia-l mailing

[Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

2017-03-08 Thread Stephen Philbrick
Three points: When I first saw the document, I was exceedingly unhappy, but fortuitously, I was unable to respond at the time due to RL travel. Fortuitous, because my writeup would have been a pale version of Risker's excellent response, so if anyone hasn't managed to read all the posts on this