Ugh. Sorry. I mean: should involvement in and advocacy for a particular movement initiative disqualify one from voting on motions related to that initiative?
Anthony Cole On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote: > jytdog, regarding: > > "Going forward, there should be a) a clear disclosure of relevant outside > interests > and b) a pre-agreed COI management plan where those interests conflict > with a Trustee's obligations, before Trustees formally step into the > role." > > When you say "relevant outside interests" what do you mean? > > I'd love to hear Denny's thoughts on this. Also, Denny, I'm interested to > hear you were concerned about a conflict of interest with Wikidata. I'm > just now rethinking the question of internal conflicts of interest. Are > they necessarily a bad thing? You were elected by a community who, I think, > expected you to create an environment where Wikidata could flourish. Is it > a bad thing to have advocates for movement initiatives on the board? > > Anthony Cole > > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Good points worth repeating, though, jytdog. >> >> We're learning as we go here. COI is notoriously difficult to anticipate >> and manage. None of us, that I'm aware of, thought about - or at least >> discussed - the implications of his Google role when he ran for the board, >> and when it became too onerous to manage, Denny had the wisdom to step >> away. >> >> He's an enormous asset to this movement; as I said, we're lucky to have >> him, and I'm very grateful for all he's contributed. >> >> Anthony Cole >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 4:44 PM, jytdog <jyt...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> This is kind of frustrating. Lila (speaking for the board) in her "Why >>> we >>> changed >>> < >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Lila_Tretikov%27s_statement_on_Why_we%27ve_changed >>> >" >>> message, identified falling page views (creating a threat of falling >>> donation revenue) caused by folks like Google repurposing our content as >>> an >>> "existential challenge". I am not sure I agree with that, but the WMF >>> Board and the former ED said that. (Jimmy confirmed that on his Talk >>> page, >>> too) >>> >>> The key thing about Denny's COI issues as they unfolded, is that he was >>> surprised and frustrated about the problems managing his COI ended up >>> causing - so much so that he quit. That stuff actually happened. >>> Debating >>> what his COI was or whether it mattered is really beside the point... and >>> all murky because whatever management plan was worked out - whatever >>> areas >>> actually were identified as problematic - we do not know, as that plan >>> wasn't made public. >>> >>> Going forward, there should be a) a clear disclosure of relevant outside >>> interests and b) a pre-agreed COI management plan where those interests >>> conflict with a Trustee's obligations, before Trustees formally step into >>> the role. What happened with Denny doesn't have to happen again. That >>> seems to be the key issue looking forward. >>> >>> I'm repeating myself, and will stop now. >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 2:28 AM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > I agree with all of that, MZ. As to your questions: >>> > >>> > "Shouldn't we be applauding Google and others for helping us share our >>> > knowledge with the world?" >>> > >>> > Yes. >>> > >>> > "What size do you think the Wikimedia Foundation should be in terms of >>> > yearly >>> > budget and number of full-time employees? How much bigger or smaller >>> should >>> > the Wikimedia Foundation be than other Wikimedia chapters?" >>> > >>> > It depends on what we want them to do. >>> > >>> > "...are you sure that we're all agreed that this [Google impacting >>> > Wikipedia's >>> > page views and the ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers] >>> is >>> > problematic?" >>> > >>> > I'm less concerned than many, and I'm sure others are unconcerned. >>> > >>> > "If Google causes page views to go down and our sites are directly hit >>> > less frequently, >>> > that actually saves us money, doesn't it?" >>> > >>> > If our page views drop by 50% and this halves our fundraising >>> capacity, I >>> > doubt that would be offset by the saved hosting costs. But I'm no >>> expert on >>> > these things. >>> > >>> > >>> > Anthony Cole >>> > >>> > >>> > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:46 AM, MZMcBride <z...@mzmcbride.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > > Anthony Cole wrote: >>> > > >Google's "info boxes" and their answers at the top of their results, >>> > we're >>> > > >all agreed now, I think, are impacting Wikipedia's page views and, >>> > > >consequently, our ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers. >>> > > >>> > > Google and others have a direct interest in their data being >>> accurate and >>> > > reliable. We already see that Google has a "report a correction" >>> feature >>> > > for some of its services. It's in both Wikimedia's interest and >>> re-users' >>> > > interest for the underlying data source to be update-to-date and >>> correct. >>> > > >>> > > Our mission is to spread free educational content to the world and we >>> > make >>> > > our data available for re-use for this purpose. Shouldn't we be >>> > applauding >>> > > Google and others for helping us share our knowledge with the world? >>> > > >>> > > As far as threats to direct-to-user fund-raising go, I'd put >>> > > organizational instability ahead of Google at the moment. The >>> Wikimedia >>> > > Foundation has repeatedly been in the news lately for ongoing >>> management >>> > > issues, both in its executive team and in its board of trustees. >>> > > >>> > > What size do you think the Wikimedia Foundation should be in terms of >>> > > yearly budget and number of full-time employees? How much bigger or >>> > > smaller should the Wikimedia Foundation be than other Wikimedia >>> chapters? >>> > > >>> > > Even if we accepted your premise that Google was impacting >>> Wikipedia's >>> > > page views and the ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers >>> > > (citations needed, to be sure), are you sure that we're all agreed >>> that >>> > > this is problematic? If others re-using our content has a side effect >>> > > of reducing donations to Wikimedia Foundation Inc., donations which >>> are >>> > > received through questionable and increasingly obnoxious on-site >>> > > advertisements, you will not find universal agreement that this donor >>> > > reduction would be terrible. As others have argued previously, small >>> and >>> > > recurring donations are a means of providing accountability for the >>> > > entities entrusted with these monetary donations. If potential >>> donors no >>> > > longer trust the Wikimedia Foundation to manage and distribute this >>> > > money, no longer donating financially is practical and wise. >>> > > >>> > > If Google causes page views to go down and our sites are directly hit >>> > less >>> > > frequently, that actually saves us money, doesn't it? We're >>> theoretically >>> > > then off-loading some of our hosting costs to Google, Facebook, and >>> > > others who are downloading and re-uploading our data to the Web, >>> exactly >>> > > as we mandated that anyone be able to do. With multiple copies of the >>> > data >>> > > on the Web, we're better ensuring that the content lives on in >>> > perpetuity. >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > 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, >>> > > <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> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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>
