Hi Pete, I proposed an interview to Andreas this morning in a private email, actually.
Also, I want to explain myself as a human being, not only as an ED. Without filters. L On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 10:56 PM, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote: > An unusually immediate comment from Wikimedia leadership following Andreas' > admittedly speculative comments. > > It's not about the relevance to the movement. It's not about the relevance > to the organization. It's about an individual's role. > > This just got fascinating (and a little more depressing). > > -Pete > > [[User:Peteforsyth]] > > > > > I am happy to talk to Signpost on-record about anything that has been > > happening under my watch to minimize misinterpretations of second-hand > > reports or further conjectures. > > > > Lila > > > > On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 9:57 PM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 10:56 PM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Lila should have taken the community along with her as the Knowledge > > > Engine > > > > project was evolving. I don't know what was behind her reticence. I > > > presume > > > > an element was unwillingness to announce a thing while the thing was > > > > shifting and changing from one day to the next. > > > > > > > > > > > > > It was pointed out to me today that there is a court exhibit, no. 666, > > made > > > public in 2014 as part of the [[High-Tech Employee Antitrust > Litigation]] > > > (the same case Arnnon Geshuri was involved in), which reproduces some > > > correspondence between Sue Gardner, Facebook's Sheryl Sandberg, and > > various > > > Google managers.[1] > > > > > > > > > > > > In short, Sheryl Sandberg (who'd formerly worked for Google) helped Sue > > > Gardner by introducing her to senior management at Google. To do so, > > > according to the court exhibit, Sandberg forwarded an email from Sue > > > Gardner to Jonathan Rosenberg (then Senior Vice President of Products) > > and > > > others at Google: > > > > > > > > > > > > ---o0o--- > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Sheryl Sandberg > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 7:40 PM > > > > > > To: Jonathan Rosenberg; Omid Kordestani; David Drummond; Megan Smith > > > > > > Subject: Fw: Thanks + a request re Google > > > > > > > > > > > > Jonathan, Omid, David, Megan - I was introduced to Sue by Roger. As you > > can > > > see below, they would love a better and more senior relationship with > > > Google. Can I email introduce her to one of you? > > > > > > > > > > > > Please excuse blackberry-caused typos. > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Sue Gardner > > > > > > To: Sheryl Sandberg > > > > > > Sent: Mon Aug 04 10:02:01 2008 > > > > > > Subject: Thanks + a request re Google > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sheryl, > > > > > > > > > > > > It was terrific to finally meet you last week :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's a recap of the Google issue that I raised: > > > > > > > > > > > > I started as Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation last > summer. > > > > > > > > > > > > A few months after that, Roger McNamee began introducing me to > potential > > > Wikipedia donors in the valley. Most of that was great and successful, > > but > > > in a few cases -including once with a Google board member- I was > > surprised > > > to be have people cite 'loyalty to Google' as a reason to not give > money > > to > > > Wikipedia. > > > > > > > > > > > > Their objections, which have been echoed to me several times since > then, > > > seem to fall into three categories: > > > > > > > > > > > > * A belief that Wikia Search is an attempt by Wikipedia to compete with > > > Google. (Many people don't realize the only thing shared between > > Wikipedia > > > and Wikia is our founder, Jimmy Wales. Nor do they realize that Jimmy > has > > > no day-to-day responsibilities at the Wikimedia Foundation.) > > > > > > * The view that because Wikipedia is non-commercial, it is > > anti-advertising > > > and anti-Google. > > > > > > * A belief that Knol is an attempt by Google to compete with Wikipedia. > > > > > > > > > > > > I personally don't believe any of this: I think Google and Wikipedia > can > > > and should have a complementary and positive relationship. And I gather > > > Larry and Sergey feel the same: I believe they've told Jimmy that > Google > > > has no ill will towards Wikipedia, and that they'd be willing to make a > > > > > > donation to us in order to signal that publicly. > > > > > > > > > > > > I also believe that any real or perceived tensions in the > > Google/Wikipedia > > > relationship may be being exacerbated at some levels inside Google by > > their > > > unfulfilled desires to do business with us. Since relocating to the Bay > > > Area in January, we've had plenty of Google folks reach out to us. But > -- > > > we have a total staff of 21 people, with just one person responsible > for > > > business development, so I am not sure we are even able to politely > keep > > up > > > with their pitches. IMO, rather than spending our time on multiple > > > product-specific pitches, it would probably be more productive for > > > Wikipedia and Google to develop a single umbrella > relationship/agreement > > > (obviously within the limits of Wikipedia's non-commercial context). > > > > > > > > > > > > So. I think a good next step would be some kind of high-level meeting > > > between Wikipedia and Google, to talk through these issues and see if a > > > donation and/or business deal makes sense. > > > > > > > > > > > > I appreciate your advice on this issue :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Sue > > > > > > > > > > > > ---o0o--- > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, some of this isn't earth-shattering news -- it's long been known > > that > > > relations between Google and Wikipedia have been friendly. The lobbying > > > partnership between Google and Wikipedia may well date back to the > > meetings > > > that followed that email exchange. > > > > > > > > > > > > What wasn't known to me was that Sue found people in Silicon Valley > > > unwilling to donate because of their "loyalty to Google". (This > reasoning > > > raises questions of its own about Google's influence, but we'll leave > > that > > > aside.) > > > > > > > > > > > > Now it has become clear over the past few days that Damon Sicore, to > use > > > Jimmy Wales' words at Lila's Knowledge Engine FAQ,[2] "really was > > > advocating for taking a run at Google", and gave "strict orders to keep > > it > > > top secret". > > > > > > > > > > > > Sue referred to her wish to have "a single umbrella > > relationship/agreement" > > > with Google, in part to help with the donation problems she was > > > encountering. If such an agreement ever came into being, then being > seen > > to > > > be planning a campaign against Google behind Google's back, as it were, > > > might well jeopardise that relationship, and be seen as disloyal. > > > > > > > > > > > > That would have been a compelling reason for continued secrecy, > > especially > > > if these plans to compete against Google were in the end given up, > > meaning > > > that any loss of face vis-à-vis Google and its friends would in effect > be > > > for nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course this is just supposition. > > > > > > > > > But there are issues here worth reflecting upon. I recall plenty of > > > volunteers over the years saying it was very good that Google seemed to > > > treat Wikipedia favourably. Yet I don't recall the community ever being > > > asked whether they wanted the WMF to seek any kinds of agreements with > > > for-profit players. > > > > > > > > > > > > At any rate, whatever the facts of this case, it seems to me that > > > maintaining transparency becomes very hard if you pursue such > agreements. > > > It becomes very easy to tie yourself into knots. > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/sandberg.pdf > > > > > > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Engine/FAQ > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > 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, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > -- 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, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
