Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[SarahSV]

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

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

​Sarah​

[1]
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/a/a7/Knowledge_engine_grant_agreement.pdf
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Lila Tretikov]

Hi everyone,

As promised, here is the blog post we published earlier today:
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/02/16/wikimedia-search-future/ . We are also
having internal conversations on how we can improve communication and
transparency to increase collaboration on ideation with all of you going
forward.

I hope this helps contextualize the grant agreement and our broader efforts
while addressing some of the confusion around this topic. As always, I
welcome your feedback and discussion and look forward to our ongoing
discussion.

Lila

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 11:01 PM, Lila Tretikov  wrote:

> + Footnotes.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Lila Tretikov 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Mike,
>>
>> We plan to publish a blog tomorrow that addresses some of the questions
>> raised here and confusion in the press. To briefly address your questions
>> specifically, here is where we are today: the the grant allows us to pursue
>> strictly (1) -- a better Wiki search. In that, it supports testing of some
>> of our hypotheses on how to best do this.
>>
>> It is possible we could pursue (2) in the future (for example,
>> integrating a few specific ones such as OpenStreetMaps or Internet
>> Archive). At some point we have looked into (2+) -- adding broader
>> knowledge sources, though we didn't get into specifics there, and have
>> since decided against increasing the scope. I am not considering (3).
>> Going after general search engine traffic and users is inconsistent with
>> our mission. Our focus is on knowledge.
>>
>>
>> To be clear, search itself is only one aspect of the work of the
>> Discovery team.  This team is also tasked with discovering how to better
>> interconnect our various formats of knowledge, thus amplifying the impact
>> of our volunteers' contributions. Only some of our knowledge is actually
>> connected and discoverable today, other is very hard to find. Search is a
>> simple, non-invasive point of entry into the Wikimedia knowledge ecosystem.
>>
>> I welcome and appreciate the feedback and support of members of our
>> Wikimedia movement.  Collectively, our thinking evolves as we learn. We
>> will continue to make hypotheses, test them, and adjust our path
>> accordingly.
>>
>> Lila
>>
>>
>>
>> [1] Wikimedia specific: index all of Wikimedia's content and make that
>> easier for users of the sites to find
>>
>> [2] Wikimedia + selected others: like (1), but also allow some other
>> like-minded sources into the mix (limited, identified sources)
>>
>> [2+] Wikimedia + other knowledge
>>
>> [3] Google-scale: crawl and index everything (duckduckgo-like) all
>> content included (shops, goods, etc.)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Craig Franklin <
>> cfrank...@halonetwork.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking this Michael.  Reading the
>>> documents
>>> I've seen, it seemed like (1) to me, but a lot of the assumptions seem to
>>> lean towards (3).  If it is (1), then that is an entirely reasonable
>>> thing
>>> for the Foundation to be putting development effort into.  The problem is
>>> that the statements in the grant documents are quite vague, and given the
>>> rest of the shenanigans that the WMF has been involved in lately, people
>>> are quite predictably jumping to the least flattering conclusion.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Craig
>>>
>>> On 16 February 2016 at 05:36, Michael Peel  wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> > > On 15 Feb 2016, at 17:10, Gerard Meijssen >> >
>>> > wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > Hoi,
>>> > > The notion that WMF should out google Google is stupid, certainly at
>>> that
>>> > > kind of money.
>>> >
>>> > I'm still confused about what kind of 'search engine' is actually being
>>> > proposed here. Is it:
>>> > 1) Wikimedia specific: index all of Wikimedia's content and make that
>>> > easier for users of the sites to find
>>> > 2) Wikimedia + selected others: like (1), but also allow some other
>>> > like-minded sources into the mix
>>> > 3) Google-scale: index everything (duckduckgo-like)
>>> > ... or somewhere on the scale between those points?
>>> >
>>> > A lot of people seem to be assuming (3), others are liking the idea of
>>> > (1), but (2) (or maybe (1) leading to (2)) might be closer to the
>>> reality?
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> > Mike
>>> > ___
>>> > 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: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Lila Tretikov]

+ Footnotes.




On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Lila Tretikov  wrote:

> Hi Mike,
>
> We plan to publish a blog tomorrow that addresses some of the questions
> raised here and confusion in the press. To briefly address your questions
> specifically, here is where we are today: the the grant allows us to pursue
> strictly (1) -- a better Wiki search. In that, it supports testing of some
> of our hypotheses on how to best do this.
>
> It is possible we could pursue (2) in the future (for example, integrating
> a few specific ones such as OpenStreetMaps or Internet Archive). At some
> point we have looked into (2+) -- adding broader knowledge sources, though
> we didn't get into specifics there, and have since decided against
> increasing the scope. I am not considering (3). Going after general
> search engine traffic and users is inconsistent with our mission. Our focus
> is on knowledge.
>
>
> To be clear, search itself is only one aspect of the work of the Discovery
> team.  This team is also tasked with discovering how to better interconnect
> our various formats of knowledge, thus amplifying the impact of our
> volunteers' contributions. Only some of our knowledge is actually connected
> and discoverable today, other is very hard to find. Search is a simple,
> non-invasive point of entry into the Wikimedia knowledge ecosystem.
>
> I welcome and appreciate the feedback and support of members of our
> Wikimedia movement.  Collectively, our thinking evolves as we learn. We
> will continue to make hypotheses, test them, and adjust our path
> accordingly.
>
> Lila
>
>
>
> [1] Wikimedia specific: index all of Wikimedia's content and make that
> easier for users of the sites to find
>
> [2] Wikimedia + selected others: like (1), but also allow some other
> like-minded sources into the mix (limited, identified sources)
>
> [2+] Wikimedia + other knowledge
>
> [3] Google-scale: crawl and index everything (duckduckgo-like) all
> content included (shops, goods, etc.)
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Craig Franklin  > wrote:
>
>> I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking this Michael.  Reading the
>> documents
>> I've seen, it seemed like (1) to me, but a lot of the assumptions seem to
>> lean towards (3).  If it is (1), then that is an entirely reasonable thing
>> for the Foundation to be putting development effort into.  The problem is
>> that the statements in the grant documents are quite vague, and given the
>> rest of the shenanigans that the WMF has been involved in lately, people
>> are quite predictably jumping to the least flattering conclusion.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Craig
>>
>> On 16 February 2016 at 05:36, Michael Peel  wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > > On 15 Feb 2016, at 17:10, Gerard Meijssen 
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Hoi,
>> > > The notion that WMF should out google Google is stupid, certainly at
>> that
>> > > kind of money.
>> >
>> > I'm still confused about what kind of 'search engine' is actually being
>> > proposed here. Is it:
>> > 1) Wikimedia specific: index all of Wikimedia's content and make that
>> > easier for users of the sites to find
>> > 2) Wikimedia + selected others: like (1), but also allow some other
>> > like-minded sources into the mix
>> > 3) Google-scale: index everything (duckduckgo-like)
>> > ... or somewhere on the scale between those points?
>> >
>> > A lot of people seem to be assuming (3), others are liking the idea of
>> > (1), but (2) (or maybe (1) leading to (2)) might be closer to the
>> reality?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Mike
>> > ___
>> > 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,
>> 
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Lila Tretikov
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> *“Be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid.”*
>



-- 
Lila Tretikov
Wikimedia Foundation

*“Be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid.”*
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Lila Tretikov]

Hi Mike,

We plan to publish a blog tomorrow that addresses some of the questions
raised here and confusion in the press. To briefly address your questions
specifically, here is where we are today: the the grant allows us to pursue
strictly (1) -- a better Wiki search. In that, it supports testing of some
of our hypotheses on how to best do this.

It is possible we could pursue (2) in the future (for example, integrating
a few specific ones such as OpenStreetMaps or Internet Archive). At some
point we have looked into (2+) -- adding broader knowledge sources, though
we didn't get into specifics there, and have since decided against
increasing the scope. I am not considering (3). Going after general search
engine traffic and users is inconsistent with our mission. Our focus is on
knowledge.


To be clear, search itself is only one aspect of the work of the Discovery
team.  This team is also tasked with discovering how to better interconnect
our various formats of knowledge, thus amplifying the impact of our
volunteers' contributions. Only some of our knowledge is actually connected
and discoverable today, other is very hard to find. Search is a simple,
non-invasive point of entry into the Wikimedia knowledge ecosystem.

I welcome and appreciate the feedback and support of members of our
Wikimedia movement.  Collectively, our thinking evolves as we learn. We
will continue to make hypotheses, test them, and adjust our path
accordingly.

Lila








On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Craig Franklin 
wrote:

> I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking this Michael.  Reading the documents
> I've seen, it seemed like (1) to me, but a lot of the assumptions seem to
> lean towards (3).  If it is (1), then that is an entirely reasonable thing
> for the Foundation to be putting development effort into.  The problem is
> that the statements in the grant documents are quite vague, and given the
> rest of the shenanigans that the WMF has been involved in lately, people
> are quite predictably jumping to the least flattering conclusion.
>
> Cheers,
> Craig
>
> On 16 February 2016 at 05:36, Michael Peel  wrote:
>
> >
> > > On 15 Feb 2016, at 17:10, Gerard Meijssen 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hoi,
> > > The notion that WMF should out google Google is stupid, certainly at
> that
> > > kind of money.
> >
> > I'm still confused about what kind of 'search engine' is actually being
> > proposed here. Is it:
> > 1) Wikimedia specific: index all of Wikimedia's content and make that
> > easier for users of the sites to find
> > 2) Wikimedia + selected others: like (1), but also allow some other
> > like-minded sources into the mix
> > 3) Google-scale: index everything (duckduckgo-like)
> > ... or somewhere on the scale between those points?
> >
> > A lot of people seem to be assuming (3), others are liking the idea of
> > (1), but (2) (or maybe (1) leading to (2)) might be closer to the
> reality?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mike
> > ___
> > 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,
> 
>



-- 
Lila Tretikov
Wikimedia Foundation

*“Be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid.”*
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Reasonator is at this stage at best and at most as good as bot generated
articles. Generally they suck but provide a service. Reasonator does not
provide adequate service. Try this [1] for instance. Reasonator will not
create proper texts for many if not most languages because Wikidata does
not have the information to do that properly. It can be done and it should
be done but that is a completely different story and will have a gestation
period of years not months.

The fact that Magnus pulled a rabbit out of a hat is just that. It is a
hack, a wonderful hack and it is possible to hack around this whole issue
but true text generation on the appropriate level is NOT what Wikidata
currently does. What Reasonator does in stead is provide adequate
information where Wikidata provides unstructured data.

Jimmy is right when he says that at this stage on the fly creation of
articles is impossible.

This whole story has the grant of the Knight Foundation as its flashpoint.
It is only that and sadly so. The point is that many people in the
community do not trust the Wikimedia Foundation to do good. This is not a
recent thing. We have always had people insist on some crackpot idea. An
old one is the insistence that old skins should still work. That all
information should be possible in a text only browser. Commons cannot be
trusted with public domain pictures. Many people and ideas like this are
alive and well and sour our relations.

People advocated for a different board. They got it and the result is
disappointing. What makes it bad is that the diplomatic skills of Jan-Bart
are sorely missed. What makes it bad that the flash point is mistaken for
the issue. What makes it bad is that bad faith is assumed.

My experience is that what the community spouts is worse than what the WMF
does. It actively undermines what we stand for and at the same time it is
not even open to consider issues around quality of Wikipedia or Wikidata
that are not the same old old.

Really do consider what you want and what the real issue is. Forget about
this grant because it is not about search, it is not about automatically
generated articles. What it is about is "share in the sum of all knowledge"
and how we are going to accomplish this together.
Thanks,
  GerardM


[1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?q=Q1339=de

On 16 February 2016 at 01:26, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Here is another such example. Jimmy Wales has tonight told[1] a volunteer
>
> ---o0o---
>
> First the idea that Wikidata could be used to "construct articles" with "no
> need for editors to edit actual article content" is pretty absurd from a
> technological point of view. Major breakthroughs in AI would be
> necessary. That isn't what is intended at all, obviously.
>
> ---o0o---
>
> So "major breakthroughs in AI" are necessary? This is 2016, and the page
> "API:Presenting Wikidata knowledge"[2] on MediaWiki specifically points
> out:
>
> ---o0o---
>
> * Reasonator[3] and Autodesc[4] are tools that create machine-generated
> articles and short descriptions about Wikidata items.
>
> ---o0o---
>
> Both the Reasonator and Autodesc pages feature what seem to be examples of
> such articles:
>
>
> https://tools.wmflabs.org/autodesc?q=Q1339=wikipedia=en=long=html=reasonator
>
> https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?q=Q1339
>
> The just concluded strategy consultation[5] specifically highlighted the
> idea to "Explore ways to scale machine-generated, machine-verified and
> machine-assisted content."
>
> Now, I've got nothing against these ideas in principle. However, like Pete,
> I am absolutely astonished at the sheer number of self-contradictory
> messages coming from the WMF with regard to all of this.
>
> Could this please stop?
>
> Andreas
>
> [1]
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales=prev=705170990
>
> [2]
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Presenting_Wikidata_knowledge#See_also
> [3] https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/
> [4] https://tools.wmflabs.org/autodesc
> [5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2016_Strategy/Knowledge
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Pete Forsyth 
> wrote:
>
> > Lila,
> >
> > The confusion, as you will surely agree, is understandable given the
> > scattershot and often contradictory information provided by WMF to
> > differing audiences. Above all, I hope the next volley of communication
> > will address the central contradictions between what you and Jimmy Wales
> > publicly stated prior to the publication of the grant application, and
> the
> > words in the application itself.
> >
> > I will quote these below, but first to underscore the importance: when
> Siko
> > questioned the integrity of the organization, these are the apparent
> > willful lies that came to mind for me.
> >
> > -Pete
> > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> >
> > Quotes:
> >
> > "To make this very clear: no one in top positions has proposed or is
> > proposing that WMF should get into the general 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Andreas Kolbe]

Mike,

If we're thinking about having article generators produce articles "on the
fly" and deliver them to millions of readers in response to queries,
especially in foreign languages, then that doesn't meet my definition of
"that isn't what is intended at all, obviously".

Andreas

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:33 AM, Michael Peel  wrote:

>
> > On 16 Feb 2016, at 00:26, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
> >
> > Here is another such example. Jimmy Wales has tonight told[1] a volunteer
> >
> > ---o0o---
> >
> > First the idea that Wikidata could be used to "construct articles" with
> "no
> > need for editors to edit actual article content" is pretty absurd from a
> > technological point of view. Major breakthroughs in AI would be
> > necessary. That isn't what is intended at all, obviously.
>
> That seems logical. Wikidata can in principle provide basic articles that
> can then be improved by editors, but at the moment it's just getting up to
> the standard where it can provide infobox contents. Or do you think that
> Wikidata can provide FA-quality articles already?
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Michael Peel]

> On 16 Feb 2016, at 00:26, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
> 
> Here is another such example. Jimmy Wales has tonight told[1] a volunteer
> 
> ---o0o---
> 
> First the idea that Wikidata could be used to "construct articles" with "no
> need for editors to edit actual article content" is pretty absurd from a
> technological point of view. Major breakthroughs in AI would be
> necessary. That isn't what is intended at all, obviously.

That seems logical. Wikidata can in principle provide basic articles that can 
then be improved by editors, but at the moment it's just getting up to the 
standard where it can provide infobox contents. Or do you think that Wikidata 
can provide FA-quality articles already?

Thanks,
Mike
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Andreas Kolbe]

Here is another such example. Jimmy Wales has tonight told[1] a volunteer

---o0o---

First the idea that Wikidata could be used to "construct articles" with "no
need for editors to edit actual article content" is pretty absurd from a
technological point of view. Major breakthroughs in AI would be
necessary. That isn't what is intended at all, obviously.

---o0o---

So "major breakthroughs in AI" are necessary? This is 2016, and the page
"API:Presenting Wikidata knowledge"[2] on MediaWiki specifically points out:

---o0o---

* Reasonator[3] and Autodesc[4] are tools that create machine-generated
articles and short descriptions about Wikidata items.

---o0o---

Both the Reasonator and Autodesc pages feature what seem to be examples of
such articles:

https://tools.wmflabs.org/autodesc?q=Q1339=wikipedia=en=long=html=reasonator

https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?q=Q1339

The just concluded strategy consultation[5] specifically highlighted the
idea to "Explore ways to scale machine-generated, machine-verified and
machine-assisted content."

Now, I've got nothing against these ideas in principle. However, like Pete,
I am absolutely astonished at the sheer number of self-contradictory
messages coming from the WMF with regard to all of this.

Could this please stop?

Andreas

[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales=prev=705170990

[2]
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Presenting_Wikidata_knowledge#See_also
[3] https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/
[4] https://tools.wmflabs.org/autodesc
[5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2016_Strategy/Knowledge



On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> Lila,
>
> The confusion, as you will surely agree, is understandable given the
> scattershot and often contradictory information provided by WMF to
> differing audiences. Above all, I hope the next volley of communication
> will address the central contradictions between what you and Jimmy Wales
> publicly stated prior to the publication of the grant application, and the
> words in the application itself.
>
> I will quote these below, but first to underscore the importance: when Siko
> questioned the integrity of the organization, these are the apparent
> willful lies that came to mind for me.
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> Quotes:
>
> "To make this very clear: no one in top positions has proposed or is
> proposing that WMF should get into the general "searching" or to try to "be
> google". It's an interesting hypothetical which has not been part of any
> serious strategy proposal, nor even discussed at the board level, nor
> proposed to the board by staff, nor a part of any grant, etc. It's a total
> lie." -J. Wales, Feb. 1
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales=prev=704421946
>
> "Let’s all treat each other withcivility
>  and etiquette
> , and see if we can
> collaborate
> to build a consensus  on the
> WMF’s project direction to help readers discover the high quality content
> and knowledge our editors are creating." - L. Tretikov, Feb. 1
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)=15302201
>
> "Knowledge Engine By Wikipedia is a federated knowledge engine that will
> give users the most reliable and most trustworthy public information
> channel on the web, applying fundamentals of transparent Wiki-based systems
> to surfacing the most relevant and important information." Grant
> application, August 2015
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-10/In_focus
> On Feb 15, 2016 2:35 AM, "Lila Tretikov"  wrote:
>
> > Hi Gnangarra,
> >
> > Thank you for forwarding, the authors of the article seem to be confused
> > about the nature of the project. Our Comms team is working to clarify
> this.
> > Please expect to see something from us in next few days.
> >
> > Lila
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:
> >
> > > FYI making main stream media
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-15/wikimedia-foundation-aims-to-take-on-google-in-search/7168840
> > >
> > > On 14 February 2016 at 00:49, Anthony Cole 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Anne, we're talking about almost the same thing, but not exactly. I
> say
> > > > "advised" you say "consulted". "Consulted" implies soliciting or
> > > expecting
> > > > some kind of response or engagement - probably
> > > > approval/disapproval/critique/input. "Advised" means they got the
> > memo. I
> > > > think "advised" is enough, and if the board wants more engagement,
> they
> > > can
> > > > initiate it - presuming the notification is clear and comprehensive,
> of
> > > > course.
> > > >
> > > > Anthony Cole
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Risker 
> wrote:
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Craig Franklin]

I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking this Michael.  Reading the documents
I've seen, it seemed like (1) to me, but a lot of the assumptions seem to
lean towards (3).  If it is (1), then that is an entirely reasonable thing
for the Foundation to be putting development effort into.  The problem is
that the statements in the grant documents are quite vague, and given the
rest of the shenanigans that the WMF has been involved in lately, people
are quite predictably jumping to the least flattering conclusion.

Cheers,
Craig

On 16 February 2016 at 05:36, Michael Peel  wrote:

>
> > On 15 Feb 2016, at 17:10, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hoi,
> > The notion that WMF should out google Google is stupid, certainly at that
> > kind of money.
>
> I'm still confused about what kind of 'search engine' is actually being
> proposed here. Is it:
> 1) Wikimedia specific: index all of Wikimedia's content and make that
> easier for users of the sites to find
> 2) Wikimedia + selected others: like (1), but also allow some other
> like-minded sources into the mix
> 3) Google-scale: index everything (duckduckgo-like)
> ... or somewhere on the scale between those points?
>
> A lot of people seem to be assuming (3), others are liking the idea of
> (1), but (2) (or maybe (1) leading to (2)) might be closer to the reality?
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Amen
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 15 February 2016 at 23:36, Leinonen Teemu 
wrote:

> > On 12.2.2016, at 18.31, Liam Wyatt  wrote:
> > - Lack of Strategy -
> >
> > Now, maybe an open-source search engine would be a good thing for the
> > WMF to create! But that would be a major strategic decision.
>
> Search is a critical feature in all online services, especially for a
> service with a mission to "empower and engage people around the world to
> collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the
> public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally".
>
> Putting resources to improve search is no a "major strategic decision”. it
> is business-as-usual.
>
> Also federated / semantic search to all the Wikipedia projects and outside
> sources of free content is definitely worth of exploring. Any  strategies
> should have space to explore things that are advancing the mission.
>
> - Teemu
>
> --
> Teemu Leinonen
> http://teemuleinonen.fi
> +358 50 351 6796
> Media Lab
> http://mlab.uiah.fi
> Aalto University
> School of Arts, Design and Architecture
> --
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Leinonen Teemu]

> On 12.2.2016, at 18.31, Liam Wyatt  wrote:
> - Lack of Strategy -
> 
> Now, maybe an open-source search engine would be a good thing for the
> WMF to create! But that would be a major strategic decision. 

Search is a critical feature in all online services, especially for a service 
with a mission to "empower and engage people around the world to collect and 
develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and 
to disseminate it effectively and globally". 

Putting resources to improve search is no a "major strategic decision”. it is 
business-as-usual.

Also federated / semantic search to all the Wikipedia projects and outside 
sources of free content is definitely worth of exploring. Any  strategies 
should have space to explore things that are advancing the mission.

- Teemu 

--
Teemu Leinonen
http://teemuleinonen.fi
+358 50 351 6796
Media Lab
http://mlab.uiah.fi
Aalto University 
School of Arts, Design and Architecture
--

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Michael Peel]

> On 15 Feb 2016, at 17:10, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:
> 
> Hoi,
> The notion that WMF should out google Google is stupid, certainly at that
> kind of money.

I'm still confused about what kind of 'search engine' is actually being 
proposed here. Is it:
1) Wikimedia specific: index all of Wikimedia's content and make that easier 
for users of the sites to find
2) Wikimedia + selected others: like (1), but also allow some other like-minded 
sources into the mix
3) Google-scale: index everything (duckduckgo-like)
... or somewhere on the scale between those points?

A lot of people seem to be assuming (3), others are liking the idea of (1), but 
(2) (or maybe (1) leading to (2)) might be closer to the reality?

Thanks,
Mike
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Leila Zia]

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:19 AM, Pete Forsyth 
wrote:

> Gerard, you and I agree on most of these points. Certainly, there is room
> for improvement on intra-Wikimedia search, and such work is important, and
> I would assume more pressing for non-English projects. And I agree, it is
> quite possible Siko's concerns about integrity are not directly related to
> the Knowledge Engine. (If they are unrelated, that would only more strongly
> suggest there are fundamental issues to be addressed around integrity;
> multiple issues would be worse than isolated incidents.)
>

​Pete, I suggest you reach out to Siko and talk to her directly if you want
to learn more about what she referred to in her email. Only she can explain
to you, if she chooses to, what specific issues led her to feel a specific
way towards her position in the Foundation. Trying to pick up signals is
very tricky as there are some signals here and there, but there are also a
lot of noise. If Siko chooses not to speak further, I suggest not
speculating. If Siko chooses to explain more, I suggest talking directly to
the individual(s) who are responsible for the practices that have concerned
Siko. Only by hearing all sides of the story you can get close to a true
understanding of the problem. (I acknowledge that this will be a very time
consuming approach for everyone involved, but if you want to know the
truth, there is no other way.)
 ​
Leila

--
Leila Zia
Research Scientist
Wikimedia Foundation


> Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> On Feb 15, 2016 9:11 AM, "Gerard Meijssen" 
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > The notion that WMF should out google Google is stupid, certainly at that
> > kind of money. Search in the Wikimedia Foundation is much better but it
> is
> > still easy for Magnus (for some time now) to improve the search results
> > considerably.
> >
> > The notion that search should not be strategic is laughable. Jane said
> that
> > she uses Google to search results in our project because it does a better
> > job. She searches in English !! Now consider searching in Tamil it finds
> a
> > lot more than only results in Tamil. Then apply this to our aim; provide
> > the sum of all knowledge.
> >
> > Yes Siko left. It does however not follow that this has to do with grant
> of
> > the Knight foundation. Yes she is outspoken in what she says but it does
> > not follow that everything good is suspect. When James Heilman says that
> he
> > has an issue with the focus on search, that is different. It does still
> not
> > follow that we do a good job on search or that the additional effort as
> > described in the Knight grant is not an important persuit.
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> > On 15 February 2016 at 17:57, Pete Forsyth 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Lila,
> > >
> > > The confusion, as you will surely agree, is understandable given the
> > > scattershot and often contradictory information provided by WMF to
> > > differing audiences. Above all, I hope the next volley of communication
> > > will address the central contradictions between what you and Jimmy
> Wales
> > > publicly stated prior to the publication of the grant application, and
> > the
> > > words in the application itself.
> > >
> > > I will quote these below, but first to underscore the importance: when
> > Siko
> > > questioned the integrity of the organization, these are the apparent
> > > willful lies that came to mind for me.
> > >
> > > -Pete
> > > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> > >
> > > Quotes:
> > >
> > > "To make this very clear: no one in top positions has proposed or is
> > > proposing that WMF should get into the general "searching" or to try to
> > "be
> > > google". It's an interesting hypothetical which has not been part of
> any
> > > serious strategy proposal, nor even discussed at the board level, nor
> > > proposed to the board by staff, nor a part of any grant, etc. It's a
> > total
> > > lie." -J. Wales, Feb. 1
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales=prev=704421946
> > >
> > > "Let’s all treat each other withcivility
> > >  and etiquette
> > > , and see if we can
> > > collaborate
> > > to build a consensus  on
> the
> > > WMF’s project direction to help readers discover the high quality
> content
> > > and knowledge our editors are creating." - L. Tretikov, Feb. 1
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)=15302201
> > >
> > > "Knowledge Engine By Wikipedia is a federated knowledge engine that
> will
> > > give users the most reliable and most trustworthy public information
> > > channel on the web, applying fundamentals of transparent Wiki-based
> > systems
> > > to surfacing the most relevant and important information." Grant
> > > application, August 2015

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
When you harp on things that do not truly matter, you get the wrong
results. It is not search that you are after, it is about aligning the
needs you feel about communication and openness and the lack of trust you
feel towards the WMF. I care about both. However, when Lila was hired it
was communicated loud and clear that the WMF would become more of an
organisation that would technically enable our projects. That in essence
means a change of culture. My appreciation is that this has not been really
taken on board by many and given the unfortunate changes at the board there
is a lack of trust in what is happening at the moment. It has been getting
towards a flash point for some time.

The whole thing with the Knight Foundation is what this flashpoint is
focused on and, it is a fight that will only have losers. When we have a
conversation of what kind of organisation we are, then fine. If we are to
be more activist, I want our endowment fund only to invest in green energy
to offset the harm that is done by using the electricity that is generated
by dirty sources. We hide behind our hosting company because it uses dirty
energy (and forget that we can offset that anyway somewhere else).

So what will it be, continue talk about things that are not the real issue
and fail or talk about what it is, where we really hurt. Trust in the
acceptance that the WMF and its board may be brave and do their job and
when this trust has broken down, what we can do to come to a workable and
acceptable continuation of what we do.
Thanks,
  GerardM



On 15 February 2016 at 19:19, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> Gerard, you and I agree on most of these points. Certainly, there is room
> for improvement on intra-Wikimedia search, and such work is important, and
> I would assume more pressing for non-English projects. And I agree, it is
> quite possible Siko's concerns about integrity are not directly related to
> the Knowledge Engine. (If they are unrelated, that would only more strongly
> suggest there are fundamental issues to be addressed around integrity;
> multiple issues would be worse than isolated incidents.)
>
> But none of your points relate to whether Wikimedia leadership has been
> honest and forthright in its public communications about the Knowledge
> Engine. That is my concern here.
>
> Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> On Feb 15, 2016 9:11 AM, "Gerard Meijssen" 
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > The notion that WMF should out google Google is stupid, certainly at that
> > kind of money. Search in the Wikimedia Foundation is much better but it
> is
> > still easy for Magnus (for some time now) to improve the search results
> > considerably.
> >
> > The notion that search should not be strategic is laughable. Jane said
> that
> > she uses Google to search results in our project because it does a better
> > job. She searches in English !! Now consider searching in Tamil it finds
> a
> > lot more than only results in Tamil. Then apply this to our aim; provide
> > the sum of all knowledge.
> >
> > Yes Siko left. It does however not follow that this has to do with grant
> of
> > the Knight foundation. Yes she is outspoken in what she says but it does
> > not follow that everything good is suspect. When James Heilman says that
> he
> > has an issue with the focus on search, that is different. It does still
> not
> > follow that we do a good job on search or that the additional effort as
> > described in the Knight grant is not an important persuit.
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> > On 15 February 2016 at 17:57, Pete Forsyth 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Lila,
> > >
> > > The confusion, as you will surely agree, is understandable given the
> > > scattershot and often contradictory information provided by WMF to
> > > differing audiences. Above all, I hope the next volley of communication
> > > will address the central contradictions between what you and Jimmy
> Wales
> > > publicly stated prior to the publication of the grant application, and
> > the
> > > words in the application itself.
> > >
> > > I will quote these below, but first to underscore the importance: when
> > Siko
> > > questioned the integrity of the organization, these are the apparent
> > > willful lies that came to mind for me.
> > >
> > > -Pete
> > > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> > >
> > > Quotes:
> > >
> > > "To make this very clear: no one in top positions has proposed or is
> > > proposing that WMF should get into the general "searching" or to try to
> > "be
> > > google". It's an interesting hypothetical which has not been part of
> any
> > > serious strategy proposal, nor even discussed at the board level, nor
> > > proposed to the board by staff, nor a part of any grant, etc. It's a
> > total
> > > lie." -J. Wales, Feb. 1
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales=prev=704421946
> > >
> > > "Let’s all treat each other withcivility

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Pete Forsyth]

Gerard, you and I agree on most of these points. Certainly, there is room
for improvement on intra-Wikimedia search, and such work is important, and
I would assume more pressing for non-English projects. And I agree, it is
quite possible Siko's concerns about integrity are not directly related to
the Knowledge Engine. (If they are unrelated, that would only more strongly
suggest there are fundamental issues to be addressed around integrity;
multiple issues would be worse than isolated incidents.)

But none of your points relate to whether Wikimedia leadership has been
honest and forthright in its public communications about the Knowledge
Engine. That is my concern here.

Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Feb 15, 2016 9:11 AM, "Gerard Meijssen" 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> The notion that WMF should out google Google is stupid, certainly at that
> kind of money. Search in the Wikimedia Foundation is much better but it is
> still easy for Magnus (for some time now) to improve the search results
> considerably.
>
> The notion that search should not be strategic is laughable. Jane said that
> she uses Google to search results in our project because it does a better
> job. She searches in English !! Now consider searching in Tamil it finds a
> lot more than only results in Tamil. Then apply this to our aim; provide
> the sum of all knowledge.
>
> Yes Siko left. It does however not follow that this has to do with grant of
> the Knight foundation. Yes she is outspoken in what she says but it does
> not follow that everything good is suspect. When James Heilman says that he
> has an issue with the focus on search, that is different. It does still not
> follow that we do a good job on search or that the additional effort as
> described in the Knight grant is not an important persuit.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 15 February 2016 at 17:57, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
>
> > Lila,
> >
> > The confusion, as you will surely agree, is understandable given the
> > scattershot and often contradictory information provided by WMF to
> > differing audiences. Above all, I hope the next volley of communication
> > will address the central contradictions between what you and Jimmy Wales
> > publicly stated prior to the publication of the grant application, and
> the
> > words in the application itself.
> >
> > I will quote these below, but first to underscore the importance: when
> Siko
> > questioned the integrity of the organization, these are the apparent
> > willful lies that came to mind for me.
> >
> > -Pete
> > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> >
> > Quotes:
> >
> > "To make this very clear: no one in top positions has proposed or is
> > proposing that WMF should get into the general "searching" or to try to
> "be
> > google". It's an interesting hypothetical which has not been part of any
> > serious strategy proposal, nor even discussed at the board level, nor
> > proposed to the board by staff, nor a part of any grant, etc. It's a
> total
> > lie." -J. Wales, Feb. 1
> >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales=prev=704421946
> >
> > "Let’s all treat each other withcivility
> >  and etiquette
> > , and see if we can
> > collaborate
> > to build a consensus  on the
> > WMF’s project direction to help readers discover the high quality content
> > and knowledge our editors are creating." - L. Tretikov, Feb. 1
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)=15302201
> >
> > "Knowledge Engine By Wikipedia is a federated knowledge engine that will
> > give users the most reliable and most trustworthy public information
> > channel on the web, applying fundamentals of transparent Wiki-based
> systems
> > to surfacing the most relevant and important information." Grant
> > application, August 2015
> >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-10/In_focus
> > On Feb 15, 2016 2:35 AM, "Lila Tretikov"  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Gnangarra,
> > >
> > > Thank you for forwarding, the authors of the article seem to be
> confused
> > > about the nature of the project. Our Comms team is working to clarify
> > this.
> > > Please expect to see something from us in next few days.
> > >
> > > Lila
> > >
> > > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Gnangarra 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > FYI making main stream media
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-15/wikimedia-foundation-aims-to-take-on-google-in-search/7168840
> > > >
> > > > On 14 February 2016 at 00:49, Anthony Cole 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Anne, we're talking about almost the same thing, but not exactly. I
> > say
> > > > > "advised" you say "consulted". "Consulted" implies soliciting or
> > > > expecting
> > > > > some kind of 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The notion that WMF should out google Google is stupid, certainly at that
kind of money. Search in the Wikimedia Foundation is much better but it is
still easy for Magnus (for some time now) to improve the search results
considerably.

The notion that search should not be strategic is laughable. Jane said that
she uses Google to search results in our project because it does a better
job. She searches in English !! Now consider searching in Tamil it finds a
lot more than only results in Tamil. Then apply this to our aim; provide
the sum of all knowledge.

Yes Siko left. It does however not follow that this has to do with grant of
the Knight foundation. Yes she is outspoken in what she says but it does
not follow that everything good is suspect. When James Heilman says that he
has an issue with the focus on search, that is different. It does still not
follow that we do a good job on search or that the additional effort as
described in the Knight grant is not an important persuit.
Thanks,
  GerardM
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 15 February 2016 at 17:57, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> Lila,
>
> The confusion, as you will surely agree, is understandable given the
> scattershot and often contradictory information provided by WMF to
> differing audiences. Above all, I hope the next volley of communication
> will address the central contradictions between what you and Jimmy Wales
> publicly stated prior to the publication of the grant application, and the
> words in the application itself.
>
> I will quote these below, but first to underscore the importance: when Siko
> questioned the integrity of the organization, these are the apparent
> willful lies that came to mind for me.
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> Quotes:
>
> "To make this very clear: no one in top positions has proposed or is
> proposing that WMF should get into the general "searching" or to try to "be
> google". It's an interesting hypothetical which has not been part of any
> serious strategy proposal, nor even discussed at the board level, nor
> proposed to the board by staff, nor a part of any grant, etc. It's a total
> lie." -J. Wales, Feb. 1
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales=prev=704421946
>
> "Let’s all treat each other withcivility
>  and etiquette
> , and see if we can
> collaborate
> to build a consensus  on the
> WMF’s project direction to help readers discover the high quality content
> and knowledge our editors are creating." - L. Tretikov, Feb. 1
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)=15302201
>
> "Knowledge Engine By Wikipedia is a federated knowledge engine that will
> give users the most reliable and most trustworthy public information
> channel on the web, applying fundamentals of transparent Wiki-based systems
> to surfacing the most relevant and important information." Grant
> application, August 2015
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-10/In_focus
> On Feb 15, 2016 2:35 AM, "Lila Tretikov"  wrote:
>
> > Hi Gnangarra,
> >
> > Thank you for forwarding, the authors of the article seem to be confused
> > about the nature of the project. Our Comms team is working to clarify
> this.
> > Please expect to see something from us in next few days.
> >
> > Lila
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:
> >
> > > FYI making main stream media
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-15/wikimedia-foundation-aims-to-take-on-google-in-search/7168840
> > >
> > > On 14 February 2016 at 00:49, Anthony Cole 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Anne, we're talking about almost the same thing, but not exactly. I
> say
> > > > "advised" you say "consulted". "Consulted" implies soliciting or
> > > expecting
> > > > some kind of response or engagement - probably
> > > > approval/disapproval/critique/input. "Advised" means they got the
> > memo. I
> > > > think "advised" is enough, and if the board wants more engagement,
> they
> > > can
> > > > initiate it - presuming the notification is clear and comprehensive,
> of
> > > > course.
> > > >
> > > > Anthony Cole
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Risker 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Well, I'm not sure about that, Anthony.  By "consulted", I would
> mean
> > > > > something to the effect of "We're looking at applying to XX for a
> > grant
> > > > of
> > > > > $YYY to do ZZZ" and asking the Board if they would be likely to
> agree
> > > to
> > > > > accept such a grant if the application is successful.  The grant
> > > > > application, evaluation and approval process is costly in both time
> > and
> > > > > resources, and for both the applicant and the grantmaker.  Being
> > > informed
> > > > > that a grant has been 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Pete Forsyth]

Lila,

The confusion, as you will surely agree, is understandable given the
scattershot and often contradictory information provided by WMF to
differing audiences. Above all, I hope the next volley of communication
will address the central contradictions between what you and Jimmy Wales
publicly stated prior to the publication of the grant application, and the
words in the application itself.

I will quote these below, but first to underscore the importance: when Siko
questioned the integrity of the organization, these are the apparent
willful lies that came to mind for me.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

Quotes:

"To make this very clear: no one in top positions has proposed or is
proposing that WMF should get into the general "searching" or to try to "be
google". It's an interesting hypothetical which has not been part of any
serious strategy proposal, nor even discussed at the board level, nor
proposed to the board by staff, nor a part of any grant, etc. It's a total
lie." -J. Wales, Feb. 1
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales=prev=704421946

"Let’s all treat each other withcivility
 and etiquette
, and see if we can collaborate
to build a consensus  on the
WMF’s project direction to help readers discover the high quality content
and knowledge our editors are creating." - L. Tretikov, Feb. 1
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)=15302201

"Knowledge Engine By Wikipedia is a federated knowledge engine that will
give users the most reliable and most trustworthy public information
channel on the web, applying fundamentals of transparent Wiki-based systems
to surfacing the most relevant and important information." Grant
application, August 2015
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-10/In_focus
On Feb 15, 2016 2:35 AM, "Lila Tretikov"  wrote:

> Hi Gnangarra,
>
> Thank you for forwarding, the authors of the article seem to be confused
> about the nature of the project. Our Comms team is working to clarify this.
> Please expect to see something from us in next few days.
>
> Lila
>
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:
>
> > FYI making main stream media
> >
> >
> >
> http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-15/wikimedia-foundation-aims-to-take-on-google-in-search/7168840
> >
> > On 14 February 2016 at 00:49, Anthony Cole  wrote:
> >
> > > Anne, we're talking about almost the same thing, but not exactly. I say
> > > "advised" you say "consulted". "Consulted" implies soliciting or
> > expecting
> > > some kind of response or engagement - probably
> > > approval/disapproval/critique/input. "Advised" means they got the
> memo. I
> > > think "advised" is enough, and if the board wants more engagement, they
> > can
> > > initiate it - presuming the notification is clear and comprehensive, of
> > > course.
> > >
> > > Anthony Cole
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Risker  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Well, I'm not sure about that, Anthony.  By "consulted", I would mean
> > > > something to the effect of "We're looking at applying to XX for a
> grant
> > > of
> > > > $YYY to do ZZZ" and asking the Board if they would be likely to agree
> > to
> > > > accept such a grant if the application is successful.  The grant
> > > > application, evaluation and approval process is costly in both time
> and
> > > > resources, and for both the applicant and the grantmaker.  Being
> > informed
> > > > that a grant has been approved sounds more like a fait accompli
> > situation
> > > > for the Board - they look petty and ungrateful if they say no, even
> if
> > > they
> > > > don't think it was a reasonable grant application.  In this case,
> we're
> > > > only dealing with $250,000.  What if this was $1 million?  $10
> million?
> > > >
> > > > I think it is healthier for everyone if the Board is properly
> consulted
> > > > before the application is submitted.  (And again, I note that we
> don't
> > > know
> > > > how much was actually requested in this case, only what was granted.)
> > > >
> > > > Risker/Anne
> > > >
> > > > On 12 February 2016 at 21:23, Anthony Cole 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Anne, regarding:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Since the Board must approve acceptance of any donations over
> > $100,000
> > > > > USD, it seems to be obvious that they should be consulted and
> > possibly
> > > > > should actively approve any grant applications where the dollar
> value
> > > > > sought is higher than that amount."
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not sure that the board should be *consulted* ahead of such
> > > > > applications' or should prior-approve all such applications. That
> > > seems a
> > > > > bit like micromanagement. But it makes sense to me for the board to
> > be
> > > > > *advised

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Search is relatively stand alone. It has been improved in the past. As it
is, there are gaping holes that are easily fixed with a hack by Magnus.
Search for instance on the Tamil Wikipedia for an English Wikipedia article
only or for an American like Valerie Simpson that does not.

Improving search does not have the same impact that the editor has. The
quality as it is poor to say the least. How for instance do you find
pictures of a 'paard' the windmill thingie? The notion that something has
to be done in a particular way is imho a knee jerk reaction. We do not
fulfil our mission; sharing in the sum of all knowledge, we do not even
begin to share what is available to us.

Has the community ever decided that search is any good? Really, it has
improved a lot over the years but it is still poor and we can use the money
of the Knight foundation to do a better job. It needs to be exponentially
better.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 15 February 2016 at 17:13, Steinsplitter Wiki <
steinsplitter-w...@live.com> wrote:

> Regarding
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles
>
> Any changes to the software must be gradual and reversible. We
> need to make sure that any changes contribute positively to the
> community, as ultimately determined by the Wikimedia Foundation, in full
>  consultation with the community consensus.
>
> 
>
> Lila at all, Why you don't consult he community about new projects/code?
>
>
> > Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 02:35:06 -0800
> > From: l...@wikimedia.org
> > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and
> grant  offer?
> >
> > Hi Gnangarra,
> >
> > Thank you for forwarding, the authors of the article seem to be confused
> > about the nature of the project. Our Comms team is working to clarify
> this.
> > Please expect to see something from us in next few days.
> >
> > Lila
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Gnangarra <gnanga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > FYI making main stream media
> > >
> > >
> > >
> http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-15/wikimedia-foundation-aims-to-take-on-google-in-search/7168840
> > >
> > > On 14 February 2016 at 00:49, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Anne, we're talking about almost the same thing, but not exactly. I
> say
> > > > "advised" you say "consulted". "Consulted" implies soliciting or
> > > expecting
> > > > some kind of response or engagement - probably
> > > > approval/disapproval/critique/input. "Advised" means they got the
> memo. I
> > > > think "advised" is enough, and if the board wants more engagement,
> they
> > > can
> > > > initiate it - presuming the notification is clear and comprehensive,
> of
> > > > course.
> > > >
> > > > Anthony Cole
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Well, I'm not sure about that, Anthony.  By "consulted", I would
> mean
> > > > > something to the effect of "We're looking at applying to XX for a
> grant
> > > > of
> > > > > $YYY to do ZZZ" and asking the Board if they would be likely to
> agree
> > > to
> > > > > accept such a grant if the application is successful.  The grant
> > > > > application, evaluation and approval process is costly in both
> time and
> > > > > resources, and for both the applicant and the grantmaker.  Being
> > > informed
> > > > > that a grant has been approved sounds more like a fait accompli
> > > situation
> > > > > for the Board - they look petty and ungrateful if they say no,
> even if
> > > > they
> > > > > don't think it was a reasonable grant application.  In this case,
> we're
> > > > > only dealing with $250,000.  What if this was $1 million?  $10
> million?
> > > > >
> > > > > I think it is healthier for everyone if the Board is properly
> consulted
> > > > > before the application is submitted.  (And again, I note that we
> don't
> > > > know
> > > > > how much was actually requested in this case, only what was
> granted.)
> > > > >
> > > > > Risker/Anne
> > > > >
> > > > > On 12 February 2016 at 21:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Steinsplitter Wiki]

Regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles

Any changes to the software must be gradual and reversible. We 
need to make sure that any changes contribute positively to the 
community, as ultimately determined by the Wikimedia Foundation, in full
 consultation with the community consensus.



Lila at all, Why you don't consult he community about new projects/code?


> Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 02:35:06 -0800
> From: l...@wikimedia.org
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant  
> offer?
> 
> Hi Gnangarra,
> 
> Thank you for forwarding, the authors of the article seem to be confused
> about the nature of the project. Our Comms team is working to clarify this.
> Please expect to see something from us in next few days.
> 
> Lila
> 
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Gnangarra <gnanga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > FYI making main stream media
> >
> >
> > http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-15/wikimedia-foundation-aims-to-take-on-google-in-search/7168840
> >
> > On 14 February 2016 at 00:49, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Anne, we're talking about almost the same thing, but not exactly. I say
> > > "advised" you say "consulted". "Consulted" implies soliciting or
> > expecting
> > > some kind of response or engagement - probably
> > > approval/disapproval/critique/input. "Advised" means they got the memo. I
> > > think "advised" is enough, and if the board wants more engagement, they
> > can
> > > initiate it - presuming the notification is clear and comprehensive, of
> > > course.
> > >
> > > Anthony Cole
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Well, I'm not sure about that, Anthony.  By "consulted", I would mean
> > > > something to the effect of "We're looking at applying to XX for a grant
> > > of
> > > > $YYY to do ZZZ" and asking the Board if they would be likely to agree
> > to
> > > > accept such a grant if the application is successful.  The grant
> > > > application, evaluation and approval process is costly in both time and
> > > > resources, and for both the applicant and the grantmaker.  Being
> > informed
> > > > that a grant has been approved sounds more like a fait accompli
> > situation
> > > > for the Board - they look petty and ungrateful if they say no, even if
> > > they
> > > > don't think it was a reasonable grant application.  In this case, we're
> > > > only dealing with $250,000.  What if this was $1 million?  $10 million?
> > > >
> > > > I think it is healthier for everyone if the Board is properly consulted
> > > > before the application is submitted.  (And again, I note that we don't
> > > know
> > > > how much was actually requested in this case, only what was granted.)
> > > >
> > > > Risker/Anne
> > > >
> > > > On 12 February 2016 at 21:23, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Anne, regarding:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Since the Board must approve acceptance of any donations over
> > $100,000
> > > > > USD, it seems to be obvious that they should be consulted and
> > possibly
> > > > > should actively approve any grant applications where the dollar value
> > > > > sought is higher than that amount."
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not sure that the board should be *consulted* ahead of such
> > > > > applications' or should prior-approve all such applications. That
> > > seems a
> > > > > bit like micromanagement. But it makes sense to me for the board to
> > be
> > > > > *advised
> > > > > *of such applications and when they're being actively contemplated or
> > > > > prepared.
> > > > >
> > > > > Anthony Cole
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way, Gerard. I personally
> > would
> > > > like
> > > > > > to feel more assured that the WMF is looking into the longer future

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Lila Tretikov]

Hi Gnangarra,

Thank you for forwarding, the authors of the article seem to be confused
about the nature of the project. Our Comms team is working to clarify this.
Please expect to see something from us in next few days.

Lila

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:

> FYI making main stream media
>
>
> http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-15/wikimedia-foundation-aims-to-take-on-google-in-search/7168840
>
> On 14 February 2016 at 00:49, Anthony Cole  wrote:
>
> > Anne, we're talking about almost the same thing, but not exactly. I say
> > "advised" you say "consulted". "Consulted" implies soliciting or
> expecting
> > some kind of response or engagement - probably
> > approval/disapproval/critique/input. "Advised" means they got the memo. I
> > think "advised" is enough, and if the board wants more engagement, they
> can
> > initiate it - presuming the notification is clear and comprehensive, of
> > course.
> >
> > Anthony Cole
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Risker  wrote:
> >
> > > Well, I'm not sure about that, Anthony.  By "consulted", I would mean
> > > something to the effect of "We're looking at applying to XX for a grant
> > of
> > > $YYY to do ZZZ" and asking the Board if they would be likely to agree
> to
> > > accept such a grant if the application is successful.  The grant
> > > application, evaluation and approval process is costly in both time and
> > > resources, and for both the applicant and the grantmaker.  Being
> informed
> > > that a grant has been approved sounds more like a fait accompli
> situation
> > > for the Board - they look petty and ungrateful if they say no, even if
> > they
> > > don't think it was a reasonable grant application.  In this case, we're
> > > only dealing with $250,000.  What if this was $1 million?  $10 million?
> > >
> > > I think it is healthier for everyone if the Board is properly consulted
> > > before the application is submitted.  (And again, I note that we don't
> > know
> > > how much was actually requested in this case, only what was granted.)
> > >
> > > Risker/Anne
> > >
> > > On 12 February 2016 at 21:23, Anthony Cole 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Anne, regarding:
> > > >
> > > > "Since the Board must approve acceptance of any donations over
> $100,000
> > > > USD, it seems to be obvious that they should be consulted and
> possibly
> > > > should actively approve any grant applications where the dollar value
> > > > sought is higher than that amount."
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure that the board should be *consulted* ahead of such
> > > > applications' or should prior-approve all such applications. That
> > seems a
> > > > bit like micromanagement. But it makes sense to me for the board to
> be
> > > > *advised
> > > > *of such applications and when they're being actively contemplated or
> > > > prepared.
> > > >
> > > > Anthony Cole
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Risker  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way, Gerard. I personally
> would
> > > like
> > > > > to feel more assured that the WMF is looking into the longer future
> > and
> > > > > actively plannning for the day that donations no longer support a
> > large
> > > > > staff doing lots of things.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am concerned today that the team specifically tasked to work
> > closely
> > > > with
> > > > > so many elements of the community has lost 7% of its staff, and 30%
> > of
> > > > its
> > > > > leaders, in a single week. This should be a concern in any
> > > organization.
> > > > >
> > > > > With respect to the Knight grant - I know that many times grant
> > > > > applications are made for considerably more than is given, and I am
> > > > > interested to know how much the WMF requested in the first place.
> I
> > > > would
> > > > > also like to know whether or not the Board was formally advised of
> > the
> > > > > request before it was submitted.  Since the Board must approve
> > > acceptance
> > > > > of any donations over $100,000 USD, it seems to be obvious that
> they
> > > > should
> > > > > be consulted and possibly should actively approve any grant
> > > applications
> > > > > where the dollar value sought is higher than that amount.  I don't
> > > > believe
> > > > > the current policies require advance approval or even advance
> > > > notification,
> > > > > though.
> > > > >
> > > > > Risker/Anne
> > > > >
> > > > > On 12 February 2016 at 03:54, Gerard Meijssen <
> > > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hoi,
> > > > > > I am not complaining. I point out that all this huha does not get
> > us
> > > > > > anywhere. I am not afraid to give an opinion and I am not afraid
> to
> > > be
> > > > a
> > > > > > contrarian when I think it makes sense. Yes, things happened that
> > > were
> > > > > not
> > > > > > beautiful. They are not what upset me. What 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Gnangarra]

FYI making main stream media

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-15/wikimedia-foundation-aims-to-take-on-google-in-search/7168840

On 14 February 2016 at 00:49, Anthony Cole  wrote:

> Anne, we're talking about almost the same thing, but not exactly. I say
> "advised" you say "consulted". "Consulted" implies soliciting or expecting
> some kind of response or engagement - probably
> approval/disapproval/critique/input. "Advised" means they got the memo. I
> think "advised" is enough, and if the board wants more engagement, they can
> initiate it - presuming the notification is clear and comprehensive, of
> course.
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Risker  wrote:
>
> > Well, I'm not sure about that, Anthony.  By "consulted", I would mean
> > something to the effect of "We're looking at applying to XX for a grant
> of
> > $YYY to do ZZZ" and asking the Board if they would be likely to agree to
> > accept such a grant if the application is successful.  The grant
> > application, evaluation and approval process is costly in both time and
> > resources, and for both the applicant and the grantmaker.  Being informed
> > that a grant has been approved sounds more like a fait accompli situation
> > for the Board - they look petty and ungrateful if they say no, even if
> they
> > don't think it was a reasonable grant application.  In this case, we're
> > only dealing with $250,000.  What if this was $1 million?  $10 million?
> >
> > I think it is healthier for everyone if the Board is properly consulted
> > before the application is submitted.  (And again, I note that we don't
> know
> > how much was actually requested in this case, only what was granted.)
> >
> > Risker/Anne
> >
> > On 12 February 2016 at 21:23, Anthony Cole  wrote:
> >
> > > Anne, regarding:
> > >
> > > "Since the Board must approve acceptance of any donations over $100,000
> > > USD, it seems to be obvious that they should be consulted and possibly
> > > should actively approve any grant applications where the dollar value
> > > sought is higher than that amount."
> > >
> > > I'm not sure that the board should be *consulted* ahead of such
> > > applications' or should prior-approve all such applications. That
> seems a
> > > bit like micromanagement. But it makes sense to me for the board to be
> > > *advised
> > > *of such applications and when they're being actively contemplated or
> > > prepared.
> > >
> > > Anthony Cole
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Risker  wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way, Gerard. I personally would
> > like
> > > > to feel more assured that the WMF is looking into the longer future
> and
> > > > actively plannning for the day that donations no longer support a
> large
> > > > staff doing lots of things.
> > > >
> > > > I am concerned today that the team specifically tasked to work
> closely
> > > with
> > > > so many elements of the community has lost 7% of its staff, and 30%
> of
> > > its
> > > > leaders, in a single week. This should be a concern in any
> > organization.
> > > >
> > > > With respect to the Knight grant - I know that many times grant
> > > > applications are made for considerably more than is given, and I am
> > > > interested to know how much the WMF requested in the first place.  I
> > > would
> > > > also like to know whether or not the Board was formally advised of
> the
> > > > request before it was submitted.  Since the Board must approve
> > acceptance
> > > > of any donations over $100,000 USD, it seems to be obvious that they
> > > should
> > > > be consulted and possibly should actively approve any grant
> > applications
> > > > where the dollar value sought is higher than that amount.  I don't
> > > believe
> > > > the current policies require advance approval or even advance
> > > notification,
> > > > though.
> > > >
> > > > Risker/Anne
> > > >
> > > > On 12 February 2016 at 03:54, Gerard Meijssen <
> > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hoi,
> > > > > I am not complaining. I point out that all this huha does not get
> us
> > > > > anywhere. I am not afraid to give an opinion and I am not afraid to
> > be
> > > a
> > > > > contrarian when I think it makes sense. Yes, things happened that
> > were
> > > > not
> > > > > beautiful. They are not what upset me. What upsets me is that
> people
> > > like
> > > > > Siko and Anna are leaving. Because they are part of "my" Wikimedia
> > > > > Foundation. What upsets me is that I routinely use Magnus's tool
> and
> > > > > process hundreds of thousands of records and am to understand that
> > > > official
> > > > > query is stunted and does not allow for this "because it was not in
> > the
> > > > > design" and it is then pointed out that it takes money to solve
> > this...
> > > > >
> > > > > My point is that baying for blood is not what helps us forward.
> What

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Anthony Cole]

Anne, we're talking about almost the same thing, but not exactly. I say
"advised" you say "consulted". "Consulted" implies soliciting or expecting
some kind of response or engagement - probably
approval/disapproval/critique/input. "Advised" means they got the memo. I
think "advised" is enough, and if the board wants more engagement, they can
initiate it - presuming the notification is clear and comprehensive, of
course.

Anthony Cole


On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Risker  wrote:

> Well, I'm not sure about that, Anthony.  By "consulted", I would mean
> something to the effect of "We're looking at applying to XX for a grant of
> $YYY to do ZZZ" and asking the Board if they would be likely to agree to
> accept such a grant if the application is successful.  The grant
> application, evaluation and approval process is costly in both time and
> resources, and for both the applicant and the grantmaker.  Being informed
> that a grant has been approved sounds more like a fait accompli situation
> for the Board - they look petty and ungrateful if they say no, even if they
> don't think it was a reasonable grant application.  In this case, we're
> only dealing with $250,000.  What if this was $1 million?  $10 million?
>
> I think it is healthier for everyone if the Board is properly consulted
> before the application is submitted.  (And again, I note that we don't know
> how much was actually requested in this case, only what was granted.)
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On 12 February 2016 at 21:23, Anthony Cole  wrote:
>
> > Anne, regarding:
> >
> > "Since the Board must approve acceptance of any donations over $100,000
> > USD, it seems to be obvious that they should be consulted and possibly
> > should actively approve any grant applications where the dollar value
> > sought is higher than that amount."
> >
> > I'm not sure that the board should be *consulted* ahead of such
> > applications' or should prior-approve all such applications. That seems a
> > bit like micromanagement. But it makes sense to me for the board to be
> > *advised
> > *of such applications and when they're being actively contemplated or
> > prepared.
> >
> > Anthony Cole
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Risker  wrote:
> >
> > > I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way, Gerard. I personally would
> like
> > > to feel more assured that the WMF is looking into the longer future and
> > > actively plannning for the day that donations no longer support a large
> > > staff doing lots of things.
> > >
> > > I am concerned today that the team specifically tasked to work closely
> > with
> > > so many elements of the community has lost 7% of its staff, and 30% of
> > its
> > > leaders, in a single week. This should be a concern in any
> organization.
> > >
> > > With respect to the Knight grant - I know that many times grant
> > > applications are made for considerably more than is given, and I am
> > > interested to know how much the WMF requested in the first place.  I
> > would
> > > also like to know whether or not the Board was formally advised of the
> > > request before it was submitted.  Since the Board must approve
> acceptance
> > > of any donations over $100,000 USD, it seems to be obvious that they
> > should
> > > be consulted and possibly should actively approve any grant
> applications
> > > where the dollar value sought is higher than that amount.  I don't
> > believe
> > > the current policies require advance approval or even advance
> > notification,
> > > though.
> > >
> > > Risker/Anne
> > >
> > > On 12 February 2016 at 03:54, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > I am not complaining. I point out that all this huha does not get us
> > > > anywhere. I am not afraid to give an opinion and I am not afraid to
> be
> > a
> > > > contrarian when I think it makes sense. Yes, things happened that
> were
> > > not
> > > > beautiful. They are not what upset me. What upsets me is that people
> > like
> > > > Siko and Anna are leaving. Because they are part of "my" Wikimedia
> > > > Foundation. What upsets me is that I routinely use Magnus's tool and
> > > > process hundreds of thousands of records and am to understand that
> > > official
> > > > query is stunted and does not allow for this "because it was not in
> the
> > > > design" and it is then pointed out that it takes money to solve
> this...
> > > >
> > > > My point is that baying for blood is not what helps us forward. What
> I
> > do
> > > > know is that when sheer negativity is not coupled with an ability to
> > stop
> > > > and move forward, we will get in a downward spiral. I fault Pine for
> > not
> > > > being able to stop. What I wish for is for people like Anna and Siko
> > and
> > > > money for our environment and not for an endowment.
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >   GerardM
> > > >
> > > > On 12 February 2016 at 09:35, Michel Vuijlsteke 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Jane Darnell]

Thanks for this breakdown of events/intentions/grant request. I can't help
wondering whether this grant will produce anything at all that we can use.
As I recall we talked a lot about how bad search was in general on
Wikipedia projects, and the example used to demonstrate how poor this was,
was a comparison test. Gerard mentioned how badly Wikimedia Commons
responds to the search term "horse" as compared to Google's interpretation
of "horse". I believe the conclusion was that we needed to integrate Google
search into Wikipedia, not try to compete with Google at their game.
Meanwhile, with Wikidata, we are very slowly filling the "depicts" property
with "horse"  for artwork items of horses, but it will take years probably
before all images on Commons with horses in them have found their way to
Wikidata, much less get tagged with a depicts property! Looking at "horse"
in reasonator does indicate some progress, however, note that not all
images served up by Reasonator actually show a horse:
https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?q=Q726=en

Why should we try to beat Google at search? These days, if I am looking for
an image of a horse on Wikimedia Commons, I dump this into Google: "
site.commons.wikimedia.org horse" and then I click on images. This is the
most effective way for me to find images on commons that I know are there
(inlcuding ones I uploaded myself).

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Liam Wyatt  wrote:

> This Grant document for a “Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia” is
> *specifically and overtly stating* that its purpose is to start work
> on an search engine as a rival for Google/Yahoo. That is the end goal
> of the project. Near near the bottom of page 10 it summarises the
> whole project as:
>
> "knowledge Engine by Wikipedia will be the internet's first
> transparent search engine, and the first one originated by the
> Wikimedia Foundation". It will, "democratize the discovery of media,
> news and information – it will make the Internet's most relevant
> information more accessible and openly curated, and it will create an
> open data engine that's completely free of commercial interests.
> Today, commercial search engines dominate search engine use of the
> internet...". A separate summary on page 2 states, "The project will
> pave the way for non-commercial information to be found and utilised
> by internet users".
>
> At the bottom of page 13, the primary risk identified is "interference
> by Google, Yahoo or another big commercial search engine could
> suddenly devote resources to a similar project". As SarahSV pointed
> out above, If the "Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia" is only about
> improving the inter-connectedness of the Wikimedia sister projects by
> improving how internal systems work - which no one is disputing is a
> very useful goal - then google/yahoo releasing a new search engine
> product would not be counted as the project's "biggest challenge".
>
> - "Non commercial" -
>
> The document itself refers to "non commercial" several times, and
> seems to be using the term loosely. Nevertheless, it seems clear to me
> that any reasonable person who is not deeply-immersed in
> copyright-debates about the definition of "free" would understand the
> words "non-commercial" in the context of *this document* to mean that
> the search engine is *operated* non-commercially. Now, I do
> acknowledge that a grant-request is by definition a “sales pitch” and
> you have to write your request using the terminology and focus areas
> of the grant-giver. However, it is my understanding that Lila
> specifically wanted to build this - a competitor to Google - and that
> this is most clearly expressed in the summary on page 10. It describes
> the 6 principles through which the “Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia”
> will "upend the commercial structure [of search engines]". These are
> Public Curation, Transparency, Open Data, Privacy, No Advertising and
> 'Internalisation'. Nothing in this document talks about ways to limit
> the *content* of the search engine to only "non-commercial" stuff (and
> I if it did, then we would be talking about this:
> https://search.creativecommons.org/ ).
>
> - Lack of Strategy -
>
> Now, maybe an open-source search engine would be a good thing for the
> WMF to create! But that would be a major strategic decision. It would
> be, in effect, a new sister project to sit alongside (above?)
> Wikipedia, Commons, Wikidata etc. However, this concept appears
> *nowhere* in the current strategy consultation documents on Meta. As I
> wrote on my blog last week: "Of 18 different approaches identified in
> the...consultation process only one of them seems directly related to
> [search]: 'Explore ways to scale machine-generated, machine-verified
> and machine-assisted content'. It is also literally the last of the 18
> topics listed".
> http://wittylama.com/2016/01/30/strategy-controversy-part-2/
>
> It seems to me extremely damaging for the relationship with the 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Pine as you are talking about "self inflicting wounds" I take it you are
not talking in your personal capacity. When is it enough for you? When are
you going to talk about positive things, things that will move us forward.
Why ask for blood and more blood? What is it that you hope to achieve?

Who do you represent in this unending litany of negativity and what have
you achieved in this way? When Lila was engaged in her role, she was to
direct in a different direction and she is doing that. You may not like it
and that is ok.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 12 February 2016 at 08:43, Pine W  wrote:

> Dariusz, thanks for continuing to engage here. Besides the good questions
> that others have asked, I'll add a few:
>
> 1. If the Knowledge Engine is such an important project, why is it not
> mentioned in
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16?
>
> 2. I realize that as a percentage of the WMF budget, $250k is a relatively
> small number. As others have said, this is not a reason for opacity about
> it, nor a reason for not having a conversation with the community about
> something so strategically important as a decision to explore the question
> of "Would users go to Wikipedia if it were an open channel beyond an
> encyclopedia?" It's one thing to have a blue-sky exercise thinking about
> possibilities, and another thing to take a $250k step in that direction,
> especially without consulting the community.
>
> 3. I am getting tired about seeing bad news in general about WMF
> governance, planning, and turnover. I am curious how you plan to address
> those issues. Like you, I would rather that we be talking about our
> movement plans for the next 10 years. However, it's difficult to have those
> conversations when WMF is making so many self-inflicted wounds. The recent
> round of resignations is of respectable people from the WMF staff is making
> the situation that much more concerning and that much more difficult to
> recover from. It seems to me that WMF leadership has lost control of this
> situation, and I'd like to hear what the recovery plan is. Personally, I
> feel that we need leadership that can build good relationships with the
> staff and community, is transparent by default, and is capable of restoring
> the credibility of the organization's planning, execution, and goodwill. I
> think that we may need new leadership to make that happen. I am interested
> to hear your thoughts.
>
> Pine
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
> wrote:
>
> > 11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV"  napisał(a):
> > >
> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > > ​Hi ​
> > > Dariusz,
> > >
> > > ​T​
> > > he grant application doesn't restrict the search engine to Wikimedia
> > projects. It says that the "Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia [is a] system
> for
> > discovering reliable and trustworthy public information on the Internet.
> >
> > My understanding is that the top range could potentially be all
> open/public
> > resources, but this is the far stretched total goal, and still not a
> > general search engine of all content including commercial one.
> >
> > And a rrasonable realistic outcome can be just improving our searches
> > across projects.
> >
> > I can't comment on the initial ideas or goals, as I was not on the Board
> > before August 2015, but this is what I understand we build now.
> >
> > .
> > >
> > > The document says the "Search Engine by Wikipedia" budget for 2015–2016
> > ($2.4 million) was approved by the ​board. Can you point us to which
> board
> > meeting approved it and what was discussed there?
> > >
> >
> > I dont recall this specifically, and I'm going to elude this question by
> > going to sleep (and hoping someone better informed may pick).
> >
> > Good night!
> >
> > Dj
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Michel Vuijlsteke]

Gerard,

I was waiting for this mail. For me personally, your complaining is
achieving exactly the opposite of what you think.

It sounds as if you'd much rather prefer to stick your head in the sand and
hope things will blow over. "Move along, nothing to see here -- oh look!
something positive over there!" is not going to solve anything.

Michel

On 12 February 2016 at 09:24, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Pine as you are talking about "self inflicting wounds" I take it you are
> not talking in your personal capacity. When is it enough for you? When are
> you going to talk about positive things, things that will move us forward.
> Why ask for blood and more blood? What is it that you hope to achieve?
>
> Who do you represent in this unending litany of negativity and what have
> you achieved in this way? When Lila was engaged in her role, she was to
> direct in a different direction and she is doing that. You may not like it
> and that is ok.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> On 12 February 2016 at 08:43, Pine W  wrote:
>
> > Dariusz, thanks for continuing to engage here. Besides the good questions
> > that others have asked, I'll add a few:
> >
> > 1. If the Knowledge Engine is such an important project, why is it not
> > mentioned in
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16
> ?
> >
> > 2. I realize that as a percentage of the WMF budget, $250k is a
> relatively
> > small number. As others have said, this is not a reason for opacity about
> > it, nor a reason for not having a conversation with the community about
> > something so strategically important as a decision to explore the
> question
> > of "Would users go to Wikipedia if it were an open channel beyond an
> > encyclopedia?" It's one thing to have a blue-sky exercise thinking about
> > possibilities, and another thing to take a $250k step in that direction,
> > especially without consulting the community.
> >
> > 3. I am getting tired about seeing bad news in general about WMF
> > governance, planning, and turnover. I am curious how you plan to address
> > those issues. Like you, I would rather that we be talking about our
> > movement plans for the next 10 years. However, it's difficult to have
> those
> > conversations when WMF is making so many self-inflicted wounds. The
> recent
> > round of resignations is of respectable people from the WMF staff is
> making
> > the situation that much more concerning and that much more difficult to
> > recover from. It seems to me that WMF leadership has lost control of this
> > situation, and I'd like to hear what the recovery plan is. Personally, I
> > feel that we need leadership that can build good relationships with the
> > staff and community, is transparent by default, and is capable of
> restoring
> > the credibility of the organization's planning, execution, and goodwill.
> I
> > think that we may need new leadership to make that happen. I am
> interested
> > to hear your thoughts.
> >
> > Pine
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV"  napisał(a):
> > > >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > > ​Hi ​
> > > > Dariusz,
> > > >
> > > > ​T​
> > > > he grant application doesn't restrict the search engine to Wikimedia
> > > projects. It says that the "Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia [is a] system
> > for
> > > discovering reliable and trustworthy public information on the
> Internet.
> > >
> > > My understanding is that the top range could potentially be all
> > open/public
> > > resources, but this is the far stretched total goal, and still not a
> > > general search engine of all content including commercial one.
> > >
> > > And a rrasonable realistic outcome can be just improving our searches
> > > across projects.
> > >
> > > I can't comment on the initial ideas or goals, as I was not on the
> Board
> > > before August 2015, but this is what I understand we build now.
> > >
> > > .
> > > >
> > > > The document says the "Search Engine by Wikipedia" budget for
> 2015–2016
> > > ($2.4 million) was approved by the ​board. Can you point us to which
> > board
> > > meeting approved it and what was discussed there?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I dont recall this specifically, and I'm going to elude this question
> by
> > > going to sleep (and hoping someone better informed may pick).
> > >
> > > Good night!
> > >
> > > Dj
> > > ___
> > > 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:
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I am not complaining. I point out that all this huha does not get us
anywhere. I am not afraid to give an opinion and I am not afraid to be a
contrarian when I think it makes sense. Yes, things happened that were not
beautiful. They are not what upset me. What upsets me is that people like
Siko and Anna are leaving. Because they are part of "my" Wikimedia
Foundation. What upsets me is that I routinely use Magnus's tool and
process hundreds of thousands of records and am to understand that official
query is stunted and does not allow for this "because it was not in the
design" and it is then pointed out that it takes money to solve this...

My point is that baying for blood is not what helps us forward. What I do
know is that when sheer negativity is not coupled with an ability to stop
and move forward, we will get in a downward spiral. I fault Pine for not
being able to stop. What I wish for is for people like Anna and Siko and
money for our environment and not for an endowment.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 12 February 2016 at 09:35, Michel Vuijlsteke  wrote:

> Gerard,
>
> I was waiting for this mail. For me personally, your complaining is
> achieving exactly the opposite of what you think.
>
> It sounds as if you'd much rather prefer to stick your head in the sand and
> hope things will blow over. "Move along, nothing to see here -- oh look!
> something positive over there!" is not going to solve anything.
>
> Michel
>
> On 12 February 2016 at 09:24, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Pine as you are talking about "self inflicting wounds" I take it you are
> > not talking in your personal capacity. When is it enough for you? When
> are
> > you going to talk about positive things, things that will move us
> forward.
> > Why ask for blood and more blood? What is it that you hope to achieve?
> >
> > Who do you represent in this unending litany of negativity and what have
> > you achieved in this way? When Lila was engaged in her role, she was to
> > direct in a different direction and she is doing that. You may not like
> it
> > and that is ok.
> > Thanks,
> >GerardM
> >
> > On 12 February 2016 at 08:43, Pine W  wrote:
> >
> > > Dariusz, thanks for continuing to engage here. Besides the good
> questions
> > > that others have asked, I'll add a few:
> > >
> > > 1. If the Knowledge Engine is such an important project, why is it not
> > > mentioned in
> > >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16
> > ?
> > >
> > > 2. I realize that as a percentage of the WMF budget, $250k is a
> > relatively
> > > small number. As others have said, this is not a reason for opacity
> about
> > > it, nor a reason for not having a conversation with the community about
> > > something so strategically important as a decision to explore the
> > question
> > > of "Would users go to Wikipedia if it were an open channel beyond an
> > > encyclopedia?" It's one thing to have a blue-sky exercise thinking
> about
> > > possibilities, and another thing to take a $250k step in that
> direction,
> > > especially without consulting the community.
> > >
> > > 3. I am getting tired about seeing bad news in general about WMF
> > > governance, planning, and turnover. I am curious how you plan to
> address
> > > those issues. Like you, I would rather that we be talking about our
> > > movement plans for the next 10 years. However, it's difficult to have
> > those
> > > conversations when WMF is making so many self-inflicted wounds. The
> > recent
> > > round of resignations is of respectable people from the WMF staff is
> > making
> > > the situation that much more concerning and that much more difficult to
> > > recover from. It seems to me that WMF leadership has lost control of
> this
> > > situation, and I'd like to hear what the recovery plan is. Personally,
> I
> > > feel that we need leadership that can build good relationships with the
> > > staff and community, is transparent by default, and is capable of
> > restoring
> > > the credibility of the organization's planning, execution, and
> goodwill.
> > I
> > > think that we may need new leadership to make that happen. I am
> > interested
> > > to hear your thoughts.
> > >
> > > Pine
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak  >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > 11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV"  napisał(a):
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > > ​Hi ​
> > > > > Dariusz,
> > > > >
> > > > > ​T​
> > > > > he grant application doesn't restrict the search engine to
> Wikimedia
> > > > projects. It says that the "Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia [is a]
> system
> > > for
> > > > discovering reliable and trustworthy public information on the
> > Internet.
> > > >
> > > > My understanding is that the top range could potentially be all
> > > open/public
> > > > resources, but this is the far stretched total 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Robert Fernandez]

Actually, you are complaining.

I am against relentless negativity of the kind you see from many
self-styled and self-important Wikipedia critics.  I'd hardly put Pine in
that group.  The idea that Pine's measured and reasonable post could be
described as "baying for blood" is ridiculous.

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 3:54 AM, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> I am not complaining. I point out that all this huha does not get us
> anywhere. I am not afraid to give an opinion and I am not afraid to be a
> contrarian when I think it makes sense. Yes, things happened that were not
> beautiful. They are not what upset me. What upsets me is that people like
> Siko and Anna are leaving. Because they are part of "my" Wikimedia
> Foundation. What upsets me is that I routinely use Magnus's tool and
> process hundreds of thousands of records and am to understand that official
> query is stunted and does not allow for this "because it was not in the
> design" and it is then pointed out that it takes money to solve this...
>
> My point is that baying for blood is not what helps us forward. What I do
> know is that when sheer negativity is not coupled with an ability to stop
> and move forward, we will get in a downward spiral. I fault Pine for not
> being able to stop. What I wish for is for people like Anna and Siko and
> money for our environment and not for an endowment.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 12 February 2016 at 09:35, Michel Vuijlsteke  wrote:
>
> > Gerard,
> >
> > I was waiting for this mail. For me personally, your complaining is
> > achieving exactly the opposite of what you think.
> >
> > It sounds as if you'd much rather prefer to stick your head in the sand
> and
> > hope things will blow over. "Move along, nothing to see here -- oh look!
> > something positive over there!" is not going to solve anything.
> >
> > Michel
> >
> > On 12 February 2016 at 09:24, Gerard Meijssen  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > Pine as you are talking about "self inflicting wounds" I take it you
> are
> > > not talking in your personal capacity. When is it enough for you? When
> > are
> > > you going to talk about positive things, things that will move us
> > forward.
> > > Why ask for blood and more blood? What is it that you hope to achieve?
> > >
> > > Who do you represent in this unending litany of negativity and what
> have
> > > you achieved in this way? When Lila was engaged in her role, she was to
> > > direct in a different direction and she is doing that. You may not like
> > it
> > > and that is ok.
> > > Thanks,
> > >GerardM
> > >
> > > On 12 February 2016 at 08:43, Pine W  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dariusz, thanks for continuing to engage here. Besides the good
> > questions
> > > > that others have asked, I'll add a few:
> > > >
> > > > 1. If the Knowledge Engine is such an important project, why is it
> not
> > > > mentioned in
> > > >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16
> > > ?
> > > >
> > > > 2. I realize that as a percentage of the WMF budget, $250k is a
> > > relatively
> > > > small number. As others have said, this is not a reason for opacity
> > about
> > > > it, nor a reason for not having a conversation with the community
> about
> > > > something so strategically important as a decision to explore the
> > > question
> > > > of "Would users go to Wikipedia if it were an open channel beyond an
> > > > encyclopedia?" It's one thing to have a blue-sky exercise thinking
> > about
> > > > possibilities, and another thing to take a $250k step in that
> > direction,
> > > > especially without consulting the community.
> > > >
> > > > 3. I am getting tired about seeing bad news in general about WMF
> > > > governance, planning, and turnover. I am curious how you plan to
> > address
> > > > those issues. Like you, I would rather that we be talking about our
> > > > movement plans for the next 10 years. However, it's difficult to have
> > > those
> > > > conversations when WMF is making so many self-inflicted wounds. The
> > > recent
> > > > round of resignations is of respectable people from the WMF staff is
> > > making
> > > > the situation that much more concerning and that much more difficult
> to
> > > > recover from. It seems to me that WMF leadership has lost control of
> > this
> > > > situation, and I'd like to hear what the recovery plan is.
> Personally,
> > I
> > > > feel that we need leadership that can build good relationships with
> the
> > > > staff and community, is transparent by default, and is capable of
> > > restoring
> > > > the credibility of the organization's planning, execution, and
> > goodwill.
> > > I
> > > > think that we may need new leadership to make that happen. I am
> > > interested
> > > > to hear your thoughts.
> > > >
> > > > Pine
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Risker]

I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way, Gerard. I personally would like
to feel more assured that the WMF is looking into the longer future and
actively plannning for the day that donations no longer support a large
staff doing lots of things.

I am concerned today that the team specifically tasked to work closely with
so many elements of the community has lost 7% of its staff, and 30% of its
leaders, in a single week. This should be a concern in any organization.

With respect to the Knight grant - I know that many times grant
applications are made for considerably more than is given, and I am
interested to know how much the WMF requested in the first place.  I would
also like to know whether or not the Board was formally advised of the
request before it was submitted.  Since the Board must approve acceptance
of any donations over $100,000 USD, it seems to be obvious that they should
be consulted and possibly should actively approve any grant applications
where the dollar value sought is higher than that amount.  I don't believe
the current policies require advance approval or even advance notification,
though.

Risker/Anne

On 12 February 2016 at 03:54, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> I am not complaining. I point out that all this huha does not get us
> anywhere. I am not afraid to give an opinion and I am not afraid to be a
> contrarian when I think it makes sense. Yes, things happened that were not
> beautiful. They are not what upset me. What upsets me is that people like
> Siko and Anna are leaving. Because they are part of "my" Wikimedia
> Foundation. What upsets me is that I routinely use Magnus's tool and
> process hundreds of thousands of records and am to understand that official
> query is stunted and does not allow for this "because it was not in the
> design" and it is then pointed out that it takes money to solve this...
>
> My point is that baying for blood is not what helps us forward. What I do
> know is that when sheer negativity is not coupled with an ability to stop
> and move forward, we will get in a downward spiral. I fault Pine for not
> being able to stop. What I wish for is for people like Anna and Siko and
> money for our environment and not for an endowment.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 12 February 2016 at 09:35, Michel Vuijlsteke  wrote:
>
> > Gerard,
> >
> > I was waiting for this mail. For me personally, your complaining is
> > achieving exactly the opposite of what you think.
> >
> > It sounds as if you'd much rather prefer to stick your head in the sand
> and
> > hope things will blow over. "Move along, nothing to see here -- oh look!
> > something positive over there!" is not going to solve anything.
> >
> > Michel
> >
> > On 12 February 2016 at 09:24, Gerard Meijssen  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > Pine as you are talking about "self inflicting wounds" I take it you
> are
> > > not talking in your personal capacity. When is it enough for you? When
> > are
> > > you going to talk about positive things, things that will move us
> > forward.
> > > Why ask for blood and more blood? What is it that you hope to achieve?
> > >
> > > Who do you represent in this unending litany of negativity and what
> have
> > > you achieved in this way? When Lila was engaged in her role, she was to
> > > direct in a different direction and she is doing that. You may not like
> > it
> > > and that is ok.
> > > Thanks,
> > >GerardM
> > >
> > > On 12 February 2016 at 08:43, Pine W  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dariusz, thanks for continuing to engage here. Besides the good
> > questions
> > > > that others have asked, I'll add a few:
> > > >
> > > > 1. If the Knowledge Engine is such an important project, why is it
> not
> > > > mentioned in
> > > >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16
> > > ?
> > > >
> > > > 2. I realize that as a percentage of the WMF budget, $250k is a
> > > relatively
> > > > small number. As others have said, this is not a reason for opacity
> > about
> > > > it, nor a reason for not having a conversation with the community
> about
> > > > something so strategically important as a decision to explore the
> > > question
> > > > of "Would users go to Wikipedia if it were an open channel beyond an
> > > > encyclopedia?" It's one thing to have a blue-sky exercise thinking
> > about
> > > > possibilities, and another thing to take a $250k step in that
> > direction,
> > > > especially without consulting the community.
> > > >
> > > > 3. I am getting tired about seeing bad news in general about WMF
> > > > governance, planning, and turnover. I am curious how you plan to
> > address
> > > > those issues. Like you, I would rather that we be talking about our
> > > > movement plans for the next 10 years. However, it's difficult to have
> > > those
> > > > conversations when WMF is making so many self-inflicted wounds. The
> > > recent
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Risker]

Well, I'm not sure about that, Anthony.  By "consulted", I would mean
something to the effect of "We're looking at applying to XX for a grant of
$YYY to do ZZZ" and asking the Board if they would be likely to agree to
accept such a grant if the application is successful.  The grant
application, evaluation and approval process is costly in both time and
resources, and for both the applicant and the grantmaker.  Being informed
that a grant has been approved sounds more like a fait accompli situation
for the Board - they look petty and ungrateful if they say no, even if they
don't think it was a reasonable grant application.  In this case, we're
only dealing with $250,000.  What if this was $1 million?  $10 million?

I think it is healthier for everyone if the Board is properly consulted
before the application is submitted.  (And again, I note that we don't know
how much was actually requested in this case, only what was granted.)

Risker/Anne

On 12 February 2016 at 21:23, Anthony Cole  wrote:

> Anne, regarding:
>
> "Since the Board must approve acceptance of any donations over $100,000
> USD, it seems to be obvious that they should be consulted and possibly
> should actively approve any grant applications where the dollar value
> sought is higher than that amount."
>
> I'm not sure that the board should be *consulted* ahead of such
> applications' or should prior-approve all such applications. That seems a
> bit like micromanagement. But it makes sense to me for the board to be
> *advised
> *of such applications and when they're being actively contemplated or
> prepared.
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Risker  wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way, Gerard. I personally would like
> > to feel more assured that the WMF is looking into the longer future and
> > actively plannning for the day that donations no longer support a large
> > staff doing lots of things.
> >
> > I am concerned today that the team specifically tasked to work closely
> with
> > so many elements of the community has lost 7% of its staff, and 30% of
> its
> > leaders, in a single week. This should be a concern in any organization.
> >
> > With respect to the Knight grant - I know that many times grant
> > applications are made for considerably more than is given, and I am
> > interested to know how much the WMF requested in the first place.  I
> would
> > also like to know whether or not the Board was formally advised of the
> > request before it was submitted.  Since the Board must approve acceptance
> > of any donations over $100,000 USD, it seems to be obvious that they
> should
> > be consulted and possibly should actively approve any grant applications
> > where the dollar value sought is higher than that amount.  I don't
> believe
> > the current policies require advance approval or even advance
> notification,
> > though.
> >
> > Risker/Anne
> >
> > On 12 February 2016 at 03:54, Gerard Meijssen  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > I am not complaining. I point out that all this huha does not get us
> > > anywhere. I am not afraid to give an opinion and I am not afraid to be
> a
> > > contrarian when I think it makes sense. Yes, things happened that were
> > not
> > > beautiful. They are not what upset me. What upsets me is that people
> like
> > > Siko and Anna are leaving. Because they are part of "my" Wikimedia
> > > Foundation. What upsets me is that I routinely use Magnus's tool and
> > > process hundreds of thousands of records and am to understand that
> > official
> > > query is stunted and does not allow for this "because it was not in the
> > > design" and it is then pointed out that it takes money to solve this...
> > >
> > > My point is that baying for blood is not what helps us forward. What I
> do
> > > know is that when sheer negativity is not coupled with an ability to
> stop
> > > and move forward, we will get in a downward spiral. I fault Pine for
> not
> > > being able to stop. What I wish for is for people like Anna and Siko
> and
> > > money for our environment and not for an endowment.
> > > Thanks,
> > >   GerardM
> > >
> > > On 12 February 2016 at 09:35, Michel Vuijlsteke 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Gerard,
> > > >
> > > > I was waiting for this mail. For me personally, your complaining is
> > > > achieving exactly the opposite of what you think.
> > > >
> > > > It sounds as if you'd much rather prefer to stick your head in the
> sand
> > > and
> > > > hope things will blow over. "Move along, nothing to see here -- oh
> > look!
> > > > something positive over there!" is not going to solve anything.
> > > >
> > > > Michel
> > > >
> > > > On 12 February 2016 at 09:24, Gerard Meijssen <
> > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hoi,
> > > > > Pine as you are talking about "self inflicting wounds" I take it
> you
> > > are
> > > > > not talking in your 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Anthony Cole]

Anne, regarding:

"Since the Board must approve acceptance of any donations over $100,000
USD, it seems to be obvious that they should be consulted and possibly
should actively approve any grant applications where the dollar value
sought is higher than that amount."

I'm not sure that the board should be *consulted* ahead of such
applications' or should prior-approve all such applications. That seems a
bit like micromanagement. But it makes sense to me for the board to be *advised
*of such applications and when they're being actively contemplated or
prepared.

Anthony Cole


On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Risker  wrote:

> I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way, Gerard. I personally would like
> to feel more assured that the WMF is looking into the longer future and
> actively plannning for the day that donations no longer support a large
> staff doing lots of things.
>
> I am concerned today that the team specifically tasked to work closely with
> so many elements of the community has lost 7% of its staff, and 30% of its
> leaders, in a single week. This should be a concern in any organization.
>
> With respect to the Knight grant - I know that many times grant
> applications are made for considerably more than is given, and I am
> interested to know how much the WMF requested in the first place.  I would
> also like to know whether or not the Board was formally advised of the
> request before it was submitted.  Since the Board must approve acceptance
> of any donations over $100,000 USD, it seems to be obvious that they should
> be consulted and possibly should actively approve any grant applications
> where the dollar value sought is higher than that amount.  I don't believe
> the current policies require advance approval or even advance notification,
> though.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On 12 February 2016 at 03:54, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > I am not complaining. I point out that all this huha does not get us
> > anywhere. I am not afraid to give an opinion and I am not afraid to be a
> > contrarian when I think it makes sense. Yes, things happened that were
> not
> > beautiful. They are not what upset me. What upsets me is that people like
> > Siko and Anna are leaving. Because they are part of "my" Wikimedia
> > Foundation. What upsets me is that I routinely use Magnus's tool and
> > process hundreds of thousands of records and am to understand that
> official
> > query is stunted and does not allow for this "because it was not in the
> > design" and it is then pointed out that it takes money to solve this...
> >
> > My point is that baying for blood is not what helps us forward. What I do
> > know is that when sheer negativity is not coupled with an ability to stop
> > and move forward, we will get in a downward spiral. I fault Pine for not
> > being able to stop. What I wish for is for people like Anna and Siko and
> > money for our environment and not for an endowment.
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> > On 12 February 2016 at 09:35, Michel Vuijlsteke 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Gerard,
> > >
> > > I was waiting for this mail. For me personally, your complaining is
> > > achieving exactly the opposite of what you think.
> > >
> > > It sounds as if you'd much rather prefer to stick your head in the sand
> > and
> > > hope things will blow over. "Move along, nothing to see here -- oh
> look!
> > > something positive over there!" is not going to solve anything.
> > >
> > > Michel
> > >
> > > On 12 February 2016 at 09:24, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > Pine as you are talking about "self inflicting wounds" I take it you
> > are
> > > > not talking in your personal capacity. When is it enough for you?
> When
> > > are
> > > > you going to talk about positive things, things that will move us
> > > forward.
> > > > Why ask for blood and more blood? What is it that you hope to
> achieve?
> > > >
> > > > Who do you represent in this unending litany of negativity and what
> > have
> > > > you achieved in this way? When Lila was engaged in her role, she was
> to
> > > > direct in a different direction and she is doing that. You may not
> like
> > > it
> > > > and that is ok.
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >GerardM
> > > >
> > > > On 12 February 2016 at 08:43, Pine W  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Dariusz, thanks for continuing to engage here. Besides the good
> > > questions
> > > > > that others have asked, I'll add a few:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. If the Knowledge Engine is such an important project, why is it
> > not
> > > > > mentioned in
> > > > >
> > >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16
> > > > ?
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. I realize that as a percentage of the WMF budget, $250k is a
> > > > relatively
> > > > > small number. As others have said, this is not a reason for opacity
> > > about
> > > > > it, nor a reason for 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Gnangarra]

some rules and guidelines are a throw back to earlier years and should be
adjusted for rather than given significance over current practices.

where once a donation of 100,00 was considered potentially as content
influencing now its appreciated for what it is, the reality is that its not
the donations but rather the grants both given directly to a project or
those being sort by the WMF for a project that are the concerns. The BoT
should review these at some point the volunteer community should also be
consulted before acceptance

donation: is something given freely
Grant: is something given for a purpose

On 13 February 2016 at 10:23, Anthony Cole  wrote:

> Anne, regarding:
>
> "Since the Board must approve acceptance of any donations over $100,000
> USD, it seems to be obvious that they should be consulted and possibly
> should actively approve any grant applications where the dollar value
> sought is higher than that amount."
>
> I'm not sure that the board should be *consulted* ahead of such
> applications' or should prior-approve all such applications. That seems a
> bit like micromanagement. But it makes sense to me for the board to be
> *advised
> *of such applications and when they're being actively contemplated or
> prepared.
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Risker  wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way, Gerard. I personally would like
> > to feel more assured that the WMF is looking into the longer future and
> > actively plannning for the day that donations no longer support a large
> > staff doing lots of things.
> >
> > I am concerned today that the team specifically tasked to work closely
> with
> > so many elements of the community has lost 7% of its staff, and 30% of
> its
> > leaders, in a single week. This should be a concern in any organization.
> >
> > With respect to the Knight grant - I know that many times grant
> > applications are made for considerably more than is given, and I am
> > interested to know how much the WMF requested in the first place.  I
> would
> > also like to know whether or not the Board was formally advised of the
> > request before it was submitted.  Since the Board must approve acceptance
> > of any donations over $100,000 USD, it seems to be obvious that they
> should
> > be consulted and possibly should actively approve any grant applications
> > where the dollar value sought is higher than that amount.  I don't
> believe
> > the current policies require advance approval or even advance
> notification,
> > though.
> >
> > Risker/Anne
> >
> > On 12 February 2016 at 03:54, Gerard Meijssen  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > I am not complaining. I point out that all this huha does not get us
> > > anywhere. I am not afraid to give an opinion and I am not afraid to be
> a
> > > contrarian when I think it makes sense. Yes, things happened that were
> > not
> > > beautiful. They are not what upset me. What upsets me is that people
> like
> > > Siko and Anna are leaving. Because they are part of "my" Wikimedia
> > > Foundation. What upsets me is that I routinely use Magnus's tool and
> > > process hundreds of thousands of records and am to understand that
> > official
> > > query is stunted and does not allow for this "because it was not in the
> > > design" and it is then pointed out that it takes money to solve this...
> > >
> > > My point is that baying for blood is not what helps us forward. What I
> do
> > > know is that when sheer negativity is not coupled with an ability to
> stop
> > > and move forward, we will get in a downward spiral. I fault Pine for
> not
> > > being able to stop. What I wish for is for people like Anna and Siko
> and
> > > money for our environment and not for an endowment.
> > > Thanks,
> > >   GerardM
> > >
> > > On 12 February 2016 at 09:35, Michel Vuijlsteke 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Gerard,
> > > >
> > > > I was waiting for this mail. For me personally, your complaining is
> > > > achieving exactly the opposite of what you think.
> > > >
> > > > It sounds as if you'd much rather prefer to stick your head in the
> sand
> > > and
> > > > hope things will blow over. "Move along, nothing to see here -- oh
> > look!
> > > > something positive over there!" is not going to solve anything.
> > > >
> > > > Michel
> > > >
> > > > On 12 February 2016 at 09:24, Gerard Meijssen <
> > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hoi,
> > > > > Pine as you are talking about "self inflicting wounds" I take it
> you
> > > are
> > > > > not talking in your personal capacity. When is it enough for you?
> > When
> > > > are
> > > > > you going to talk about positive things, things that will move us
> > > > forward.
> > > > > Why ask for blood and more blood? What is it that you hope to
> > achieve?
> > > > >
> > > > > Who do you represent in this unending litany of negativity and what
> > > have
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Pine W]

My impression of this whole situation with the Knight Foundation is that
the WMF's strong tendency toward closed-door and closed-loop processes are
hurting WMF more than helping it. If WMF had been transparent with the
community about this situation in the first place and a consultation with
the community had happened as negotiations were underway with Knight, I am
wondering if a mutually agreeable solution could have been created at that
time. Now we're in the midst of a lot of skepticism, suspicion, and
political difficulties.

Perhaps after the experiences of the past few months WMF governance will
re-align itself with the value of openness.

Hope springs eternal,

Pine
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Pine W]

Dariusz, thanks for continuing to engage here. Besides the good questions
that others have asked, I'll add a few:

1. If the Knowledge Engine is such an important project, why is it not
mentioned in
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16?

2. I realize that as a percentage of the WMF budget, $250k is a relatively
small number. As others have said, this is not a reason for opacity about
it, nor a reason for not having a conversation with the community about
something so strategically important as a decision to explore the question
of "Would users go to Wikipedia if it were an open channel beyond an
encyclopedia?" It's one thing to have a blue-sky exercise thinking about
possibilities, and another thing to take a $250k step in that direction,
especially without consulting the community.

3. I am getting tired about seeing bad news in general about WMF
governance, planning, and turnover. I am curious how you plan to address
those issues. Like you, I would rather that we be talking about our
movement plans for the next 10 years. However, it's difficult to have those
conversations when WMF is making so many self-inflicted wounds. The recent
round of resignations is of respectable people from the WMF staff is making
the situation that much more concerning and that much more difficult to
recover from. It seems to me that WMF leadership has lost control of this
situation, and I'd like to hear what the recovery plan is. Personally, I
feel that we need leadership that can build good relationships with the
staff and community, is transparent by default, and is capable of restoring
the credibility of the organization's planning, execution, and goodwill. I
think that we may need new leadership to make that happen. I am interested
to hear your thoughts.

Pine



On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
wrote:

> 11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV"  napisał(a):
> >
>
> >>
> >>
> > ​Hi ​
> > Dariusz,
> >
> > ​T​
> > he grant application doesn't restrict the search engine to Wikimedia
> projects. It says that the "Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia [is a] system for
> discovering reliable and trustworthy public information on the Internet.
>
> My understanding is that the top range could potentially be all open/public
> resources, but this is the far stretched total goal, and still not a
> general search engine of all content including commercial one.
>
> And a rrasonable realistic outcome can be just improving our searches
> across projects.
>
> I can't comment on the initial ideas or goals, as I was not on the Board
> before August 2015, but this is what I understand we build now.
>
> .
> >
> > The document says the "Search Engine by Wikipedia" budget for 2015–2016
> ($2.4 million) was approved by the ​board. Can you point us to which board
> meeting approved it and what was discussed there?
> >
>
> I dont recall this specifically, and I'm going to elude this question by
> going to sleep (and hoping someone better informed may pick).
>
> Good night!
>
> Dj
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Lisa Gruwell]

Hi All-

The funder has agreed to share the Knowledge Engine grant agreement.  Here
are the links to that document and other relevant communication about the
Discovery team's work:

1) Knowledge Engine Grant Agreement

2) Statement from Lila on her talk page and discussion

3) Discovery FAQ 

Thank you,
Lisa Gruwell

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 1:03 AM, Pine W  wrote:

> My impression of this whole situation with the Knight Foundation is that
> the WMF's strong tendency toward closed-door and closed-loop processes are
> hurting WMF more than helping it. If WMF had been transparent with the
> community about this situation in the first place and a consultation with
> the community had happened as negotiations were underway with Knight, I am
> wondering if a mutually agreeable solution could have been created at that
> time. Now we're in the midst of a lot of skepticism, suspicion, and
> political difficulties.
>
> Perhaps after the experiences of the past few months WMF governance will
> re-align itself with the value of openness.
>
> Hope springs eternal,
>
> Pine
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

hi Pine,


On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 4:03 AM, Pine W  wrote:

> My impression of this whole situation with the Knight Foundation is that
> the WMF's strong tendency toward closed-door and closed-loop processes are
> hurting WMF more than helping it. If WMF had been transparent with the
> community about this situation in the first place and a consultation with
> the community had happened as negotiations were underway with Knight, I am
> wondering if a mutually agreeable solution could have been created at that
> time. Now we're in the midst of a lot of skepticism, suspicion, and
> political difficulties.
>

I am not certain if it would even make sense for the WMF to engage the
community every time it applies for an exploratory grant in such amount
(roughly 1/300th of its budget). Also, after some consultation internally,
my understanding is that in practice it will often not be sensible to
insist on publishing grant applications, basically because many donors are
just not as progressive as we would like them to be, and we do not want to
decrease our chances for a grant in the future (donors may not be
comfortable releasing this, and in the same time they will not want to be
singled out in public as the only ones who refused).

Having stated that, I am happy to acknowledge that in this particular case
(of a great, open-minded donor, with whom we have a good and long
relationship) it is reasonable (and possible) to release this info, also to
cut the wild speculations.

Lisa - awesome job, many thanks for making this happen!

best,

dj
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Pine W]

Lisa, thank you.

I am getting the sense from the available information about this grant that
the Knight Foundation is well intentioned. My concerns here, and I think
that the concerns from other community members, are primarily related to
WMF's handling of this situation. I for one would be happy to see
improvements to internal search on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons that
would benefit our readers as well as our community members.

On WMF's side, since WMF is exploring the question "Would users go to
Wikipedia if it were an open channel beyond an encyclopedia?" (quote from
page 2 of the grant document), it seems to me that potential re-scoping of
Wikipedia would merit a conversation with the community. Looking at page 10
of the grant, the scope of the Knowledge Engine project appears to be
aligned with Wikimedia values, but it looks to me like the scope and
methods of implementing the Knowledge Project should have been discussed
with the community.

Dariuz, regarding your statement that

> after some consultation internally, my understanding is that in practice
it will often
> not be sensible to insist on publishing grant applications, basically
because many
> donors are just not as progressive as we would like them to be, and we do
not
> want to decrease our chances for a grant in the future (donors may not be
> comfortable releasing this, and in the same time they will not want to be
singled
> out in public as the only ones who refused).

I would respond by saying that openness is a value in the Wikimedia
movement and that our values should not be for sale at any price. Policy
and practice should be that documents for all restricted grants received by
WMF will be published on Commons and that the community will be notified of
all restricted grants that are being contemplated by WMF. If a potential
donor is uncomfortable with that, then they can donate unrestricted funds
anonymously, and those funds must be spent only on programs that are
explicitly authorized under WMF's published annual plans or sent to the
reserve or the endowment. Again I will say that I hope that our value of
openness is not for sale at any price.

Pine
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Anthony Cole]

It was obviously evolving as the project moved from initial
conceptualisation to the establishment of the Discovery team but,
nevertheless, a clear, meaningful statement of the vision for the project
(as it was imagined at the time) would have been appropriate when the team
was put together. I think Lila has recently acknowledged this.

The present focus seems to be on improving search within Wikimedia, but the
language used by both WMF and Knight leaves them open to later extending
Wikipedia's search options to include free knowledge outside our projects.
I fully support both improving internal search and later offering the
reader the option of including reliable outside sources in their search.

And I support the ED's right - obligation really - to initiate and
adequately fund projects like this.

On Friday, 12 February 2016, SarahSV  wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
> wrote:
>
> > If we are to survive the next 10 years as the top 10 website, we should
> > focus externally more, and start building more stuff that our readers
> care
> > about. I totally agree that WMF has failed on many occasions here, and
> we,
> > the community, were right (when I recall the first deployment of the VE I
> > grit my teeth). But ultimately we need to be really able to move on, to
> be
> > able to move forward.
> >
> > dj
> >
> >
> Dariuz, when I first heard about this, I understood it to mean that the
> Foundation was seeking to fix the Wikimedia search function, which is
> really very poor. But this seems to be a proposal to create an entirely new
> search engine to complement Google, which will cost many millions.
>
> Sarah
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 5:42 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> Did you notice MZMcBride's recent link, demonstrating that then-Executive
>> Director Sue Gardner asserted exactly the opposite, explicitly as policy?
>> To my knowledge, there has not been any new policy articulated to change
>> that; so even though it was 2011, I would understand this to still be WMF
>> policy.[1]
>>
>
My understanding is that it was an expression of Sue's genuine intent, that
has not been consistently followed, nor made into a policy.


>
> I am also curious about the characterization of a $250k grant as
> "smaller." While there are certainly much larger grants, it seems to me
> that it being over the $100k threshold that subjects it to the WMF Gift
> Policy would naturally classify it as "larger." Certainly, when I worked in
> grant fund-raising for WMF it was unthinkable that we would ever accept a
> restricted grant for less than $100k; this was a firmly held principle. But
> perhaps that is another policy that has been changed (or forgotten?)
>

Well, for an organization with our budget, it definitely is not a "big
picture" grant. Of course a threshold has to be put somewhere. I'm not
aware of actual WMF classifications. I only referred to "large" as
"significantly affecting strategy".



> Many professionals who are deeply involved in the Wikimedia and open
> knowledge movements have already commented on this topic in great detail.
> There is strong consensus around the value of transparency; while there may
> be an opposing view (and while there are certainly some pieces of
> information that should not be published), I have yet to hear a generally
> anti-transparency view articulated. Have you?
>

I don't think it is transparency vs. non-transparency. Rather, it is
operational effectiveness vs. good communication with the community. Both
are important and being transparent is definitely something we should do
more.



>
> I surveyed the views of the following individuals in my blog post last
> month:
> * Former WMF executive director Sue Gardner
> * Former WMF deputy director Erik Moller
> * WMF advisory board member (former?) Wayne Mackintosh
> * Mozilla executive director Mark Surman
> * Various members of the fund-raising and fund-disseminating departments
> of WMF, past and present
> http://wikistrategies.net/grant-transparency/
>
> There is a strong trend toward transparency in the philanthropy world. WMF
> has long been a guiding light in that trend in its grant-GIVING capacity,
> and in certain instances has reflected those values around the grant it
> receives as well.
>

I think this is very useful as a background, thanks for taking the time to
gather this!



>
> If there is a new, contrary policy -- or even a contrary predilection,
> beyond your own opinions as an individual trustee -- I think this is
> something that should be publicly stated.
>

I'm not aware of any policy of this sort, either way.


>
> Transparency is important, but it should not be reduced to the community
>> having access to all documents if it may impair our work.
>
>
> I agree with this, but it is a straw man. Nobody could reasonably expect
> ALL documents to be shared publicly (and if they have stated otherwise, I'm
> confident that is merely a kind of shorthand). The important conversation
> is about default positions; exceptions are always worth considering, and
> often justified.
>

My only point is that I have a feeling that perhaps there is more to do
outside of our microcosm.


>
>
> I do not believe those activities are opposed to more clearly articulating
> what has happened around the Knight grant. I believe those things overlap
> strongly; the board need not turn its attention from one to the other. The
> very core issue around the Knowledge Engine grant is that it seems to stray
> widely from the common understanding of the vision and the wider horizon.
>

I don't refer to Knight grant specifically. I refer to the general approach
- we lack the strategic vision and focus on issues that matter for this
organization's survival, and we zero in a grant that is worth 1/300 of its
budget disproportionately. The misunderstandings should be clarified, of
course.


>
>
> Desirable, but not an absolute requirement. Our vision statement doesn't
> even require us to be a web site. There are many compromises that we should
> not make in pursuit of this goal.
>

sure, but you know what I mean. Surviving is not easy when you're a fat cat
used to being fine.


>
> we should focus externally more,
>
>
> Citation needed -- it seems there is very strong consensus lately that
> there are major problems within the Wikimedia Foundation. I hope that
> Trustees will not ignore these views, coming from a wide variety of
> respectable sources, with mere counter-assertion.
>

there is no citation needed, this is my opinion that to survive the next 10
years we should focus on what we need to do. Surely, we can improve the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 6:11 PM, SarahSV  wrote:

>
>>
> Dariuz, when I first heard about this, I understood it to mean that the
> Foundation was seeking to fix the Wikimedia search function, which is
> really very poor. But this seems to be a proposal to create an entirely new
> search engine to complement Google, which will cost many millions.
>
>
>
My understanding is essentially that we want to engage in a search engine
that would encompass all Wikimedia projects. I can't imagine us effectively
competing Google and I would not consider this to be a sensible direction
(not because it is not tempting, but because it is too costly and risky).

dj
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[SarahSV]

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

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

Sarah
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Pine W  wrote:

>
> I would respond by saying that openness is a value in the Wikimedia
> movement and that our values should not be for sale at any price. Policy
> and practice should be that documents for all restricted grants received by
> WMF will be published on Commons and that the community will be notified of
> all restricted grants that are being contemplated by WMF. If a potential
> donor is uncomfortable with that, then they can donate unrestricted funds
> anonymously, and those funds must be spent only on programs that are
> explicitly authorized under WMF's published annual plans or sent to the
> reserve or the endowment. Again I will say that I hope that our value of
> openness is not for sale at any price.
>

You twist  my argument as I was proposing to put our values for sale. I
don't think it is even borderline close to ASG, or other norms typical for
Wikimedia space, and I don't think it is a fair reflection of what I wrote.

I believe that it may be impractical to require all grant applications,
especially of smaller amount,  to be made public, if it impacts our ability
to gather funds. It is a decision that we should make after listening to
professionals in this area (who have sat with the big donors on hundreds of
occasions, and also know our movement inside-out), not just being driven by
a natural tendency that we want to know more.

Transparency is important, but it should not be reduced to the community
having access to all documents if it may impair our work. It is also
transparency of process (understanding HOW a decision is made, not
necessarily seeing all documents), and also the reasoning (explaining WHY
either WMF or the Board believe or do something). In both areas there is a
scope for improvement and I am a full supporter of such improvements.

And yet, the bigger picture is that we have been literally flooded with
information requests and comments over the last two months, and we have
spent most of our time on that. I understand the context and I'd say it is
understandable in the circumstances and fine. But at some point the Board
also needs to focus on what it is for as well: setting the vision, thinking
about the wider horizon.

If we are to survive the next 10 years as the top 10 website, we should
focus externally more, and start building more stuff that our readers care
about. I totally agree that WMF has failed on many occasions here, and we,
the community, were right (when I recall the first deployment of the VE I
grit my teeth). But ultimately we need to be really able to move on, to be
able to move forward.

dj




>
>



*Please, note, that this email will expire at some point. Bookmark
 dariusz.jemieln...@fulbrightmail.org
 as a more permanent contact
address. *
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Pete Forsyth]

Dariusz,

Thank you for engaging on this. I believe the important thing now is to
understand what happened specifically with the Knowledge Engine grant; but
you make a claim about a more general policy that I think should be
addressed. (I will address KE issues separately.)

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
wrote:

> I believe that it may be impractical to require all grant applications,
> especially of smaller amount,  to be made public, if it impacts our ability
> to gather funds.


Did you notice MZMcBride's recent link, demonstrating that then-Executive
Director Sue Gardner asserted exactly the opposite, explicitly as policy?
To my knowledge, there has not been any new policy articulated to change
that; so even though it was 2011, I would understand this to still be WMF
policy.[1]

I am also curious about the characterization of a $250k grant as "smaller."
While there are certainly much larger grants, it seems to me that it being
over the $100k threshold that subjects it to the WMF Gift Policy would
naturally classify it as "larger." Certainly, when I worked in grant
fund-raising for WMF it was unthinkable that we would ever accept a
restricted grant for less than $100k; this was a firmly held principle. But
perhaps that is another policy that has been changed (or forgotten?)


> It is a decision that we should make after listening to
> professionals in this area (who have sat with the big donors on hundreds of
> occasions, and also know our movement inside-out), not just being driven by
> a natural tendency that we want to know more.
>

Many professionals who are deeply involved in the Wikimedia and open
knowledge movements have already commented on this topic in great detail.
There is strong consensus around the value of transparency; while there may
be an opposing view (and while there are certainly some pieces of
information that should not be published), I have yet to hear a generally
anti-transparency view articulated. Have you?

I surveyed the views of the following individuals in my blog post last
month:
* Former WMF executive director Sue Gardner
* Former WMF deputy director Erik Moller
* WMF advisory board member (former?) Wayne Mackintosh
* Mozilla executive director Mark Surman
* Various members of the fund-raising and fund-disseminating departments of
WMF, past and present
http://wikistrategies.net/grant-transparency/

There is a strong trend toward transparency in the philanthropy world. WMF
has long been a guiding light in that trend in its grant-GIVING capacity,
and in certain instances has reflected those values around the grant it
receives as well.

If there is a new, contrary policy -- or even a contrary predilection,
beyond your own opinions as an individual trustee -- I think this is
something that should be publicly stated.

Transparency is important, but it should not be reduced to the community
> having access to all documents if it may impair our work.


I agree with this, but it is a straw man. Nobody could reasonably expect
ALL documents to be shared publicly (and if they have stated otherwise, I'm
confident that is merely a kind of shorthand). The important conversation
is about default positions; exceptions are always worth considering, and
often justified.


> It is also
> transparency of process (understanding HOW a decision is made, not
> necessarily seeing all documents), and also the reasoning (explaining WHY
> either WMF or the Board believe or do something). In both areas there is a
> scope for improvement and I am a full supporter of such improvements.
>

Strongly agree, and thank you for addressing this.

And yet, the bigger picture is that we have been literally flooded with
> information requests and comments over the last two months, and we have
> spent most of our time on that. I understand the context and I'd say it is
> understandable in the circumstances and fine.


Again, thank you for acknowledging. When mistakes are made, often a
consequence is that more work needs to be done.


> But at some point the Board also needs to focus on what it is for as well:
> setting the vision, thinking about the wider horizon.


I do not believe those activities are opposed to more clearly articulating
what has happened around the Knight grant. I believe those things overlap
strongly; the board need not turn its attention from one to the other. The
very core issue around the Knowledge Engine grant is that it seems to stray
widely from the common understanding of the vision and the wider horizon.


> If we are to survive the next 10 years as the top 10 website,


Desirable, but not an absolute requirement. Our vision statement doesn't
even require us to be a web site. There are many compromises that we should
not make in pursuit of this goal.

we should focus externally more,


Citation needed -- it seems there is very strong consensus lately that
there are major problems within the Wikimedia Foundation. I hope that
Trustees will not 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Samuel Klein]

Thanks for sharing, always interesting to see these processes in detail.

On Feb 11, 2016 19:53, "Anthony Cole"
> I fully support both improving internal search and later offering the
> reader the option of including reliable outside sources in their search.
>
> And I support the ED's right - obligation really - to initiate and
> adequately fund projects like this.

Agreed on all counts.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV"  napisał(a):
>

>>
>>
> ​Hi ​
> Dariusz,
>
> ​T​
> he grant application doesn't restrict the search engine to Wikimedia
projects. It says that the "Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia [is a] system for
discovering reliable and trustworthy public information on the Internet.

My understanding is that the top range could potentially be all open/public
resources, but this is the far stretched total goal, and still not a
general search engine of all content including commercial one.

And a rrasonable realistic outcome can be just improving our searches
across projects.

I can't comment on the initial ideas or goals, as I was not on the Board
before August 2015, but this is what I understand we build now.

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

I dont recall this specifically, and I'm going to elude this question by
going to sleep (and hoping someone better informed may pick).

Good night!

Dj
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[SarahSV]

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Sarah
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Ruslan Takayev]

Andreas, et al

James' now-released email is quite damning in many aspects.

I am very concerned that James was essentially bullied by way of threat
into voting in the affirmative by other members of the BoT. James, would
you care to name those Trustees who did this? Given the recent Harassment
Survey results, it should be clear that there is NO room for harassment on
WMF projects, and those who threatened/bullied you should stand down
immediately.

Lila also has a lot to answer for in not making the BoT aware of what the
Knight Foundation grant was all about beforehand. Lila, any chance you can
explain why?

I can feel a further rift and a vote of no confidence in both the BoT and
WMF management coming on.

Warm regards,

Ruslan Takayev

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 4:47 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> More on this from James Heilman and others in the current Signpost issue.
>
> From the editors: Help wanted
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/From_the_editors
>
> In focus: The Knight Foundation grant: a timeline and an email to the board
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/In_focus
>
> Op-ed: So, what’s a knowledge engine anyway?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/Op-ed
>
> Special report: Board chair and new trustee speak with the ''Signpost''
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/Special_report
>
> Traffic report: Bowled
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/Traffic_report
>
> News and notes: Harassment survey 2015; Luis Villa to leave WMF; knowledge
> engine background
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/News_and_notes
>
> Featured content: This week's featured content
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/Featured_content
>
> Arbitration report: Catching up on arbitration
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/Arbitration_report
>
>
> Single page view
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single/2016-02-03
>
> PDF version
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03
>
>
> https://www.facebook.com/wikisignpost / https://twitter.com/wikisignpost
> --
> Wikipedia Signpost Staff
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost
>
> Andreas
>
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 6:17 AM, Tim Starling 
> wrote:
>
> > On 07/02/16 09:41, Chris Keating wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I have some one question for you.
> > >>
> > >> I am having a very hard time wrapping my head around how the grant
> > >> information you posted lead to WMF BoT voting James Heilman of the
> > board in
> > >> a vote of no-confidence.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Ruslan - what makes you think the two issues are connected?
> > >
> > > I have heard nothing from the WMF that suggests that they are.
> > >
> > > A few other people are trying to draw some link between the two, but
> the
> > > burden of proof is on them not on Lila
> >
> > Maybe you missed this:
> >
> > <
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/James_Heilman_removal_FAQ#What_happened.3F
> > >
> >
> > In which James Heilman, by way of explaining why he was removed from
> > the board, complains of a lack of transparency, links to the
> > announcement of the Knight Foundation grant, and comments "many
> > details however are still missing."
> >
> > -- Tim Starling
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Andreas Kolbe]

More on this from James Heilman and others in the current Signpost issue.

From the editors: Help wanted
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/From_the_editors

In focus: The Knight Foundation grant: a timeline and an email to the board
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/In_focus

Op-ed: So, what’s a knowledge engine anyway?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/Op-ed

Special report: Board chair and new trustee speak with the ''Signpost''
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/Special_report

Traffic report: Bowled
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/Traffic_report

News and notes: Harassment survey 2015; Luis Villa to leave WMF; knowledge
engine background
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/News_and_notes

Featured content: This week's featured content
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/Featured_content

Arbitration report: Catching up on arbitration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/Arbitration_report


Single page view
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single/2016-02-03

PDF version
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03


https://www.facebook.com/wikisignpost / https://twitter.com/wikisignpost
--
Wikipedia Signpost Staff
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost

Andreas

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 6:17 AM, Tim Starling 
wrote:

> On 07/02/16 09:41, Chris Keating wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> I have some one question for you.
> >>
> >> I am having a very hard time wrapping my head around how the grant
> >> information you posted lead to WMF BoT voting James Heilman of the
> board in
> >> a vote of no-confidence.
> >>
> >
> > Ruslan - what makes you think the two issues are connected?
> >
> > I have heard nothing from the WMF that suggests that they are.
> >
> > A few other people are trying to draw some link between the two, but the
> > burden of proof is on them not on Lila
>
> Maybe you missed this:
>
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/James_Heilman_removal_FAQ#What_happened.3F
> >
>
> In which James Heilman, by way of explaining why he was removed from
> the board, complains of a lack of transparency, links to the
> announcement of the Knight Foundation grant, and comments "many
> details however are still missing."
>
> -- Tim Starling
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Ruslan Takayev]

Chris, et al

Ruslan - what makes you think the two issues are connected?
>

James was pushing for greater transparency on the BoT. This is the one
major issue that arose during James on the board that wasn't transparent at
the time.

You can put 2 + 2 together from that.


> I have heard nothing from the WMF that suggests that they are.
>

We've heard sound bytes, but we haven't heard anything of substance from
the BoT on the issue of why James was ushered off the Board.

>
> A few other people are trying to draw some link between the two, but the
> burden of proof is on them not on Lila
>

Lila could easily shut down these lines of questioning by publishing the
grant application, as was originally requested by others.

Warm regards,

Ruslan Takayev

On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 6:41 AM, Chris Keating 
wrote:

> >
> >
> > I have some one question for you.
> >
> > I am having a very hard time wrapping my head around how the grant
> > information you posted lead to WMF BoT voting James Heilman of the board
> in
> > a vote of no-confidence.
> >
>
> Ruslan - what makes you think the two issues are connected?
>
> I have heard nothing from the WMF that suggests that they are.
>
> A few other people are trying to draw some link between the two, but the
> burden of proof is on them not on Lila
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Tim Starling]

On 07/02/16 09:41, Chris Keating wrote:
>>
>>
>> I have some one question for you.
>>
>> I am having a very hard time wrapping my head around how the grant
>> information you posted lead to WMF BoT voting James Heilman of the board in
>> a vote of no-confidence.
>>
> 
> Ruslan - what makes you think the two issues are connected?
> 
> I have heard nothing from the WMF that suggests that they are.
> 
> A few other people are trying to draw some link between the two, but the
> burden of proof is on them not on Lila

Maybe you missed this:



In which James Heilman, by way of explaining why he was removed from
the board, complains of a lack of transparency, links to the
announcement of the Knight Foundation grant, and comments "many
details however are still missing."

-- Tim Starling


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Chris Keating]

>
>
> I have some one question for you.
>
> I am having a very hard time wrapping my head around how the grant
> information you posted lead to WMF BoT voting James Heilman of the board in
> a vote of no-confidence.
>

Ruslan - what makes you think the two issues are connected?

I have heard nothing from the WMF that suggests that they are.

A few other people are trying to draw some link between the two, but the
burden of proof is on them not on Lila

Regards,

Chris
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Ruslan Takayev]

Hi Lila, et al

I have some one question for you.

I am having a very hard time wrapping my head around how the grant
information you posted lead to WMF BoT voting James Heilman of the board in
a vote of no-confidence.

Something just doesn't add up here.

Any chance you can publish the actual grant application from the WMF to the
Knight Foundation?

I am guessing that the devil will be in those details; details which thus
far the WMF has kept completely under wraps.

I look forward to you releasing the grant application at your earliest
convenience.

Warm regards,

Ruslan Takayev


On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 7:27 AM, Lila Tretikov  wrote:

> Hi Anthony,
>
> I know this request was for the Board, but I took time to explain as much
> as I could about the context of this grant and the work it funds as well as
> to answer as many questions as possible that I have seen. I realize many
> people a curious about what it actually funds, so you will find the
> statement of work cut and pasted there.
>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)#Knowledge_Engine_grant
> <
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fmeta.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FUser_talk%3ALilaTretikov_%28WMF%29%23Knowledge_Engine_grant=D=1=AFQjCNHbv_CPFd5d3dh7WKET5YlNSZvHdA
> >
>
> Hope this answers some of your questions,
> Lila
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Anthony Cole  wrote:
>
> > Just copying part of Andreas's comment from another thread:
> >
> > "...can the board now please come to a decision on whether the Knight
> > Foundation grant letter and grant application documents will be posted on
> > Meta, and if not, provide an explanation to the community why they cannot
> > be made public?
> >
> > "To recap, Jimmy Wales said over two weeks ago on his talk page[1] that
> in
> > his opinion the documentation should be posted on Meta, to clear the air
> > around this issue. However, nothing appears to have happened since then."
> >
> > [1]
> >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales=698861097=698860874
> >
> > Anthony Cole
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
>
>
>
>
> --
> Lila Tretikov
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> *“Be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid.”*
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi
Several WIkipedias extended their search with functionality by Magnus that
provides them info from Wikidata. It is why you find results from any
Wikipedia on the Tamil Wikipedia for one.

There is no reason why we cannot do this everywhere.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 30 January 2016 at 00:50, SarahSV  wrote:

> Lila, thank you for posting this. I have no technical background, so I only
> have a limited understanding of how the Discovery project works. But as an
> editor and reader I've been frustrated by the limitations of Wikipedia
> search. Even things that I know are there, because I added them myself, are
> regularly not returned. Sometimes for reasons I can't fathom; sometimes
> because I've mistyped something.
>
> It's the same with Siri on iPhone. I ask it something that I know is on
> Wikipedia and it can't seem to find it. Or it will return a link to
> articles in which certain terms appear. But people don't want to have to
> look at whole articles.
>
> We have this enormous and wonderful amount of knowledge to some extent
> trapped inside Wikipedia. How do we unlock it? How do we teach computers
> how to find and deliver it? In future, could Wikipedia reply to questions
> on people's phones, instead of Siri?
>
> This kind of research sounds very exciting, and the Foundation is
> well-placed to do it.
>
> Sarah
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Lila Tretikov  wrote:
>
> > Hi Anthony,
> >
> > I know this request was for the Board, but I took time to explain as much
> > as I could about the context of this grant and the work it funds as well
> as
> > to answer as many questions as possible that I have seen. I realize many
> > people a curious about what it actually funds, so you will find the
> > statement of work cut and pasted there.
> >
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)#Knowledge_Engine_grant
> > <
> >
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fmeta.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FUser_talk%3ALilaTretikov_%28WMF%29%23Knowledge_Engine_grant=D=1=AFQjCNHbv_CPFd5d3dh7WKET5YlNSZvHdA
> > >
> >
> > Hope this answers some of your questions,
> > Lila
> >
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[MZMcBride]

Lila Tretikov wrote:
>I know this request was for the Board, but I took time to explain as much
>as I could about the context of this grant and the work it funds as well
>as to answer as many questions as possible that I have seen. I realize
>many people a curious about what it actually funds, so you will find the
>statement of work cut and pasted there.
>
>https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Permalink/15294825

Thank you for this post, Lila. It provides a lot of helpful context and
understanding surrounding the Knight Foundation's recent restricted grant.
One part of this arrangement still confuses me. In the linked post, you
write, "With this grant we brought the idea to the funder and they
supported our work with this grant."

Why ask for and take the money? The Wikimedia Foundation can raise
$250,000 in a few days (maybe hours) by placing ads on a few large
Wikipedias soliciting donations. Why take on a restricted grant, with its
necessary reporting overhead and other administrative costs?

You also write:
---
Why should the community and staff support this decision of our board and
leadership?

I would hope that for staff, the answer to this question is clear.
---

This is very aggressive. I'm not sure this type of attitude is aligned
with an idealistic, non-profit educational organization.

For the general issue, you point out that the Wikimedia Foundation Board
of Trustees is required to approve large (over $100,000) restricted
grants. I think the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees (copied) should
modify its acceptance requirements to mandate that large restricted grants
have their grant agreements and other related paperwork publicly
published. This would not apply retroactively. Publishing the grant
paperwork fits in well well with our transparency principles and values.

For the specific issue, who can be contacted at the Knight Foundation to
ask about publishing the grant paperwork? Presumably the Knight Foundation
and the Wikimedia Foundation, having just partnered, share values. Is the
Knight Foundation okay with the full grant agreement being published?

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Lila Tretikov]

Hi Anthony,

I know this request was for the Board, but I took time to explain as much
as I could about the context of this grant and the work it funds as well as
to answer as many questions as possible that I have seen. I realize many
people a curious about what it actually funds, so you will find the
statement of work cut and pasted there.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)#Knowledge_Engine_grant


Hope this answers some of your questions,
Lila



On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Anthony Cole  wrote:

> Just copying part of Andreas's comment from another thread:
>
> "...can the board now please come to a decision on whether the Knight
> Foundation grant letter and grant application documents will be posted on
> Meta, and if not, provide an explanation to the community why they cannot
> be made public?
>
> "To recap, Jimmy Wales said over two weeks ago on his talk page[1] that in
> his opinion the documentation should be posted on Meta, to clear the air
> around this issue. However, nothing appears to have happened since then."
>
> [1]
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales=698861097=698860874
>
> Anthony Cole
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 




-- 
Lila Tretikov
Wikimedia Foundation

*“Be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid.”*
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[SarahSV]

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

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

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

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

Sarah


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

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Lila Tretikov]

Thank you, Sarah for an excellent question.  Sometimes I compare Wikimedia
with an iceberg, only a small portion is visible.

When we started investigating this problem we found out that nearly 30% of
searches on Wikipedia return no results at all. That motivated us to dig
deeper.

Since then we've made our first improvements (by about  1 million  searches
a day) , but we have a very long way to go...especially searching across
sites. Commons for example is a very tough one that we will need to help
one day.

I encourage you to read through,  I tried to explain our thinking the best
I could,  but I can always use help :)

Lila

sent from mobile. please excuse typos.
On Jan 29, 2016 3:50 PM, "SarahSV"  wrote:

> Lila, thank you for posting this. I have no technical background, so I only
> have a limited understanding of how the Discovery project works. But as an
> editor and reader I've been frustrated by the limitations of Wikipedia
> search. Even things that I know are there, because I added them myself, are
> regularly not returned. Sometimes for reasons I can't fathom; sometimes
> because I've mistyped something.
>
> It's the same with Siri on iPhone. I ask it something that I know is on
> Wikipedia and it can't seem to find it. Or it will return a link to
> articles in which certain terms appear. But people don't want to have to
> look at whole articles.
>
> We have this enormous and wonderful amount of knowledge to some extent
> trapped inside Wikipedia. How do we unlock it? How do we teach computers
> how to find and deliver it? In future, could Wikipedia reply to questions
> on people's phones, instead of Siri?
>
> This kind of research sounds very exciting, and the Foundation is
> well-placed to do it.
>
> Sarah
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Lila Tretikov  wrote:
>
> > Hi Anthony,
> >
> > I know this request was for the Board, but I took time to explain as much
> > as I could about the context of this grant and the work it funds as well
> as
> > to answer as many questions as possible that I have seen. I realize many
> > people a curious about what it actually funds, so you will find the
> > statement of work cut and pasted there.
> >
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)#Knowledge_Engine_grant
> > <
> >
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fmeta.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FUser_talk%3ALilaTretikov_%28WMF%29%23Knowledge_Engine_grant=D=1=AFQjCNHbv_CPFd5d3dh7WKET5YlNSZvHdA
> > >
> >
> > Hope this answers some of your questions,
> > Lila
> >
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Anthony Cole]

Thank you Lila. That's very clear, and I think it's a worthwhile project,
exactly in line with our shared vision.

Anthony Cole


On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 8:05 AM, Lila Tretikov  wrote:

> Thank you, Sarah for an excellent question.  Sometimes I compare Wikimedia
> with an iceberg, only a small portion is visible.
>
> When we started investigating this problem we found out that nearly 30% of
> searches on Wikipedia return no results at all. That motivated us to dig
> deeper.
>
> Since then we've made our first improvements (by about  1 million  searches
> a day) , but we have a very long way to go...especially searching across
> sites. Commons for example is a very tough one that we will need to help
> one day.
>
> I encourage you to read through,  I tried to explain our thinking the best
> I could,  but I can always use help :)
>
> Lila
>
> sent from mobile. please excuse typos.
> On Jan 29, 2016 3:50 PM, "SarahSV"  wrote:
>
> > Lila, thank you for posting this. I have no technical background, so I
> only
> > have a limited understanding of how the Discovery project works. But as
> an
> > editor and reader I've been frustrated by the limitations of Wikipedia
> > search. Even things that I know are there, because I added them myself,
> are
> > regularly not returned. Sometimes for reasons I can't fathom; sometimes
> > because I've mistyped something.
> >
> > It's the same with Siri on iPhone. I ask it something that I know is on
> > Wikipedia and it can't seem to find it. Or it will return a link to
> > articles in which certain terms appear. But people don't want to have to
> > look at whole articles.
> >
> > We have this enormous and wonderful amount of knowledge to some extent
> > trapped inside Wikipedia. How do we unlock it? How do we teach computers
> > how to find and deliver it? In future, could Wikipedia reply to questions
> > on people's phones, instead of Siri?
> >
> > This kind of research sounds very exciting, and the Foundation is
> > well-placed to do it.
> >
> > Sarah
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Lila Tretikov 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Anthony,
> > >
> > > I know this request was for the Board, but I took time to explain as
> much
> > > as I could about the context of this grant and the work it funds as
> well
> > as
> > > to answer as many questions as possible that I have seen. I realize
> many
> > > people a curious about what it actually funds, so you will find the
> > > statement of work cut and pasted there.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)#Knowledge_Engine_grant
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fmeta.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FUser_talk%3ALilaTretikov_%28WMF%29%23Knowledge_Engine_grant=D=1=AFQjCNHbv_CPFd5d3dh7WKET5YlNSZvHdA
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hope this answers some of your questions,
> > > Lila
> > >
> > >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Fæ]

On 28 January 2016 at 16:12, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
...
> So, what does it actually mean when Jimmy Wales says something like this to
> the community in response to criticism?
>
> Do people think this is good governance, secretly admire the Machiavellian
> chutzpah, or what?

Jimmy Wales has defended his use of *"Utter fucking bullshit"* when
abusing James Heilman.[1][2] In a hostile environment where "founders
rights" appear to mean that Wales can push his colleagues around like
a childish bully, in a way that anyone else would have their account
blocked from Wikimedia projects, we cannot expect to hold this WMF
trustee to account for their actions as we cannot even properly hold
him to account against the WMF terms of use.

In other charitable organisations, abusing volunteers or employees
with variations of "fuck" and being incapable of recognising that is a
problem, would make you entirely unsuitable to be a trustee. It's a
shame that the WMF board have no higher standards for civility or
leadership than this. It's an all time low.

Links:
1. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales=701673700=701673178
2. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales=701942197=701941999

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Andreas Kolbe]

Thanks, Anthony. As can be seen from the diff, the discussion at the time
went like this:

---o0o---

Given the history, but also the absolute bungling mess and total lack of
professionalism that the board has shown since these events, you will find,
Jimbo, that there is a significant proportion of the people who voted for
James who are unwilling to believe a single word of what the board
continues to try not to say. This comes on top of a long list of disasters
that others have summarized above. As for your claim to be a bigger
champion for transparency, please back it up with the details on the
restricted grant from the Knight foundation immediately. *Talk is cheap,
actions speak volumes.* MLauba (Talk) 18:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

What sort of details do you want? I'll have to talk to others to make sure
there are no contractural reasons not to do so, but in my opinion the grant
letter should be published on meta. *The Knight Grant is a red herring
here, so it would be best to clear the air around that completely as soon
as possible*.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

---o0o---

I have seen Jimmy Wales make statements like this many times, as a sort of
exercise in crowd control. It calms frayed tempers.

It introduces some reasonable-sounding explanation why people can't have
what they demand right now, along with a strongly worded, almost
over-the-top assurance that not only are they right to demand it, but that
Jimmy Wales actually wants the very same thing himself.

And then everybody goes away, and nothing happens.

So, what does it actually mean when Jimmy Wales says something like this to
the community in response to criticism?

Do people think this is good governance, secretly admire the Machiavellian
chutzpah, or what?

Andreas

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 9:53 PM, Anthony Cole  wrote:

> Just copying part of Andreas's comment from another thread:
>
> "...can the board now please come to a decision on whether the Knight
> Foundation grant letter and grant application documents will be posted on
> Meta, and if not, provide an explanation to the community why they cannot
> be made public?
>
> "To recap, Jimmy Wales said over two weeks ago on his talk page[1] that in
> his opinion the documentation should be posted on Meta, to clear the air
> around this issue. However, nothing appears to have happened since then."
>
> [1]
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales=698861097=698860874
>
> Anthony Cole
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Comet styles]

Since Jimmy is now also on the board for 'The Guardian', maybe its
about time he stepped down from the WMF board? And regarding James, it
honestly no longer matters why he was 'fired', its obvious the board
is filling up its stocks in google employees (lol) and it won't likely
change even after the VoNC on Geshuri and I think we all can expect
more 'ridiculous' hirings  in the future as well..

Regarding the Knight grant application/letter, the question isn't why
the community needs a reason to see the application/letter, the
question is why the community cannotit again goes back to the old
question..who is serving who?

On 1/29/16, Fæ  wrote:
> On 28 January 2016 at 16:12, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
> ...
>> So, what does it actually mean when Jimmy Wales says something like this
>> to
>> the community in response to criticism?
>>
>> Do people think this is good governance, secretly admire the Machiavellian
>> chutzpah, or what?
>
> Jimmy Wales has defended his use of *"Utter fucking bullshit"* when
> abusing James Heilman.[1][2] In a hostile environment where "founders
> rights" appear to mean that Wales can push his colleagues around like
> a childish bully, in a way that anyone else would have their account
> blocked from Wikimedia projects, we cannot expect to hold this WMF
> trustee to account for their actions as we cannot even properly hold
> him to account against the WMF terms of use.
>
> In other charitable organisations, abusing volunteers or employees
> with variations of "fuck" and being incapable of recognising that is a
> problem, would make you entirely unsuitable to be a trustee. It's a
> shame that the WMF board have no higher standards for civility or
> leadership than this. It's an all time low.
>
> Links:
> 1.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales=701673700=701673178
> 2.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales=701942197=701941999
>
> Fae
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> ___
> 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,
> 


-- 
Cometstyles

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[MZMcBride]

My guess is that the first step here is to identify who would have access
to the Knight Foundation grant application and grant offer paperwork. It's
not immediately clear to me who to even ask about this.

I'm copying Wes Moran and Katherine Maher of the Wikimedia Foundation on
this reply, as he sent the initial wikimedia-l announcement e-mail about
this grant and she is listed as the contact in the press release:
.

Wes and Katherine: do you know what steps need to be taken in order to
release the documents surrounding this Knight Foundation grant? Or do you
know who at the Wikimedia Foundation would be the best/most appropriate
contact to figure this out? Geoff and the legal team? One of the
grants-related staff such as Janice? Any help would be appreciated!

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[MZMcBride]

MZMcBride wrote:
>Wes and Katherine: do you know what steps need to be taken in order to
>release the documents surrounding this Knight Foundation grant? Or do you
>know who at the Wikimedia Foundation would be the best/most appropriate
>contact to figure this out? Geoff and the legal team? One of the
>grants-related staff such as Janice? Any help would be appreciated!

Remembering that similar questions about grant agreements have come
previously, I just dug through my e-mail archives and found a 2011 e-mail
from Lisa Gruwell. In the e-mail, she's very supportive of the idea of
putting grants documents on Meta-Wiki. Copying her as well on this thread
as she's still working with the Wikimedia Foundation, though it's not
clear to me whether her role has shifted to other focuses.

In case anyone is curious, here is Sue's response from October 2011:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2011-October/116339.html

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Pete Forsyth]

MZMcBride, that is an *excellent* find -- I had forgotten that it was
articulated as a formal policy. I have now updated my blog post on the
topic with a link to that email:
http://wikistrategies.net/grant-transparency/

Perhaps Lisa can tell us whether that policy was ever rescinded?

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 5:24 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:

> MZMcBride wrote:
> >Wes and Katherine: do you know what steps need to be taken in order to
> >release the documents surrounding this Knight Foundation grant? Or do you
> >know who at the Wikimedia Foundation would be the best/most appropriate
> >contact to figure this out? Geoff and the legal team? One of the
> >grants-related staff such as Janice? Any help would be appreciated!
>
> Remembering that similar questions about grant agreements have come
> previously, I just dug through my e-mail archives and found a 2011 e-mail
> from Lisa Gruwell. In the e-mail, she's very supportive of the idea of
> putting grants documents on Meta-Wiki. Copying her as well on this thread
> as she's still working with the Wikimedia Foundation, though it's not
> clear to me whether her role has shifted to other focuses.
>
> In case anyone is curious, here is Sue's response from October 2011:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2011-October/116339.html
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> 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,