[Wikimedia-l] I am going to San Francisco

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] I am going to San Francisco

Lucas Teles-2
With all due respect to Lila's work, but IIRC before she started working
for Foundation, it was said that the technology background was very
important, but communication could be a problem. That may have been
disregarded because the choice was already made or because volunteers
complain about everything anyway.

We saw improvements on technology at the expense of hiding things from
community or using [super]force on its implementation. A topic suggestion
is to discuss when volunteer community became a barrier on Foundation plans
and how to deal with that peacefully.

Sincerely wishing useful meetings to staff and sending good vibes from the
volunteer/spectator part of the whole thing.


Em sábado, 27 de fevereiro de 2016, Anna Stillwell <[hidden email]>
escreveu:

>  +1 to what Oliver and Vibber said.
>
> The situation is still delicate, Jimmy.
>
> Staff are being extremely kind to one another. I was blown away by the
> respect and care that staff showed toward *the entire situation yesterday
> *when
> we met as a group*.* We were mature, measured, civil, reasonable and
> supporting and trusting of one another. Last but not least, we were forward
> thinking.
>
> Still, we've all been through something quite significant and we need a lot
> of care and feeding. This isn't to say that we can't have contentious
> discourse (I, for one, love to battle it out on ideas), but I think we
> would all really appreciate it if you step lightly. It's been really
> intense and I am no delicate flower.
>
> Further, although there are a variety of temperaments and responses to what
> happened, there is very little disagreement that the right decision was
> finally made. Actually, I have yet to find any disagreement--only deep
> relief. I have not spoken to everyone, but I have connected with and
> listened to a lot of people. So the idea that there are (or were) just a
> small group of consistent complainers, is not what I have seen and I have
> been on the ground the entire time. In fact, I saw the opposite. I saw
> people go out of their way, extend AGF beyond any reasonable application,
> and then arrive at a similar, if not identical, conclusion.
>
> There appears to have been a story that has succeeded (and been actively
> perpetuated) in some circles for some time. It's a story that paints staff
> as change averse luddites. It may have been told in a slightly more
> friendly manner in public, but that is the thesis if you dig into it. It
> was top notch spin, but it's not true.
>
> The really powerful and disarming story about what's actually going on
> inside? We are a thriving group of capable and principled people coming
> together to do right by a mission and community that we are genuinely
> devoted to. And that is the only part of what's recently happened that
> feels really, really good.
>
> I believe that staff have proven themselves to be legitimate stakeholders
> in this movement. We are worthy of your respect. We are worthy of the
> movement's respect.
>
> Warmly,
> /a
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Brion Vibber <[hidden email]
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 26, 2016 3:30 PM, "Oliver Keyes" <[hidden email]
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >
> > > When I hear language about "ignoring those who are going to complain
> > > no matter what" and, in an email premised on visiting and spending
> > > time with staff, a distinction between the pool of people you'll be
> > > talking to and the "serious people", with an implication that only the
> > > concerns of the "serious people" will be taken, well, seriously, that
> > > worries me. It feels a lot like what we're coming out of. It feels
> > > like it will be a hindrance to progressing beyond this awful
> > > situation.
> > >
> > > I appreciate this is almost certainly not what you were trying to
> > > communicate - indeed , I fully expect you'll come back confirming that
> > > it wasn't. But it's best to be aware of the language you chose to use,
> > > within the context of what staff have been going through since 2015. I
> > > of all people know that how you choose to contextualise a situation
> > > with your words has profound implications for how people approach you
> > > and the treatment you receive. It's best to avoid unintentional
> > > ambiguities or implications. When you use language that implies some
> > > people or their concerns are worth ignoring, it's going to resonate
> > > very strongly with the dividing tactics recently found at the
> > > Foundation: where some people found their worries and issues - which
> > > were totally legitimate - dismissed.
> >
> > Seconded all this from Oliver.
> >
> > To Jimmy: we've been doing Wikipedia and Wikimedia a long time, you and
> I.
> > :) And in that time we've both learned good and bad habits.
> >
> > One of those bad habits is known as "setting the bozo bit" in old school
> > geek culture: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?SetTheBozoBit
> >
> > Tuning out the concerns of people because they often disagree makes our
> own
> > lives easier on the short term, but at best it's a risk that you'll lose
> > useful feedback, and at worst you can alienate people who could have
> become
> > allies on some other topic... Or helped you avoid a sticky situation they
> > saw coming that you didn't.
> >
> > It's something I've tried very hard to get away from when I interact with
> > other developers and users. And sometimes it's really hard. But a lot of
> > the people I unset the bit from are now doing amazing things... Some of
> > them now work for you as WMF developers and managers, and I'm glad I
> didn't
> > mistreat them early on.
> >
> > When it comes to your employees, setting the bozo bit is a *really* bad
> > antipattern. Doubly so when they're coming out of a bad situation and
> have
> > a lot to tell you.
> >
> > This is the time to listen honestly even (especially?) to those whose
> > narratives mismatch your own.
> >
> > I'm pretty sure that's not something you'll disagree with, but it's one
> of
> > those things that we easily find ourselves doing wrong, and have to watch
> > out for.
> >
> > Your staff is still raw and suspicious all around; the word "trauma" gets
> > used with total sincerity. We'd really appreciate care in how you
> describe
> > what's happening; it'll go a long way to making the next few days and the
> > further discussions you're planning to make really useful.
> >
> > -- brion
> >
> > >
> > > (As an aside from all of that, I entirely support Asaf's point about
> > > group meetings, with note-taking. I think it's good to have a record
> > > we can check what Everyone Knows against. Avoids FUD,[2] and at this
> > > critical time, increases transparency.)
> > >
> > > [0]
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_%28WMF%29&diff=prev&oldid=15301332
> > > [1] No, I was not one of them)
> > > [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: [hidden email] <javascript:;>
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email] <javascript:;>
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email] <javascript:;>
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email] <javascript:;>
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Anna Stillwell
> Major Gifts Officer
> Wikimedia Foundation
> 415.806.1536
> *www.wikimediafoundation.org <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>*
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email] <javascript:;>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email] <javascript:;>
> ?subject=unsubscribe>



--
Steward for Wikimedia Foundation. Administrator at Portuguese Wikipedia and
Wikimedia Commons.
Sent from mobile. Please, excuse my brevity.

+55 (71) 98290-7553
_______________________________________________
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] I am going to San Francisco

phoebe ayers-3
In reply to this post by Anna Stillwell
On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Anna Stillwell
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>  +1 to what Oliver and Vibber said.
>
> The situation is still delicate, Jimmy.
>
> Staff are being extremely kind to one another. I was blown away by the
> respect and care that staff showed toward *the entire situation yesterday *when
> we met as a group*.* We were mature, measured, civil, reasonable and
> supporting and trusting of one another. Last but not least, we were forward
> thinking.

This is great! I am glad to hear it.

One thought. Given that it is a complex situation, with many
individual reactions and experiences as Brion points out, I wonder if
it would be good for the organization to appoint a temporary, but
on-site, omsbud who could listen to staff needs (...and those of
contractors, and those working closely with staff).

I'm imagining someone who could both be a sounding board outside of
current structures, and who could assist any interim ED -- who
themselves will likely not have enough to time to do all of this and
also run the organization. An omsbud could triage issues: from those
requiring changes in process or even Board attention to those that can
be dealt with in other ways. And they could provide a place for those
who simply want to vent or discuss can do so. Ideally it would be
someone respected, empathetic and open, and with channels and
influence at a high level, but not someone with too much history at
the organization -- especially not recent history.

I suggest this because I worry about the emotional load on people at
the WMF who others turn to the most -- people who are respected and
empathetic and thus have no doubt gotten a lot of extra work to do in
listening to their colleagues in recent months. I worry about people
who don't feel like they have anyplace to turn.  And I worry that the
official structures in place to report areas where change is needed
may not be sufficient given large-scale dissatisfaction.

I think Jimmy's heart is absolutely in the right place for wanting to
listen to staff and I commend him for it, and for doing what many of
the other trustees are likely logistically unable to do right now. But
even he doesn't have enough time or energy to be at the WMF for a few
months, and calmly help facilitate the organizational processing that
seems like needs to happen. I think that needs to be a separate,
actual position, even if just for a brief period. And ideally, such a
position would not get in the way of but rather be able to facilitate
and sustain the self-generated group dynamic of support and energy for
forward momentum that Anna describes.

-- Phoebe

_______________________________________________
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] I am going to San Francisco

Oliver Keyes-5
On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 1:38 PM, phoebe ayers <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Anna Stillwell
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>  +1 to what Oliver and Vibber said.
>>
>> The situation is still delicate, Jimmy.
>>
>> Staff are being extremely kind to one another. I was blown away by the
>> respect and care that staff showed toward *the entire situation yesterday *when
>> we met as a group*.* We were mature, measured, civil, reasonable and
>> supporting and trusting of one another. Last but not least, we were forward
>> thinking.
>
> This is great! I am glad to hear it.
>
> One thought. Given that it is a complex situation, with many
> individual reactions and experiences as Brion points out, I wonder if
> it would be good for the organization to appoint a temporary, but
> on-site, omsbud who could listen to staff needs (...and those of
> contractors, and those working closely with staff).
>
> I'm imagining someone who could both be a sounding board outside of
> current structures, and who could assist any interim ED -- who
> themselves will likely not have enough to time to do all of this and
> also run the organization. An omsbud could triage issues: from those
> requiring changes in process or even Board attention to those that can
> be dealt with in other ways. And they could provide a place for those
> who simply want to vent or discuss can do so. Ideally it would be
> someone respected, empathetic and open, and with channels and
> influence at a high level, but not someone with too much history at
> the organization -- especially not recent history.
>
> I suggest this because I worry about the emotional load on people at
> the WMF who others turn to the most -- people who are respected and
> empathetic and thus have no doubt gotten a lot of extra work to do in
> listening to their colleagues in recent months. I worry about people
> who don't feel like they have anyplace to turn.  And I worry that the
> official structures in place to report areas where change is needed
> may not be sufficient given large-scale dissatisfaction.
>
> I think Jimmy's heart is absolutely in the right place for wanting to
> listen to staff and I commend him for it, and for doing what many of
> the other trustees are likely logistically unable to do right now. But
> even he doesn't have enough time or energy to be at the WMF for a few
> months, and calmly help facilitate the organizational processing that
> seems like needs to happen. I think that needs to be a separate,
> actual position, even if just for a brief period. And ideally, such a
> position would not get in the way of but rather be able to facilitate
> and sustain the self-generated group dynamic of support and energy for
> forward momentum that Anna describes.

I think this is a fantastic suggestion. We currently have an Employee
Relations person, but an Ombudsman (who was actually promised to staff
last year) has yet to appear.

To perpetuate Anna's pattern of thankfulness, I am very very thankful
that internally these are issues we have actively begun to discuss:
both the need for specialist help with recovery (HR has been very good
at this) and the emotional cost of people taking on the role of "toxin
handler" without it being in their JD, and without it being recognised
as real work.

>
> -- Phoebe
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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] I am going to San Francisco

Anna Stillwell
 Phoebe,

Thank you for your post and the shout out. And Oliver, I appreciate where
you are coming from.

Ideally, if HR functions properly (e.g., both legally protects the
interests of the foundation AND caringly relates with employees as real
human beings), then this role should already be fulfilled. In that case, I
would see no need for an ombudsperson.

And that function was previously fulfilled at the Foundation. I know,
because I worked in HR in Learning and Org Dev under Gayle Karen Young and
in collaboration with Joady Lohr, who still occupies her post. We were a
unique team, willing to grapple with tough trade-offs to both protect the
foundation and respect the basic agency and dignity of our people.

When Gayle left, Joady and I did a good job of maintaining for as long as
we could. Joady managed operations like a master and I spent my time with
people, listening to them, building their skills, and helping them find
ways to solve their own problems with my support... problems of process,
strategy, collaboration, decision making, all the way to existential
problems (e.g., the death of a friend, the sick wife, the complicated
marriage). So I speak with some authority when I say that these are a
bright, capable group of people. I know them.

But for a series of reasons that we should no longer focus on, Joady and I
were not able to maintain our previously unique stance with staff. For a
brief moment, in spring of last year, Lila offered me the role of
ombudsperson. It never materialized. I moved to Major Gifts, but that's no
my point. My point is that I came to see the emerging need for the role of
ombudsperson was because HR had been somewhat strip mined of its heart.

Before adding another layer of process and reporting and complexity
structurally, we should more likely try to renew the heart of HR and allow
them to work with Legal in partnership as they had done so well throughout
our entire history.

Warmly,
/a

On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Oliver Keyes <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 1:38 PM, phoebe ayers <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Anna Stillwell
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>  +1 to what Oliver and Vibber said.
> >>
> >> The situation is still delicate, Jimmy.
> >>
> >> Staff are being extremely kind to one another. I was blown away by the
> >> respect and care that staff showed toward *the entire situation
> yesterday *when
> >> we met as a group*.* We were mature, measured, civil, reasonable and
> >> supporting and trusting of one another. Last but not least, we were
> forward
> >> thinking.
> >
> > This is great! I am glad to hear it.
> >
> > One thought. Given that it is a complex situation, with many
> > individual reactions and experiences as Brion points out, I wonder if
> > it would be good for the organization to appoint a temporary, but
> > on-site, omsbud who could listen to staff needs (...and those of
> > contractors, and those working closely with staff).
> >
> > I'm imagining someone who could both be a sounding board outside of
> > current structures, and who could assist any interim ED -- who
> > themselves will likely not have enough to time to do all of this and
> > also run the organization. An omsbud could triage issues: from those
> > requiring changes in process or even Board attention to those that can
> > be dealt with in other ways. And they could provide a place for those
> > who simply want to vent or discuss can do so. Ideally it would be
> > someone respected, empathetic and open, and with channels and
> > influence at a high level, but not someone with too much history at
> > the organization -- especially not recent history.
> >
> > I suggest this because I worry about the emotional load on people at
> > the WMF who others turn to the most -- people who are respected and
> > empathetic and thus have no doubt gotten a lot of extra work to do in
> > listening to their colleagues in recent months. I worry about people
> > who don't feel like they have anyplace to turn.  And I worry that the
> > official structures in place to report areas where change is needed
> > may not be sufficient given large-scale dissatisfaction.
> >
> > I think Jimmy's heart is absolutely in the right place for wanting to
> > listen to staff and I commend him for it, and for doing what many of
> > the other trustees are likely logistically unable to do right now. But
> > even he doesn't have enough time or energy to be at the WMF for a few
> > months, and calmly help facilitate the organizational processing that
> > seems like needs to happen. I think that needs to be a separate,
> > actual position, even if just for a brief period. And ideally, such a
> > position would not get in the way of but rather be able to facilitate
> > and sustain the self-generated group dynamic of support and energy for
> > forward momentum that Anna describes.
>
> I think this is a fantastic suggestion. We currently have an Employee
> Relations person, but an Ombudsman (who was actually promised to staff
> last year) has yet to appear.
>
> To perpetuate Anna's pattern of thankfulness, I am very very thankful
> that internally these are issues we have actively begun to discuss:
> both the need for specialist help with recovery (HR has been very good
> at this) and the emotional cost of people taking on the role of "toxin
> handler" without it being in their JD, and without it being recognised
> as real work.
>
> >
> > -- Phoebe
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
>



--
Anna Stillwell
Major Gifts Officer
Wikimedia Foundation
415.806.1536
*www.wikimediafoundation.org <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>*
_______________________________________________
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] I am going to San Francisco

phoebe ayers-3
On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Anna Stillwell
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Before adding another layer of process and reporting and complexity
> structurally, we should more likely try to renew the heart of HR and allow
> them to work with Legal in partnership as they had done so well throughout
> our entire history.

Fair, and I certainly appreciate this. To be clear my idea is only for
a temporary position -- only a few months at most, really -- and could
certainly happen concurrently with such a build-out of HR.

Phoebe

_______________________________________________
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] I am going to San Francisco

Asaf Bartov-2
On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 11:37 AM, phoebe ayers <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Anna Stillwell
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Before adding another layer of process and reporting and complexity
> > structurally, we should more likely try to renew the heart of HR and
> allow
> > them to work with Legal in partnership as they had done so well
> throughout
> > our entire history.
>
> Fair, and I certainly appreciate this. To be clear my idea is only for
> a temporary position -- only a few months at most, really -- and could
> certainly happen concurrently with such a build-out of HR.
>

I don't think what Anna described requires "a build-out" of HR.  What I am
reading is a description of what HR should *already be*, and, crucially,
*once used to be*.

I second Anna (who, by the way, *is* one of those "people other people turn
to", or "unappointed toxin handlers" mentioned) in everything she said.  If
the board would choose to pay attention, it would find new behaviors in HR
that veer away from our values, and that occasionally violate WMF's own
stated policies.  (one quick example: formally censuring an employee [not
me] without their direct manager present, or even informed.)

I encourage looking into this, and doing whatever is necessary to "renew
the heart of HR".

   A.
_______________________________________________
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] I am going to San Francisco

Anna Stillwell
In reply to this post by phoebe ayers-3
I think that sounds like a good idea. Some extra, temporary support would
be useful. But I worry about how reporting lines could lead to duplicative
efforts and a lack of coherence.

If we get the right humans in human resources and then we also have someone
reporting to the ED...

As an employee, which person am I supposed to go to? Is this a matter of
personal preference or some structurally privileged channel? Are they
coordinating with each other? Might they both be working on similar issues
and not know it?...

Might all of this lead to employees losing confidence that the right hand
knows what the left hand is doing? Might an unintended consequence be a
further drop in trust?

From my vantage point, which is far from complete, it would be better to
bring extra support to HR at this time of need. Get that group of people
together, allow them a bit of space to clarify and explain their
philosophical stance toward employees (expectations are important!), and
let them fix this problem.

That's my take. What do you think about that? Do you see it differently? Am
I missing something?

Warmly,
/a

On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 11:37 AM, phoebe ayers <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Anna Stillwell
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Before adding another layer of process and reporting and complexity
> > structurally, we should more likely try to renew the heart of HR and
> allow
> > them to work with Legal in partnership as they had done so well
> throughout
> > our entire history.
>
> Fair, and I certainly appreciate this. To be clear my idea is only for
> a temporary position -- only a few months at most, really -- and could
> certainly happen concurrently with such a build-out of HR.
>
> Phoebe
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>



--
Anna Stillwell
Major Gifts Officer
Wikimedia Foundation
415.806.1536
*www.wikimediafoundation.org <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>*
_______________________________________________
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] I am going to San Francisco

Anna Stillwell
In reply to this post by Asaf Bartov-2
"I don't think what Anna described requires "a build-out" of HR.  What
I am reading
is a description of what HR should *already be*, and, crucially, *once used
to be*."

You're exactly right, Asaf. That's what I meant. Thank you for the
clarification.

/a







On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Asaf Bartov <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 11:37 AM, phoebe ayers <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Anna Stillwell
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Before adding another layer of process and reporting and complexity
> > > structurally, we should more likely try to renew the heart of HR and
> > allow
> > > them to work with Legal in partnership as they had done so well
> > throughout
> > > our entire history.
> >
> > Fair, and I certainly appreciate this. To be clear my idea is only for
> > a temporary position -- only a few months at most, really -- and could
> > certainly happen concurrently with such a build-out of HR.
> >
>
> I don't think what Anna described requires "a build-out" of HR.  What I am
> reading is a description of what HR should *already be*, and, crucially,
> *once used to be*.
>
> I second Anna (who, by the way, *is* one of those "people other people turn
> to", or "unappointed toxin handlers" mentioned) in everything she said.  If
> the board would choose to pay attention, it would find new behaviors in HR
> that veer away from our values, and that occasionally violate WMF's own
> stated policies.  (one quick example: formally censuring an employee [not
> me] without their direct manager present, or even informed.)
>
> I encourage looking into this, and doing whatever is necessary to "renew
> the heart of HR".
>
>    A.
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>



--
Anna Stillwell
Major Gifts Officer
Wikimedia Foundation
415.806.1536
*www.wikimediafoundation.org <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>*
_______________________________________________
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] I am going to San Francisco

Anna Stillwell
Jimmy,

I have a ridiculous amount of respect for you and what you have
accomplished. I have watched from afar (I was living a lot in other
countries) as this radical experiment in trust *exploded* on to the world.
It blew my mind. And some of the early rules that were set were nothing
short of genius (e.g. NPOV, AGF and due weight come to mind). It was an
ideal experiment: an open frontier with simple, limited rule sets. And the
icing on the cake is that "citation needed" ended up not just influencing
how I thought about an encyclopedic text, but how I thought about
discussing ideas.

So it is from that genuine respect base that I disagree with you on this
particular point:

"> I would love to know whether you supported Lila Tretikov's departure. It
is
> clear that she did not up and resign on her own, and I would like to know
> if you were one of the folks who thought her departure would be
beneficial,
> or if you preferred she "weather the storm," so to speak.

I supported it with sadness.  The whole thing is a sad train wreck."

I do not think this is a train wreck. I think this is one of the hottest
moments since this genius encyclopedia exploded onto the world.

People are engaged.

Rock on,
/a

On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Anna Stillwell <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> "I don't think what Anna described requires "a build-out" of HR.  What I
> am reading is a description of what HR should *already be*, and,
> crucially, *once used to be*."
>
> You're exactly right, Asaf. That's what I meant. Thank you for the
> clarification.
>
> /a
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Asaf Bartov <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 11:37 AM, phoebe ayers <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Anna Stillwell
>> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Before adding another layer of process and reporting and complexity
>> > > structurally, we should more likely try to renew the heart of HR and
>> > allow
>> > > them to work with Legal in partnership as they had done so well
>> > throughout
>> > > our entire history.
>> >
>> > Fair, and I certainly appreciate this. To be clear my idea is only for
>> > a temporary position -- only a few months at most, really -- and could
>> > certainly happen concurrently with such a build-out of HR.
>> >
>>
>> I don't think what Anna described requires "a build-out" of HR.  What I am
>> reading is a description of what HR should *already be*, and, crucially,
>> *once used to be*.
>>
>> I second Anna (who, by the way, *is* one of those "people other people
>> turn
>> to", or "unappointed toxin handlers" mentioned) in everything she said.
>> If
>> the board would choose to pay attention, it would find new behaviors in HR
>> that veer away from our values, and that occasionally violate WMF's own
>> stated policies.  (one quick example: formally censuring an employee [not
>> me] without their direct manager present, or even informed.)
>>
>> I encourage looking into this, and doing whatever is necessary to "renew
>> the heart of HR".
>>
>>    A.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Anna Stillwell
> Major Gifts Officer
> Wikimedia Foundation
> 415.806.1536
> *www.wikimediafoundation.org <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>*
>
>


--
Anna Stillwell
Major Gifts Officer
Wikimedia Foundation
415.806.1536
*www.wikimediafoundation.org <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>*
_______________________________________________
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] I am going to San Francisco

Andreas Kolbe-2
On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Anna Stillwell <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Jimmy,
>
> I have a ridiculous amount of respect for you and what you have
> accomplished. I have watched from afar (I was living a lot in other
> countries) as this radical experiment in trust *exploded* on to the world.
> It blew my mind. And some of the early rules that were set were nothing
> short of genius (e.g. NPOV, AGF and due weight come to mind). It was an
> ideal experiment: an open frontier with simple, limited rule sets. And the
> icing on the cake is that "citation needed" ended up not just influencing
> how I thought about an encyclopedic text, but how I thought about
> discussing ideas.
>

Anna,

Hold on just a moment. :)

It's important to understand that Jimmy Wales didn't accomplish the things
you speak of alone.

First of all, the person who originally had the idea for Wikipedia was
Larry Sanger.[1] Jimmy Wales reportedly thought at the time people would
find the idea of an encyclopedia anyone can edit "objectionable".[2]

But he let Sanger try it. That it "took off" was a surprise to everyone at
the time!

Sanger coined the name "Wikipedia"[3] and invited the first
contributors.[4] Sanger wrote Nupedia's Non-bias policy, the precursor to
NPOV, but Jimmy Wales made important input to the NPOV policy later on, in
particular the "due weight" principle.[5]

Sanger was Wikipedia's editor-in-chief in its early days, and had far more
hands-on involvement in guiding the development of the project in its
childhood. (Jimmy Wales made just 21 edits to Wikipedia in the year 2002,
according to his edit history, while Sanger made hundreds.)

"Assume good faith" was created by Morwen in March 2004. I'm not aware that
Jimmy Wales had any role in its creation (he was hardly around on-wiki in
the months prior to March 2004).

So let's not forget that Wikipedia has always been the work of many people.
:) That includes its fundamental policies.



> So it is from that genuine respect base that I disagree with you on this
> particular point:
>
> "> I would love to know whether you supported Lila Tretikov's departure. It
> is
> > clear that she did not up and resign on her own, and I would like to know
> > if you were one of the folks who thought her departure would be
> beneficial,
> > or if you preferred she "weather the storm," so to speak.
>
> I supported it with sadness.  The whole thing is a sad train wreck."
>
> I do not think this is a train wreck. I think this is one of the hottest
> moments since this genius encyclopedia exploded onto the world.
>
> People are engaged.
>


Here I wholeheartedly agree with you. :) One of the best things to have
come out of this is that there are bonds between volunteers and staff that
have never been there before. These are exciting times.

Best,
Andreas

[1]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-October/000671.html
[2]
http://web.archive.org/web/20030414014355/http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/nupedia-l/2001-January/000676.html
[3]
http://web.archive.org/web/20030414021138/http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/nupedia-l/2001-January/000680.html
[4]
http://web.archive.org/web/20010506042824/www.nupedia.com/pipermail/nupedia-l/2001-January/000684.html
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#History
_______________________________________________
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] I am going to San Francisco

Véronique Michaud
In reply to this post by phoebe ayers-3
J'habite au Canada et rien ni personne ne peux ou ne veux porter respect et
compassion aucune Limite. Un monde assoiffé de vengeance, méchanceté aucune
reconnaissance .

Je suis véronique Michaud Only
Bye
Le 27 févr. 2016 2:37 PM, "phoebe ayers" <[hidden email]> a écrit :

> On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Anna Stillwell
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Before adding another layer of process and reporting and complexity
> > structurally, we should more likely try to renew the heart of HR and
> allow
> > them to work with Legal in partnership as they had done so well
> throughout
> > our entire history.
>
> Fair, and I certainly appreciate this. To be clear my idea is only for
> a temporary position -- only a few months at most, really -- and could
> certainly happen concurrently with such a build-out of HR.
>
> Phoebe
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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] I am going to San Francisco

Chris Sherlock
In reply to this post by Andreas Kolbe-2

> On 28 Feb 2016, at 2:25 PM, Chris Sherlock <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>> On 28 Feb 2016, at 1:16 PM, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Anna Stillwell <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Jimmy,
>>>
>>> I have a ridiculous amount of respect for you and what you have
>>> accomplished. I have watched from afar (I was living a lot in other
>>> countries) as this radical experiment in trust *exploded* on to the world.
>>> It blew my mind. And some of the early rules that were set were nothing
>>> short of genius (e.g. NPOV, AGF and due weight come to mind). It was an
>>> ideal experiment: an open frontier with simple, limited rule sets. And the
>>> icing on the cake is that "citation needed" ended up not just influencing
>>> how I thought about an encyclopedic text, but how I thought about
>>> discussing ideas.
>>>
>>
>> Anna,
>>
>> Hold on just a moment. :)
>>
>> It's important to understand that Jimmy Wales didn't accomplish the things
>> you speak of alone.
>>

Funny you should say this :-) I’m the “inventor” of [citation needed].

You know why I created [citation needed] on Wikipedia? Because the amount of ill-informed, badly thought out, ridiculous claims on Wikipedia articles were getting out hand. I started removing them to the talk page, but then that same person not only refused to explain where they got their information from, but would put the "fact" back into the article. This would then perpetuate incorrect information.

One day I had an epiphany. I realised that you can't just argue with these people, you need to have a reverse citation system - you need to clearly mark out information that is dubious, ill-informed, the result of ingrained prejudice (often unconsciously so) and almost always inaccurate.

At the same time, there needed to be a way of allowing controversial views and sometimes accurate but controversial facts be detailed on the encyclopaedia.
There was only one way I could see to do it - use the same citation system that referenced sources but invert it to highlight information that needed a source. Hence I created citation needed (originally without the square brackets, whoever added them was a genius in their own right).

Guess what? It worked. 11 years later, despite the many issues on Wikipedia, finding out the source of assumptions is no longer a problem. People can go to the citations and see where the factoid is documented, or whose opinion is being expressed. It allows ordinary people to judge the view being expressed more accurately, or to look at how the data was extrapolated, to understand how the academic study was conducted, or to verify that what is claimed is actually what the original claimant was indeed claiming.

But I’d like to make the point: I could *never* have created [citation needed] if someone had not created the policy to cite sources, and hundreds and hundreds of other editors didn’t have a commitment to sources. So whilst [citation needed] was probably one of my best ideas (sometimes I wonder if this might not be an indictment to my creativitity!) I have to say that it was only possible because of the commitment by my peers on Wikipedia to making the project great, and because of those who came before me.

And I’m happy to know that my good idea has literally influences and improved the critical faculties of so many people who use our encyclopedia today!

Chris
_______________________________________________
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] I am going to San Francisco

Anna Stillwell
In reply to this post by Andreas Kolbe-2
Andreas,

> It's important to understand that Jimmy Wales didn't accomplish the things
you speak of alone.

Yes, I'm aware of this. Perhaps I should have been more clear. I was
pointing to the fact that Jimmy did not mess it up. I don't ever
underestimate that. Jimmy could have not allowed that to happen, he could
have charged money, he could have done a lot of other things, and he did
not. He did not mess it up and that is really saying something.

Warmly,
/a


On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 6:16 PM, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Anna Stillwell <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Jimmy,
> >
> > I have a ridiculous amount of respect for you and what you have
> > accomplished. I have watched from afar (I was living a lot in other
> > countries) as this radical experiment in trust *exploded* on to the
> world.
> > It blew my mind. And some of the early rules that were set were nothing
> > short of genius (e.g. NPOV, AGF and due weight come to mind). It was an
> > ideal experiment: an open frontier with simple, limited rule sets. And
> the
> > icing on the cake is that "citation needed" ended up not just influencing
> > how I thought about an encyclopedic text, but how I thought about
> > discussing ideas.
> >
>
> Anna,
>
> Hold on just a moment. :)
>
> It's important to understand that Jimmy Wales didn't accomplish the things
> you speak of alone.
>
> First of all, the person who originally had the idea for Wikipedia was
> Larry Sanger.[1] Jimmy Wales reportedly thought at the time people would
> find the idea of an encyclopedia anyone can edit "objectionable".[2]
>
> But he let Sanger try it. That it "took off" was a surprise to everyone at
> the time!
>
> Sanger coined the name "Wikipedia"[3] and invited the first
> contributors.[4] Sanger wrote Nupedia's Non-bias policy, the precursor to
> NPOV, but Jimmy Wales made important input to the NPOV policy later on, in
> particular the "due weight" principle.[5]
>
> Sanger was Wikipedia's editor-in-chief in its early days, and had far more
> hands-on involvement in guiding the development of the project in its
> childhood. (Jimmy Wales made just 21 edits to Wikipedia in the year 2002,
> according to his edit history, while Sanger made hundreds.)
>
> "Assume good faith" was created by Morwen in March 2004. I'm not aware that
> Jimmy Wales had any role in its creation (he was hardly around on-wiki in
> the months prior to March 2004).
>
> So let's not forget that Wikipedia has always been the work of many people.
> :) That includes its fundamental policies.
>
>
>
> > So it is from that genuine respect base that I disagree with you on this
> > particular point:
> >
> > "> I would love to know whether you supported Lila Tretikov's departure.
> It
> > is
> > > clear that she did not up and resign on her own, and I would like to
> know
> > > if you were one of the folks who thought her departure would be
> > beneficial,
> > > or if you preferred she "weather the storm," so to speak.
> >
> > I supported it with sadness.  The whole thing is a sad train wreck."
> >
> > I do not think this is a train wreck. I think this is one of the hottest
> > moments since this genius encyclopedia exploded onto the world.
> >
> > People are engaged.
> >
>
>
> Here I wholeheartedly agree with you. :) One of the best things to have
> come out of this is that there are bonds between volunteers and staff that
> have never been there before. These are exciting times.
>
> Best,
> Andreas
>
> [1]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-October/000671.html
> [2]
>
> http://web.archive.org/web/20030414014355/http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/nupedia-l/2001-January/000676.html
> [3]
>
> http://web.archive.org/web/20030414021138/http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/nupedia-l/2001-January/000680.html
> [4]
>
> http://web.archive.org/web/20010506042824/www.nupedia.com/pipermail/nupedia-l/2001-January/000684.html
> [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#History
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>



--
Anna Stillwell
Major Gifts Officer
Wikimedia Foundation
415.806.1536
*www.wikimediafoundation.org <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>*
_______________________________________________
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] I am going to San Francisco

Anna Stillwell
In reply to this post by Chris Sherlock
Cool. I think about [citation needed] all of the time when I am at work and
we are expressing opinions.

/a

On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 7:37 PM, Chris Sherlock <[hidden email]>
wrote:

>
> > On 28 Feb 2016, at 2:25 PM, Chris Sherlock <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On 28 Feb 2016, at 1:16 PM, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Anna Stillwell <
> [hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Jimmy,
> >>>
> >>> I have a ridiculous amount of respect for you and what you have
> >>> accomplished. I have watched from afar (I was living a lot in other
> >>> countries) as this radical experiment in trust *exploded* on to the
> world.
> >>> It blew my mind. And some of the early rules that were set were nothing
> >>> short of genius (e.g. NPOV, AGF and due weight come to mind). It was an
> >>> ideal experiment: an open frontier with simple, limited rule sets. And
> the
> >>> icing on the cake is that "citation needed" ended up not just
> influencing
> >>> how I thought about an encyclopedic text, but how I thought about
> >>> discussing ideas.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Anna,
> >>
> >> Hold on just a moment. :)
> >>
> >> It's important to understand that Jimmy Wales didn't accomplish the
> things
> >> you speak of alone.
> >>
>
> Funny you should say this :-) I’m the “inventor” of [citation needed].
>
> You know why I created [citation needed] on Wikipedia? Because the amount
> of ill-informed, badly thought out, ridiculous claims on Wikipedia articles
> were getting out hand. I started removing them to the talk page, but then
> that same person not only refused to explain where they got their
> information from, but would put the "fact" back into the article. This
> would then perpetuate incorrect information.
>
> One day I had an epiphany. I realised that you can't just argue with these
> people, you need to have a reverse citation system - you need to clearly
> mark out information that is dubious, ill-informed, the result of ingrained
> prejudice (often unconsciously so) and almost always inaccurate.
>
> At the same time, there needed to be a way of allowing controversial views
> and sometimes accurate but controversial facts be detailed on the
> encyclopaedia.
> There was only one way I could see to do it - use the same citation system
> that referenced sources but invert it to highlight information that needed
> a source. Hence I created citation needed (originally without the square
> brackets, whoever added them was a genius in their own right).
>
> Guess what? It worked. 11 years later, despite the many issues on
> Wikipedia, finding out the source of assumptions is no longer a problem.
> People can go to the citations and see where the factoid is documented, or
> whose opinion is being expressed. It allows ordinary people to judge the
> view being expressed more accurately, or to look at how the data was
> extrapolated, to understand how the academic study was conducted, or to
> verify that what is claimed is actually what the original claimant was
> indeed claiming.
>
> But I’d like to make the point: I could *never* have created [citation
> needed] if someone had not created the policy to cite sources, and hundreds
> and hundreds of other editors didn’t have a commitment to sources. So
> whilst [citation needed] was probably one of my best ideas (sometimes I
> wonder if this might not be an indictment to my creativitity!) I have to
> say that it was only possible because of the commitment by my peers on
> Wikipedia to making the project great, and because of those who came before
> me.
>
> And I’m happy to know that my good idea has literally influences and
> improved the critical faculties of so many people who use our encyclopedia
> today!
>
> Chris
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>



--
Anna Stillwell
Major Gifts Officer
Wikimedia Foundation
415.806.1536
*www.wikimediafoundation.org <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>*
_______________________________________________
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] I am going to San Francisco

Andreas Kolbe-2
In reply to this post by Anna Stillwell
Anna,

That too is largely due to volunteers. In early February 2002 for example,
Jimmy spoke of putting advertising on Wikipedia, saying on the Wikipedia-l
mailing list:[1][2]

---o0o---

However, with the ongoing hard times in the Internet economy, we do
anticipate adding some forms of advertising to the site in the near future.

---o0o---

The result of these plans being aired on the mailing list was a user
revolt.

The entire Spanish Wikipedia community jumped ship: they forked and created
their own project, the Enciclopedia Libre. It took the Spanish Wikipedia
years to catch up with and overtake EL.

Edgar Enyedy, one of the leaders of that revolt, shared his reminiscences
with Wired's Nathaniel Tkacz in 2011:[3]

---o0o---

[...]

*The clash that led to your departure from Wikipedia was sparked by a
seemingly insignificant remark, made by Sanger in passing about the
possibility of incorporating advertising in order to fund his future work
on the encyclopaedia(s). His exact words were, "Bomis might well start
selling ads on Wikipedia sometime within the next few months".[4] Can you
revisit this event and tell us how it unfolded? *

The possibility of advertising was out of the question. I asked Wales for a
public commitment that there would be no advertising, but this only came
after we left. Apart from those already mentioned (Sanger's role and the
autonomy of the Spanish version) there were other points of disagreement.

Firstly, all Wikipedia domains (.com, .org, .net) were owned by Wales. I
asked myself "why are we working for a dot com?" I asked for Wikipedia to
be changed to a dot org.

[...]

Because of these things, I didn't trust Wales' intentions. Not at all. We
were all working for free in a dot com with no access to the servers, no
mirrors, no software updates, no downloadable database, and no way to set
up the wiki itself. Finally, came the possibility of incorporating
advertising, so we left. It couldn't be any other way.

I would like to remark upon the fact that as it is known today, the
International Wikipedia that you all know and have come to take for
granted, might have been impossible without the Spanish fork. Wales was
worried that other foreign communities would follow our fork. He learnt
from us what to do and what not to do in future.

---o0o---

It's an interesting article, and a fascinating bit of Wikipedia history. At
one point, Jimmy Wales apparently envisaged selling hard copies (!) of the
encyclopedias; hence the GNU/FDL licence.

The point is, user revolts have always been a significant part of making
Wikipedia what it is today.

This includes its being an ad-free non-profit.

Andreas

[1] Feb. 2, 2002 mailing list post by Jimmy Wales:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-February/001279.html
[2] http://larrysanger.org/2011/01/jimmy-wales-on-advertisement/
[3]
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-01/20/wikipedia-spanish-fork/viewall
[4] Feb. 13, 2002 mailing list post by Larry Sanger:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-February/001444.html

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 4:58 AM, Anna Stillwell <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Andreas,
>
> > It's important to understand that Jimmy Wales didn't accomplish the
> things
> you speak of alone.
>
> Yes, I'm aware of this. Perhaps I should have been more clear. I was
> pointing to the fact that Jimmy did not mess it up. I don't ever
> underestimate that. Jimmy could have not allowed that to happen, he could
> have charged money, he could have done a lot of other things, and he did
> not. He did not mess it up and that is really saying something.
>
> Warmly,
> /a
>
>
_______________________________________________
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] I am going to San Francisco

Andreas Kolbe-2
In reply to this post by Chris Sherlock
Hey Chris, that's great! I didn't know that. I really should have checked
the [[Template:Citation needed]] edit history yesterday.

There you are:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Citation_needed&oldid=17662960

Well done!

Andreas

Andreas

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 3:37 AM, Chris Sherlock <[hidden email]>
wrote:

>
> > On 28 Feb 2016, at 2:25 PM, Chris Sherlock <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On 28 Feb 2016, at 1:16 PM, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Anna Stillwell <
> [hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Jimmy,
> >>>
> >>> I have a ridiculous amount of respect for you and what you have
> >>> accomplished. I have watched from afar (I was living a lot in other
> >>> countries) as this radical experiment in trust *exploded* on to the
> world.
> >>> It blew my mind. And some of the early rules that were set were nothing
> >>> short of genius (e.g. NPOV, AGF and due weight come to mind). It was an
> >>> ideal experiment: an open frontier with simple, limited rule sets. And
> the
> >>> icing on the cake is that "citation needed" ended up not just
> influencing
> >>> how I thought about an encyclopedic text, but how I thought about
> >>> discussing ideas.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Anna,
> >>
> >> Hold on just a moment. :)
> >>
> >> It's important to understand that Jimmy Wales didn't accomplish the
> things
> >> you speak of alone.
> >>
>
> Funny you should say this :-) I’m the “inventor” of [citation needed].
>
> You know why I created [citation needed] on Wikipedia? Because the amount
> of ill-informed, badly thought out, ridiculous claims on Wikipedia articles
> were getting out hand. I started removing them to the talk page, but then
> that same person not only refused to explain where they got their
> information from, but would put the "fact" back into the article. This
> would then perpetuate incorrect information.
>
> One day I had an epiphany. I realised that you can't just argue with these
> people, you need to have a reverse citation system - you need to clearly
> mark out information that is dubious, ill-informed, the result of ingrained
> prejudice (often unconsciously so) and almost always inaccurate.
>
> At the same time, there needed to be a way of allowing controversial views
> and sometimes accurate but controversial facts be detailed on the
> encyclopaedia.
> There was only one way I could see to do it - use the same citation system
> that referenced sources but invert it to highlight information that needed
> a source. Hence I created citation needed (originally without the square
> brackets, whoever added them was a genius in their own right).
>
> Guess what? It worked. 11 years later, despite the many issues on
> Wikipedia, finding out the source of assumptions is no longer a problem.
> People can go to the citations and see where the factoid is documented, or
> whose opinion is being expressed. It allows ordinary people to judge the
> view being expressed more accurately, or to look at how the data was
> extrapolated, to understand how the academic study was conducted, or to
> verify that what is claimed is actually what the original claimant was
> indeed claiming.
>
> But I’d like to make the point: I could *never* have created [citation
> needed] if someone had not created the policy to cite sources, and hundreds
> and hundreds of other editors didn’t have a commitment to sources. So
> whilst [citation needed] was probably one of my best ideas (sometimes I
> wonder if this might not be an indictment to my creativitity!) I have to
> say that it was only possible because of the commitment by my peers on
> Wikipedia to making the project great, and because of those who came before
> me.
>
> And I’m happy to know that my good idea has literally influences and
> improved the critical faculties of so many people who use our encyclopedia
> today!
>
> Chris
> _______________________________________________
> 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] I am going to San Francisco

Fæ
In reply to this post by Jimmy Wales-4
A couple of responses in-line below.

Jimmy, if you would like me to be able to respond to issues on your
Wikipedia talk page, let me know. It's been 4 years now since you
censored me from writing there, which seems like a long time to hold a
grudge.

On 27 February 2016 at 14:39, Jimmy Wales <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 2/26/16 9:17 PM, Fæ wrote:
>> I hope you will be able to address nagging concerns about your
>> personal support for keeping the search project a secret last year,
>
> Sure - I never supported keeping the proposed and approved work on
> Discovery and Search secret last year at all.  I don't know of anyone
> who did.  The failure to sufficiently disclose happened, but it was not
> a point that was discussed at the board level to my knowledge.  I don't
> know of any board members, past or present, who think or thought that
> such things should be kept from the community.
>
> It is my longstanding and continued position that the Foundation should
> be as open as legally possible with only a very limited degree of
> non-disclosure, mostly around legal matters and around employee matters.
>  There are a few other examples, too, like price negotiations with
> vendors, and so on like that.  With regard to our long term strategy, I
> continue to strongly support that everything should not only be
> disclosed to the community, but that it makes no sense for it to be in
> conflict with the community, and that very often it should be led by the
> community in consultation with the Foundation.

As has been raised by others in this email thread, a key core and
legally defined duty of the board is to hold your senior management to
account. If the board of trustees is out of touch with the Wikimedia
community giving "plausible deniability" for a claim that throughout
2015 you thought your management team was being open about the huge
(in terms of relative staff numbers) Knowledge Engine / Search Engine
project and original Knight Grant application in 2015, even while
faced with many public requests for information about the grant and
the "secret project", then the WMF board was not competent or meeting
its commitment to transparency or basic governance.

Politically your words look good, but they must be able to be
demonstrated by action. The claim that you are personally pushing for
"the Foundation should be as open as legally possible with only a very
limited degree of non-disclosure" does not withstand comparison
against the facts. As a trivial example, you have been avoiding the
publication of your email to James about his dismissal, yet apparently
both you and he are agreed can and should be published. While you are
at it, could you copy to me the email(s) about me that you sent to
your fellow board members when I was Chair of the Chapters'
Association? You have a history of behind the scenes dealing and
politicking, when there are no "legal matters" that can apply to your
personal views in correspondence, so I am sure you can understand why
some of those Wikimedians that have become disillusioned as targets of
your non-public criticism or excruciating public criticism without
your engagement in a proper process of evidence or a right to
challenge, will continue to be sceptical of your ability to lead on
openness and transparency, unless you can honestly address those past
cases.

>> and your conflict of loyalties during that process, shortly after your
>> visit.
>
> I did not have any conflict of loyalties during that process.  Spending
> a reasonable portion of our IT budget on an ambitious project to improve
> search and discovery, and to conduct research and community consultation
> on that, is a great idea for Wikipedia and for the broader Wikimedia
> movement and I strongly support it.

Again I struggle to reconcile your opinions of your conflict of
loyalties, with how the general public would perceive a clearly
presented history of your role as an unelected WMF trustee, or
effective "trustee for life" as many have called it, with a personal
role for CEO selection that you have created for yourself, your part
in trustee appointments and the opportunities your regularly have on
the board to steer WMF strategy to encourage projects that suit your
preferences, with your significant financial interest in Wikia, Inc.,
your past experience with "Wikia Search" and how the WMF
Knowledge/Search engine development would fulfil Wikia's strategy for
selling more commercial services, selling Wikia user data and making a
greater profit from targeted advertising.[1] However I'll nail this
down a bit more in a separate thread as assessing the public
perception of your potential conflict of loyalties is worth having
multiple views on, rather than just your opinions or mine.

Links:
1. "Take advantage of Wikia's custom research solutions to achieve
campaign objectives, including brand lift studies, target audience
insights, and more!", "Reach the right audience with the right message
using Wikia's multitude of targeting opportunities, including
demographic, psychographic, geographic, contextual, genre, devices,
conquesting, and more!" http://www.wikia.com/mediakit

Thanks,
Fae
--
[hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

_______________________________________________
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] I am going to San Francisco

GorillaWarfare
In reply to this post by Jimmy Wales-4
Jimmy,

Thank you for your reply, and I apologize for how late this one is. When
I asked how you intend to speak with the Board of Trustees and with staff, I
did not mean what technical means you will use. It doesn't much matter to me
whether you speak with them in person, over email, over Hangouts, or what have
you.

I am instead concerned with how (and if) you will be able to clearly
communicate your discussions between these two groups, since you are apparently
the one doing so.

Perhaps more concerning to me: do you intend to take steps to
make WMF staff comfortable speaking to you? If so, what are these steps? As
Oliver and others have made clear, staff have gone through what sounds like an
extended, traumatic period. I think the mass exodus of staff members makes that
very clear. Some have spoken of intimidation about speaking up with their
concerns. How will you ensure they don't feel the same around you?

Thanks,
Molly (GorillaWarfare)


_______________________________________________
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] I am going to San Francisco

Jimmy Wales-5
On 2/29/16 2:25 AM, Molly White wrote:
> Thank you for your reply, and I apologize for how late this one is. When
> I asked how you intend to speak with the Board of Trustees and with staff, I
> did not mean what technical means you will use. It doesn't much matter to me
> whether you speak with them in person, over email, over Hangouts, or what have
> you.

Ah, ok. :)  I wondered why it mattered but thought I'd just answer
plainly in case you were concerned that not doing it in person would
fail to convey nuance, etc.  (A valid concern, always.)

> I am instead concerned with how (and if) you will be able to clearly
> communicate your discussions between these two groups, since you are apparently
> the one doing so.

I'm not the only one.  Alice is here in San Francisco, too.

> Perhaps more concerning to me: do you intend to take steps to
> make WMF staff comfortable speaking to you? If so, what are these steps? As
> Oliver and others have made clear, staff have gone through what sounds like an
> extended, traumatic period. I think the mass exodus of staff members makes that
> very clear. Some have spoken of intimidation about speaking up with their
> concerns. How will you ensure they don't feel the same around you?

Sure.  It's a potentially tough problem, and likely made worse by a lot
of misconceptions being thrown around by people who have misrepresented
my views.  It's been claimed, for example, that I was the chief
architect of a concept that staff shouldn't talk to board members -
overcoming that misunderstanding is important to me.

I am not involved at all in hiring and firing decisions, and don't
intend to become so involved.  I'm not becoming the interim ED nor the
permanent ED.  I've been here from the beginning and I am very
passionate about Wikipedia and our mission.  I have no specific axe to
grind other than that one.

My heart is heavy about what has happened here, and one of the things
that I feel most heavy about - and that I've heard from staff - is that
I lost touch with them.  I remember driving to the November board
meeting thinking "Well, this is going to be fairly routine and boring"
because I had no idea what awaited me there - which was a train wreck of
a meeting which left millions more questions than answers but which made
it clear that something big was going on.

In my reporting back to the board, and in future discussions with the
interim ED and permanent ED, I intend to report generally and as NPOV as
I can on what I've learned.  I don't intend to name names, as that's not
really relevant.  I won't be making any hiring or firing
recommendations, as I'm not in a position to even begin to evaluate
people on that level.

Intimidation about speaking up is a terrible and perverse thing to
happen in any organization.  If that's a feeling that the organization
has had, I want to put forward the idea that it's over.  If I were
moving into the ED position, it would be my first priority - to root
that out.  It's devastating.  Work life shouldn't be about that - it
should be about the mission, about everything we have all be dreaming of
and working toward and enjoying for all these years.

And it will be one of the qualities that I'm looking for in any interim
and permanent ED - a sense that they will build a creative, nurturing,
bold workplace.  And I also think we absolutely need to build in
mechanisms for structured, professional, facilitated thoughtful feedback
from the staff directly to the board is a regular thing.

In short, there is no reason for anyone to be afraid to talk to me.

But, I should note, I've had a huge response to my offer to meet with
people, and as far as I can tell checking with people who know more
people than I do, I'm getting a nice mix of people - noisy ones, quiet
ones, angry ones, satisfied ones.

_______________________________________________
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] I am going to San Francisco

Andreas Kolbe-2
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 2:13 PM, Jimmy Wales <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Intimidation about speaking up is a terrible and perverse thing to
> happen in any organization.  If that's a feeling that the organization
> has had, I want to put forward the idea that it's over.  If I were
> moving into the ED position, it would be my first priority - to root
> that out.  It's devastating.  Work life shouldn't be about that - it
> should be about the mission, about everything we have all be dreaming of
> and working toward and enjoying for all these years.
>


A few days ago, Oliver Keyes said[1] here on this list that, even though he
had already quit his job, he was scared to share with people the content of
the non-disclosure agreement he had to sign as a WMF staff member.

Do you believe the various non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement
clauses that staff have to sign to work at the WMF should be public? Will
you encourage staff to share their content, in the interests of
transparency?

Andreas
_______________________________________________
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