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

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
61 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]
> >
> > 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 <[hidden email]>
> > 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 <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > > 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV" <[hidden email]>
> > 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: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > > 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 <[hidden email]>
> > > 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 <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >
> > > > > 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV" <[hidden email]>
> > > 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: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > > 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 <[hidden email]
> >
> > > > 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 <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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 <[hidden email]>
> > 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 <
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV" <[hidden email]>
> > > > 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: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >
> > > > > 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 <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > > > > 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 <
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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 <[hidden email]>
> > > 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 <
> > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV" <[hidden email]>
> > > > > 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: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> GN.
> President Wikimedia Australia
> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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: [hidden email]
> To: [hidden email]
> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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 <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > > > > 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 <
> > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 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 <[hidden email]>
> > > > 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 <
> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV" <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > 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: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > GN.
> > President Wikimedia Australia
> > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
     
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Gerard Meijssen-3
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 <
[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
> > To: [hidden email]
> > 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > > 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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 <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >
> > > > > > > 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 <
> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 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 <
> [hidden email]>
> > > > > 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 <
> > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV" <
> [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > 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: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > GN.
> > > President Wikimedia Australia
> > > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Pete Forsyth-2
In reply to this post by Lila Tretikov
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&diff=prev&oldid=704421946

"Let’s all treat each other withcivility
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Civility> and etiquette
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Etiquette>, and see if we can collaborate
to build a consensus <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP: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)&oldid=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" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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 <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > > > > 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 <
> > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 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 <[hidden email]>
> > > > 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 <
> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV" <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > 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: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > GN.
> > President Wikimedia Australia
> > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Gerard Meijssen-3
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 <[hidden email]> 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&diff=prev&oldid=704421946
>
> "Let’s all treat each other withcivility
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Civility> and etiquette
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Etiquette>, and see if we can
> collaborate
> to build a consensus <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP: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)&oldid=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" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > > 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 <[hidden email]>
> > 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 <
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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 <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >
> > > > > > > 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 <
> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 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 <
> [hidden email]>
> > > > > 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 <
> > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV" <
> [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > 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: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > GN.
> > > President Wikimedia Australia
> > > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Pete Forsyth-2
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" <[hidden email]>
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 <[hidden email]> 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&diff=prev&oldid=704421946
> >
> > "Let’s all treat each other withcivility
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Civility> and etiquette
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Etiquette>, and see if we can
> > collaborate
> > to build a consensus <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP: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)&oldid=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" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > 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 <[hidden email]>
> > 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 <[hidden email]>
> > > > 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 <[hidden email]>
> > > 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 <
> > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 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 <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 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 <
> > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 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 <
> > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > 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 <
> > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV" <
> > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > 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: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > GN.
> > > > President Wikimedia Australia
> > > > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > > > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Gerard Meijssen-3
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 <[hidden email]> 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" <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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&diff=prev&oldid=704421946
> > >
> > > "Let’s all treat each other withcivility
> > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Civility> and etiquette
> > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Etiquette>, and see if we can
> > > collaborate
> > > to build a consensus <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP: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)&oldid=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" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > 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 <[hidden email]>
> > > 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 <[hidden email]>
> > > 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 <
> [hidden email]>
> > > > > 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 <[hidden email]
> >
> > > > 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 <
> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 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 <
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 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 <
> > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 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 <
> > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > 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 <
> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV" <
> > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > 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: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > ,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > GN.
> > > > > President Wikimedia Australia
> > > > > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > > > > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> ?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: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Leila Zia
In reply to this post by Pete Forsyth-2
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:19 AM, Pete Forsyth <[hidden email]>
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" <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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&diff=prev&oldid=704421946
> > >
> > > "Let’s all treat each other withcivility
> > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Civility> and etiquette
> > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Etiquette>, and see if we can
> > > collaborate
> > > to build a consensus <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP: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)&oldid=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" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > 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 <[hidden email]>
> > > 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 <[hidden email]>
> > > 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 <
> [hidden email]>
> > > > > 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 <[hidden email]
> >
> > > > 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 <
> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 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 <
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 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 <
> > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 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 <
> > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > 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 <
> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV" <
> > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > 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: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > ,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > GN.
> > > > > President Wikimedia Australia
> > > > > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > > > > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> ?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: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Mike Peel
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3

> On 15 Feb 2016, at 17:10, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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 <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> > On 15 Feb 2016, at 17:10, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Andreas Kolbe-2
In reply to this post by Pete Forsyth-2
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&links=wikipedia&lang=en&mode=long&format=html&redlinks=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&diff=prev&oldid=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 <[hidden email]> 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&diff=prev&oldid=704421946
>
> "Let’s all treat each other withcivility
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Civility> and etiquette
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Etiquette>, and see if we can
> collaborate
> to build a consensus <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP: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)&oldid=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" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > > 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 <[hidden email]>
> > 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 <
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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 <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >
> > > > > > > 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 <
> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 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 <
> [hidden email]>
> > > > > 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 <
> > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV" <
> [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > 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: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > GN.
> > > President Wikimedia Australia
> > > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Mike Peel

> On 16 Feb 2016, at 00:26, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Andreas Kolbe-2
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 <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> > On 16 Feb 2016, at 00:26, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Andreas Kolbe-2
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&lang=de

On 16 February 2016 at 01:26, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> 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&links=wikipedia&lang=en&mode=long&format=html&redlinks=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&diff=prev&oldid=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 <[hidden email]>
> 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&diff=prev&oldid=704421946
> >
> > "Let’s all treat each other withcivility
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Civility> and etiquette
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Etiquette>, and see if we can
> > collaborate
> > to build a consensus <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP: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)&oldid=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" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > 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 <[hidden email]>
> > 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 <[hidden email]>
> > > > 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 <[hidden email]>
> > > 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 <
> > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 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 <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 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 <
> > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 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 <
> > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > 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 <
> > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV" <
> > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > 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: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > GN.
> > > > President Wikimedia Australia
> > > > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > > > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Lila Tretikov
In reply to this post by Craig Franklin
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 <[hidden email]>
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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >
> > > On 15 Feb 2016, at 17:10, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
> > 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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]
> > 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > > On 15 Feb 2016, at 17:10, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
>> > 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: [hidden email]
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> 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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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 <[hidden email]> wrote:

> + Footnotes.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Lila Tretikov <[hidden email]>
> 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 <
>> [hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> > > On 15 Feb 2016, at 17:10, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]
>>> >
>>> > 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: [hidden email]
>>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>> >
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> New messages to: [hidden email]
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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.”*
>



--
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
1234