Though my intent was neither ironic nor cynical, Jane is right -- my email last night was probably not as clear as it could have been.
As I see it, senior leadership (the board and the executive director) have a special responsibility to help us all keep track of the bigger picture. But senior leadership has been pretty silent lately, even as many staff and community members talk about the bigger picture. Lila did write a blog post last week,[1] but it was utterly unrelated to most of the concerns expressed by community members. It seems likely to me that she did not avail herself of the talents of her Communications team, which I imagine could have told her that particular blog post would not help anything, and could have steered her in a more productive direction. Instead, it fell to two engineers (in the comment thread [2]) to offer the kind of commentary that is actually helpful. Andreas sent a message which is either (a) curious but not especially useful, or (b) offers insight into where the organization has been trying to go since 2008. If there should be any comment from senior leadership at all, I would expect it to address (b); no comment at all might be appropriate if (a). But the *immediate* reply comes from somebody who has only been involved since 2014 (rather than, say, Jimmy or Alice, who could speak more readily to what has been going on since 2008). More significantly, it includes the words "on my watch," which suggests to me that something unhealthy is going on. We should not be in a state where leaders are more concerned about their individual reputations, than about broad consideration of Wikimedia's relationship with Google. I find it fascinating because it is so very different from what I would expect in professional communication, and depressing because it suggests that the WMF has simply lost touch with what is important. -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] [1] http://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/02/16/wikimedia-search-future/ [2] http://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/02/16/wikimedia-search-future/#comment-25102 and http://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/02/16/wikimedia-search-future/#comment-25092 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>
