[Wikimedia-l] [recent changes]

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
30 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [recent changes]

jytdog
This is kind of frustrating.  Lila (speaking for the board) in her "Why we
changed
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Lila_Tretikov%27s_statement_on_Why_we%27ve_changed>"
message, identified falling page views (creating a threat of falling
donation revenue) caused by folks like Google repurposing our content as an
"existential challenge".    I am not sure I agree with that, but the WMF
Board and the former ED said that.  (Jimmy confirmed that on his Talk page,
too)

The key thing about Denny's COI issues as they unfolded, is that he was
surprised and frustrated about the problems managing his COI ended up
causing - so much so that he quit.  That stuff actually happened.  Debating
what his COI was or whether it mattered is really beside the point... and
all murky because whatever management plan was worked out - whatever areas
actually were identified as problematic - we do not know, as that plan
wasn't made public.

Going forward, there should be a) a clear disclosure of relevant outside
interests and b) a pre-agreed COI management plan where those interests
conflict with a Trustee's obligations, before Trustees formally step into
the role.  What happened with Denny doesn't have to happen again.  That
seems to be the key issue looking forward.

I'm repeating myself, and will stop now.

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 2:28 AM, Anthony Cole <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I agree with all of that, MZ. As to your questions:
>
> "Shouldn't we be applauding Google and others for helping us share our
> knowledge with the world?"
>
> Yes.
>
> "What size do you think the Wikimedia Foundation should be in terms of
> yearly
> budget and number of full-time employees? How much bigger or smaller should
> the Wikimedia Foundation be than other Wikimedia chapters?"
>
> It depends on what we want them to do.
>
> "...are you sure that we're all agreed that this [Google impacting
> Wikipedia's
> page views and the ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers] is
> problematic?"
>
> I'm less concerned than many, and I'm sure others are unconcerned.
>
> "If Google causes page views to go down and our sites are directly hit
> less frequently,
> that actually saves us money, doesn't it?"
>
> If our page views drop by 50% and this halves our fundraising capacity, I
> doubt that would be offset by the saved hosting costs. But I'm no expert on
> these things.
>
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:46 AM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Anthony Cole wrote:
> > >Google's "info boxes" and their answers at the top of their results,
> we're
> > >all agreed now, I think, are impacting Wikipedia's page views and,
> > >consequently, our ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers.
> >
> > Google and others have a direct interest in their data being accurate and
> > reliable. We already see that Google has a "report a correction" feature
> > for some of its services. It's in both Wikimedia's interest and re-users'
> > interest for the underlying data source to be update-to-date and correct.
> >
> > Our mission is to spread free educational content to the world and we
> make
> > our data available for re-use for this purpose. Shouldn't we be
> applauding
> > Google and others for helping us share our knowledge with the world?
> >
> > As far as threats to direct-to-user fund-raising go, I'd put
> > organizational instability ahead of Google at the moment. The Wikimedia
> > Foundation has repeatedly been in the news lately for ongoing management
> > issues, both in its executive team and in its board of trustees.
> >
> > What size do you think the Wikimedia Foundation should be in terms of
> > yearly budget and number of full-time employees? How much bigger or
> > smaller should the Wikimedia Foundation be than other Wikimedia chapters?
> >
> > Even if we accepted your premise that Google was impacting Wikipedia's
> > page views and the ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers
> > (citations needed, to be sure), are you sure that we're all agreed that
> > this is problematic? If others re-using our content has a side effect
> > of reducing donations to Wikimedia Foundation Inc., donations which are
> > received through questionable and increasingly obnoxious on-site
> > advertisements, you will not find universal agreement that this donor
> > reduction would be terrible. As others have argued previously, small and
> > recurring donations are a means of providing accountability for the
> > entities entrusted with these monetary donations. If potential donors no
> > longer trust the Wikimedia Foundation to manage and distribute this
> > money, no longer donating financially is practical and wise.
> >
> > If Google causes page views to go down and our sites are directly hit
> less
> > frequently, that actually saves us money, doesn't it? We're theoretically
> > then off-loading some of our hosting costs to Google, Facebook, and
> > others who are downloading and re-uploading our data to the Web, exactly
> > as we mandated that anyone be able to do. With multiple copies of the
> data
> > on the Web, we're better ensuring that the content lives on in
> perpetuity.
> >
> >
> > MZMcBride
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [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] [recent changes]

Anthony Cole
Good points worth repeating, though, jytdog.

We're learning as we go here. COI is notoriously difficult to anticipate
and manage. None of us, that I'm aware of, thought about - or at least
discussed - the implications of his Google role when he ran for the board,
and when it became too onerous to manage, Denny had the wisdom to step
away.

He's an enormous asset to this movement; as I said, we're lucky to have
him, and I'm very grateful for all he's contributed.

Anthony Cole


On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 4:44 PM, jytdog <[hidden email]> wrote:

> This is kind of frustrating.  Lila (speaking for the board) in her "Why we
> changed
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Lila_Tretikov%27s_statement_on_Why_we%27ve_changed
> >"
> message, identified falling page views (creating a threat of falling
> donation revenue) caused by folks like Google repurposing our content as an
> "existential challenge".    I am not sure I agree with that, but the WMF
> Board and the former ED said that.  (Jimmy confirmed that on his Talk page,
> too)
>
> The key thing about Denny's COI issues as they unfolded, is that he was
> surprised and frustrated about the problems managing his COI ended up
> causing - so much so that he quit.  That stuff actually happened.  Debating
> what his COI was or whether it mattered is really beside the point... and
> all murky because whatever management plan was worked out - whatever areas
> actually were identified as problematic - we do not know, as that plan
> wasn't made public.
>
> Going forward, there should be a) a clear disclosure of relevant outside
> interests and b) a pre-agreed COI management plan where those interests
> conflict with a Trustee's obligations, before Trustees formally step into
> the role.  What happened with Denny doesn't have to happen again.  That
> seems to be the key issue looking forward.
>
> I'm repeating myself, and will stop now.
>
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 2:28 AM, Anthony Cole <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I agree with all of that, MZ. As to your questions:
> >
> > "Shouldn't we be applauding Google and others for helping us share our
> > knowledge with the world?"
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > "What size do you think the Wikimedia Foundation should be in terms of
> > yearly
> > budget and number of full-time employees? How much bigger or smaller
> should
> > the Wikimedia Foundation be than other Wikimedia chapters?"
> >
> > It depends on what we want them to do.
> >
> > "...are you sure that we're all agreed that this [Google impacting
> > Wikipedia's
> > page views and the ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers] is
> > problematic?"
> >
> > I'm less concerned than many, and I'm sure others are unconcerned.
> >
> > "If Google causes page views to go down and our sites are directly hit
> > less frequently,
> > that actually saves us money, doesn't it?"
> >
> > If our page views drop by 50% and this halves our fundraising capacity, I
> > doubt that would be offset by the saved hosting costs. But I'm no expert
> on
> > these things.
> >
> >
> > Anthony Cole
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:46 AM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Anthony Cole wrote:
> > > >Google's "info boxes" and their answers at the top of their results,
> > we're
> > > >all agreed now, I think, are impacting Wikipedia's page views and,
> > > >consequently, our ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers.
> > >
> > > Google and others have a direct interest in their data being accurate
> and
> > > reliable. We already see that Google has a "report a correction"
> feature
> > > for some of its services. It's in both Wikimedia's interest and
> re-users'
> > > interest for the underlying data source to be update-to-date and
> correct.
> > >
> > > Our mission is to spread free educational content to the world and we
> > make
> > > our data available for re-use for this purpose. Shouldn't we be
> > applauding
> > > Google and others for helping us share our knowledge with the world?
> > >
> > > As far as threats to direct-to-user fund-raising go, I'd put
> > > organizational instability ahead of Google at the moment. The Wikimedia
> > > Foundation has repeatedly been in the news lately for ongoing
> management
> > > issues, both in its executive team and in its board of trustees.
> > >
> > > What size do you think the Wikimedia Foundation should be in terms of
> > > yearly budget and number of full-time employees? How much bigger or
> > > smaller should the Wikimedia Foundation be than other Wikimedia
> chapters?
> > >
> > > Even if we accepted your premise that Google was impacting Wikipedia's
> > > page views and the ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers
> > > (citations needed, to be sure), are you sure that we're all agreed that
> > > this is problematic? If others re-using our content has a side effect
> > > of reducing donations to Wikimedia Foundation Inc., donations which are
> > > received through questionable and increasingly obnoxious on-site
> > > advertisements, you will not find universal agreement that this donor
> > > reduction would be terrible. As others have argued previously, small
> and
> > > recurring donations are a means of providing accountability for the
> > > entities entrusted with these monetary donations. If potential donors
> no
> > > longer trust the Wikimedia Foundation to manage and distribute this
> > > money, no longer donating financially is practical and wise.
> > >
> > > If Google causes page views to go down and our sites are directly hit
> > less
> > > frequently, that actually saves us money, doesn't it? We're
> theoretically
> > > then off-loading some of our hosting costs to Google, Facebook, and
> > > others who are downloading and re-uploading our data to the Web,
> exactly
> > > as we mandated that anyone be able to do. With multiple copies of the
> > data
> > > on the Web, we're better ensuring that the content lives on in
> > perpetuity.
> > >
> > >
> > > MZMcBride
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: [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] [recent changes]

Anthony Cole
jytdog, regarding:

"Going forward, there should be a) a clear disclosure of relevant
outside interests
and b) a pre-agreed COI management plan where those interests conflict with
a Trustee's obligations, before Trustees formally step into the role."

When you say "relevant outside interests" what do you mean?

I'd love to hear Denny's thoughts on this. Also, Denny, I'm interested to
hear you were concerned about a conflict of interest with Wikidata. I'm
just now rethinking the question of internal conflicts of interest. Are
they necessarily a bad thing? You were elected by a community who, I think,
expected you to create an environment where Wikidata could flourish. Is it
a bad thing to have advocates for movement initiatives on the board?

Anthony Cole


On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Anthony Cole <[hidden email]> wrote:

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

Anthony Cole
Ugh. Sorry. I mean: should involvement in and advocacy for a particular
movement initiative disqualify one from voting on motions related to that
initiative?

Anthony Cole


On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Anthony Cole <[hidden email]> wrote:

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

Ting Chen-2
Hello Anthony,

in my opinion a board member should not foster his or her own pet
projects. The WMF board members are leading a global movement. When
everyone of them are fosting their own pet projects other projects may
suffer. The board members should be beyond the single projects and give
directions, like do more for the small projects, instead of single out
the Swahili Wikipedia (just as an example).

This does not mean that the board members should not continue their
involvement in the projects, but then as community members, not having
more power or say than other community members.

Greetings
Ting



Am 04/12/2016 um 01:03 PM schrieb Anthony Cole:

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

Anthony Cole
Hi Ting.

You say, "...a board member should not foster his or her own pet projects."

It's just one vote out of ten (normally). If they can't persuade their
colleagues, the motion won't pass.

In the case of community-selected trustees, they were put there by people
who know their enthusiasms and expect them to do what they can to allow
those initiatives to flourish, and who trust them not to do that at the
expense of the overall shared mission.

Shouldn't a discussion affecting an initiative include the very trustee who
is (likely) the best informed and best placed to explain things to the
other trustees?

Anthony Cole


On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 7:09 PM, Ting Chen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello Anthony,
>
> in my opinion a board member should not foster his or her own pet
> projects. The WMF board members are leading a global movement. When
> everyone of them are fosting their own pet projects other projects may
> suffer. The board members should be beyond the single projects and give
> directions, like do more for the small projects, instead of single out the
> Swahili Wikipedia (just as an example).
>
> This does not mean that the board members should not continue their
> involvement in the projects, but then as community members, not having more
> power or say than other community members.
>
> Greetings
> Ting
>
>
>
>
> Am 04/12/2016 um 01:03 PM schrieb Anthony Cole:
>
>> Ugh. Sorry. I mean: should involvement in and advocacy for a particular
>> movement initiative disqualify one from voting on motions related to that
>> initiative?
>>
>> Anthony Cole
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Anthony Cole <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> jytdog, regarding:
>>>
>>> "Going forward, there should be a) a clear disclosure of relevant
>>> outside interests
>>> and b) a pre-agreed COI management plan where those interests conflict
>>> with a Trustee's obligations, before Trustees formally step into the
>>> role."
>>>
>>> When you say "relevant outside interests" what do you mean?
>>>
>>> I'd love to hear Denny's thoughts on this. Also, Denny, I'm interested to
>>> hear you were concerned about a conflict of interest with Wikidata. I'm
>>> just now rethinking the question of internal conflicts of interest. Are
>>> they necessarily a bad thing? You were elected by a community who, I
>>> think,
>>> expected you to create an environment where Wikidata could flourish. Is
>>> it
>>> a bad thing to have advocates for movement initiatives on the board?
>>>
>>> Anthony Cole
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Anthony Cole <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Good points worth repeating, though, jytdog.
>>>>
>>>> We're learning as we go here. COI is notoriously difficult to anticipate
>>>> and manage. None of us, that I'm aware of, thought about - or at least
>>>> discussed - the implications of his Google role when he ran for the
>>>> board,
>>>> and when it became too onerous to manage, Denny had the wisdom to step
>>>> away.
>>>>
>>>> He's an enormous asset to this movement; as I said, we're lucky to have
>>>> him, and I'm very grateful for all he's contributed.
>>>>
>>>> Anthony Cole
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 4:44 PM, jytdog <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This is kind of frustrating.  Lila (speaking for the board) in her "Why
>>>>> we
>>>>> changed
>>>>> <
>>>>>
>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Lila_Tretikov%27s_statement_on_Why_we%27ve_changed
>>>>>
>>>>>> "
>>>>>>
>>>>> message, identified falling page views (creating a threat of falling
>>>>> donation revenue) caused by folks like Google repurposing our content
>>>>> as
>>>>> an
>>>>> "existential challenge".    I am not sure I agree with that, but the
>>>>> WMF
>>>>> Board and the former ED said that.  (Jimmy confirmed that on his Talk
>>>>> page,
>>>>> too)
>>>>>
>>>>> The key thing about Denny's COI issues as they unfolded, is that he was
>>>>> surprised and frustrated about the problems managing his COI ended up
>>>>> causing - so much so that he quit.  That stuff actually happened.
>>>>> Debating
>>>>> what his COI was or whether it mattered is really beside the point...
>>>>> and
>>>>> all murky because whatever management plan was worked out - whatever
>>>>> areas
>>>>> actually were identified as problematic - we do not know, as that plan
>>>>> wasn't made public.
>>>>>
>>>>> Going forward, there should be a) a clear disclosure of relevant
>>>>> outside
>>>>> interests and b) a pre-agreed COI management plan where those interests
>>>>> conflict with a Trustee's obligations, before Trustees formally step
>>>>> into
>>>>> the role.  What happened with Denny doesn't have to happen again.  That
>>>>> seems to be the key issue looking forward.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm repeating myself, and will stop now.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 2:28 AM, Anthony Cole <[hidden email]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree with all of that, MZ. As to your questions:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Shouldn't we be applauding Google and others for helping us share our
>>>>>> knowledge with the world?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "What size do you think the Wikimedia Foundation should be in terms of
>>>>>> yearly
>>>>>> budget and number of full-time employees? How much bigger or smaller
>>>>>>
>>>>> should
>>>>>
>>>>>> the Wikimedia Foundation be than other Wikimedia chapters?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It depends on what we want them to do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "...are you sure that we're all agreed that this [Google impacting
>>>>>> Wikipedia's
>>>>>> page views and the ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers]
>>>>>>
>>>>> is
>>>>>
>>>>>> problematic?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm less concerned than many, and I'm sure others are unconcerned.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "If Google causes page views to go down and our sites are directly hit
>>>>>> less frequently,
>>>>>> that actually saves us money, doesn't it?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If our page views drop by 50% and this halves our fundraising
>>>>>>
>>>>> capacity, I
>>>>>
>>>>>> doubt that would be offset by the saved hosting costs. But I'm no
>>>>>>
>>>>> expert on
>>>>>
>>>>>> these things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anthony Cole
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:46 AM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anthony Cole wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Google's "info boxes" and their answers at the top of their results,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> we're
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> all agreed now, I think, are impacting Wikipedia's page views and,
>>>>>>>> consequently, our ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Google and others have a direct interest in their data being
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> accurate and
>>>>>
>>>>>> reliable. We already see that Google has a "report a correction"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> feature
>>>>>
>>>>>> for some of its services. It's in both Wikimedia's interest and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> re-users'
>>>>>
>>>>>> interest for the underlying data source to be update-to-date and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Our mission is to spread free educational content to the world and we
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> make
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> our data available for re-use for this purpose. Shouldn't we be
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> applauding
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Google and others for helping us share our knowledge with the world?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As far as threats to direct-to-user fund-raising go, I'd put
>>>>>>> organizational instability ahead of Google at the moment. The
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wikimedia
>>>>>
>>>>>> Foundation has repeatedly been in the news lately for ongoing
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> management
>>>>>
>>>>>> issues, both in its executive team and in its board of trustees.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What size do you think the Wikimedia Foundation should be in terms of
>>>>>>> yearly budget and number of full-time employees? How much bigger or
>>>>>>> smaller should the Wikimedia Foundation be than other Wikimedia
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> chapters?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Even if we accepted your premise that Google was impacting
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wikipedia's
>>>>>
>>>>>> page views and the ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers
>>>>>>> (citations needed, to be sure), are you sure that we're all agreed
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> that
>>>>>
>>>>>> this is problematic? If others re-using our content has a side effect
>>>>>>> of reducing donations to Wikimedia Foundation Inc., donations which
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> are
>>>>>
>>>>>> received through questionable and increasingly obnoxious on-site
>>>>>>> advertisements, you will not find universal agreement that this donor
>>>>>>> reduction would be terrible. As others have argued previously, small
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> and
>>>>>
>>>>>> recurring donations are a means of providing accountability for the
>>>>>>> entities entrusted with these monetary donations. If potential
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> donors no
>>>>>
>>>>>> longer trust the Wikimedia Foundation to manage and distribute this
>>>>>>> money, no longer donating financially is practical and wise.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If Google causes page views to go down and our sites are directly hit
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> less
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> frequently, that actually saves us money, doesn't it? We're
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> theoretically
>>>>>
>>>>>> then off-loading some of our hosting costs to Google, Facebook, and
>>>>>>> others who are downloading and re-uploading our data to the Web,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> exactly
>>>>>
>>>>>> as we mandated that anyone be able to do. With multiple copies of the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> data
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> on the Web, we're better ensuring that the content lives on in
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> perpetuity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> MZMcBride
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>>>>>> New messages to: [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] [recent changes]

Ting Chen-2
Hello Anthony,

in my opinion, the board should not discuss individual projects, at
least when I was on the board we decided not to. The board looks at
policies that are more general and global. The resolutions that the
board issued, which do impact the projects, are (or at least were)
always formulated in a way that it applies to all projects. And they
always only state the principle, and let the individual projects room to
implement the principles into their own policies.

That said. Naturally every single board member bring their own
experience, and in discussions we did use our individual experiences to
explain our position. But when we formulated a resolution or made a
decision we always tried to avoid to set up a principle or a decision on
one project.

There is no clear boundary for COI, as someone else had already said.
Everyone of us has our own personal red lines. I am not someone who
would comment other people's red line. Actually generally I tend to
accept the fact that other people have a different red line.

I would like to give you an example to show you my red line: Back in
2009 when we were working on the strategic planning I decided to not be
member of the workshop that deal with China, instead of that I took part
in the movement roles workshop. And I didn't take part on the discussion
when it came to the decision if China should be a hot spot or now. The
reason for that is exactly because as a board member I may be put a
special emphasis on the topic China, and there is potentially a bias of
my opinion which may lead the Foundation do a wrong decision (in that
case it may mean waste a few tens of thousands of dollars). Naturally
there were community members who were not happy with this. And there
were some critics when the board decided in favor of India, Africa and
Middle East. I was quite confident that there were many people who can
better examing China than me, and looking back, it was a right decision.

Generally speaking, my principle is if there is a possible COI then
avoid it. Defending a COI suspect (even if it is wrong) costs more
energy than avoid get into that situation.

Beside of that, you also need to think that the best involved and
engaged trustee may also have a single point of view, which may differ
with the rest of that community. I know that in many things other zh-wk
community member have a different opinion than me.


Greetings
Ting



Am 04/12/2016 um 01:30 PM schrieb Anthony Cole:

> Hi Ting.
>
> You say, "...a board member should not foster his or her own pet projects."
>
> It's just one vote out of ten (normally). If they can't persuade their
> colleagues, the motion won't pass.
>
> In the case of community-selected trustees, they were put there by people
> who know their enthusiasms and expect them to do what they can to allow
> those initiatives to flourish, and who trust them not to do that at the
> expense of the overall shared mission.
>
> Shouldn't a discussion affecting an initiative include the very trustee who
> is (likely) the best informed and best placed to explain things to the
> other trustees?
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 7:09 PM, Ting Chen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hello Anthony,
>>
>> in my opinion a board member should not foster his or her own pet
>> projects. The WMF board members are leading a global movement. When
>> everyone of them are fosting their own pet projects other projects may
>> suffer. The board members should be beyond the single projects and give
>> directions, like do more for the small projects, instead of single out the
>> Swahili Wikipedia (just as an example).
>>
>> This does not mean that the board members should not continue their
>> involvement in the projects, but then as community members, not having more
>> power or say than other community members.
>>
>> Greetings
>> Ting
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 04/12/2016 um 01:03 PM schrieb Anthony Cole:
>>
>>> Ugh. Sorry. I mean: should involvement in and advocacy for a particular
>>> movement initiative disqualify one from voting on motions related to that
>>> initiative?
>>>
>>> Anthony Cole
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Anthony Cole <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> jytdog, regarding:
>>>> "Going forward, there should be a) a clear disclosure of relevant
>>>> outside interests
>>>> and b) a pre-agreed COI management plan where those interests conflict
>>>> with a Trustee's obligations, before Trustees formally step into the
>>>> role."
>>>>
>>>> When you say "relevant outside interests" what do you mean?
>>>>
>>>> I'd love to hear Denny's thoughts on this. Also, Denny, I'm interested to
>>>> hear you were concerned about a conflict of interest with Wikidata. I'm
>>>> just now rethinking the question of internal conflicts of interest. Are
>>>> they necessarily a bad thing? You were elected by a community who, I
>>>> think,
>>>> expected you to create an environment where Wikidata could flourish. Is
>>>> it
>>>> a bad thing to have advocates for movement initiatives on the board?
>>>>
>>>> Anthony Cole
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Anthony Cole <[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Good points worth repeating, though, jytdog.
>>>>> We're learning as we go here. COI is notoriously difficult to anticipate
>>>>> and manage. None of us, that I'm aware of, thought about - or at least
>>>>> discussed - the implications of his Google role when he ran for the
>>>>> board,
>>>>> and when it became too onerous to manage, Denny had the wisdom to step
>>>>> away.
>>>>>
>>>>> He's an enormous asset to this movement; as I said, we're lucky to have
>>>>> him, and I'm very grateful for all he's contributed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anthony Cole
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 4:44 PM, jytdog <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> This is kind of frustrating.  Lila (speaking for the board) in her "Why
>>>>>> we
>>>>>> changed
>>>>>> <
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Lila_Tretikov%27s_statement_on_Why_we%27ve_changed
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> message, identified falling page views (creating a threat of falling
>>>>>> donation revenue) caused by folks like Google repurposing our content
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> an
>>>>>> "existential challenge".    I am not sure I agree with that, but the
>>>>>> WMF
>>>>>> Board and the former ED said that.  (Jimmy confirmed that on his Talk
>>>>>> page,
>>>>>> too)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The key thing about Denny's COI issues as they unfolded, is that he was
>>>>>> surprised and frustrated about the problems managing his COI ended up
>>>>>> causing - so much so that he quit.  That stuff actually happened.
>>>>>> Debating
>>>>>> what his COI was or whether it mattered is really beside the point...
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> all murky because whatever management plan was worked out - whatever
>>>>>> areas
>>>>>> actually were identified as problematic - we do not know, as that plan
>>>>>> wasn't made public.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Going forward, there should be a) a clear disclosure of relevant
>>>>>> outside
>>>>>> interests and b) a pre-agreed COI management plan where those interests
>>>>>> conflict with a Trustee's obligations, before Trustees formally step
>>>>>> into
>>>>>> the role.  What happened with Denny doesn't have to happen again.  That
>>>>>> seems to be the key issue looking forward.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm repeating myself, and will stop now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 2:28 AM, Anthony Cole <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree with all of that, MZ. As to your questions:
>>>>>>> "Shouldn't we be applauding Google and others for helping us share our
>>>>>>> knowledge with the world?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "What size do you think the Wikimedia Foundation should be in terms of
>>>>>>> yearly
>>>>>>> budget and number of full-time employees? How much bigger or smaller
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> should
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the Wikimedia Foundation be than other Wikimedia chapters?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It depends on what we want them to do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "...are you sure that we're all agreed that this [Google impacting
>>>>>>> Wikipedia's
>>>>>>> page views and the ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> problematic?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm less concerned than many, and I'm sure others are unconcerned.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "If Google causes page views to go down and our sites are directly hit
>>>>>>> less frequently,
>>>>>>> that actually saves us money, doesn't it?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If our page views drop by 50% and this halves our fundraising
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> capacity, I
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> doubt that would be offset by the saved hosting costs. But I'm no
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> expert on
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> these things.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anthony Cole
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:46 AM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anthony Cole wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Google's "info boxes" and their answers at the top of their results,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> we're
>>>>>>>> all agreed now, I think, are impacting Wikipedia's page views and,
>>>>>>>>> consequently, our ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Google and others have a direct interest in their data being
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> accurate and
>>>>>>> reliable. We already see that Google has a "report a correction"
>>>>>>> feature
>>>>>>> for some of its services. It's in both Wikimedia's interest and
>>>>>>> re-users'
>>>>>>> interest for the underlying data source to be update-to-date and
>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>> Our mission is to spread free educational content to the world and we
>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> our data available for re-use for this purpose. Shouldn't we be
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> applauding
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Google and others for helping us share our knowledge with the world?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As far as threats to direct-to-user fund-raising go, I'd put
>>>>>>>> organizational instability ahead of Google at the moment. The
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wikimedia
>>>>>>> Foundation has repeatedly been in the news lately for ongoing
>>>>>>> management
>>>>>>> issues, both in its executive team and in its board of trustees.
>>>>>>>> What size do you think the Wikimedia Foundation should be in terms of
>>>>>>>> yearly budget and number of full-time employees? How much bigger or
>>>>>>>> smaller should the Wikimedia Foundation be than other Wikimedia
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> chapters?
>>>>>>> Even if we accepted your premise that Google was impacting
>>>>>>> Wikipedia's
>>>>>>> page views and the ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers
>>>>>>>> (citations needed, to be sure), are you sure that we're all agreed
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> this is problematic? If others re-using our content has a side effect
>>>>>>>> of reducing donations to Wikimedia Foundation Inc., donations which
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>> received through questionable and increasingly obnoxious on-site
>>>>>>>> advertisements, you will not find universal agreement that this donor
>>>>>>>> reduction would be terrible. As others have argued previously, small
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> recurring donations are a means of providing accountability for the
>>>>>>>> entities entrusted with these monetary donations. If potential
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> donors no
>>>>>>> longer trust the Wikimedia Foundation to manage and distribute this
>>>>>>>> money, no longer donating financially is practical and wise.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If Google causes page views to go down and our sites are directly hit
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> less
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> frequently, that actually saves us money, doesn't it? We're
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> theoretically
>>>>>>> then off-loading some of our hosting costs to Google, Facebook, and
>>>>>>>> others who are downloading and re-uploading our data to the Web,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> exactly
>>>>>>> as we mandated that anyone be able to do. With multiple copies of the
>>>>>>> data
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> on the Web, we're better ensuring that the content lives on in
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> perpetuity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> MZMcBride
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>>>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>>>>>>> New messages to: [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] [recent changes]

Fæ
In reply to this post by Anthony Cole
When a board member has special 'enthusiasms', it can be normal for
the board to seek their view as an inside expert, however it can
easily turn out to be a mistake if a trustee vote includes their vote,
especially if the community wishes to see trustee voting becoming more
transparent.

This is because the same trustees with special passions and interests
for a resolution may be hard to stand against for fellow trustees who
have neither special interest nor knowledge for a resolution, beyond
what is presented to the board at that time. Just having a especially
interested trustee participate in the vote may sway the outcome far
more than their single numerical vote. It is fairly obvious that
trustees like Jimmy with interests in Wikia, ex-trustee Denny with
interests in Google or ex-trustee James with interests in the medical
field, have interests to be managed and should be a reason for them to
recuse from votes touching on those same interests, or where they may
be later *seen* to touch on those interests. This should not be a
reason for the board to fail to benefit from expert knowledge that
some trustees happen to have.

Of course there is *plenty* of outside expertize amongst the Wikimedia
community that could be provided to the board at minimal cost,
especially if video conferencing were used, rather than flying people
around the world to talk. I find it sad that we see few of these types
of board presentations being solicited from expert and enthusiastic
community members, with a default of using WMF employees or
consultants to give board presentations (based on what we see from the
ridiculously sketchy board meeting minutes). Getting varying views
from non-Trustee experts in snapshot/10 minute briefing presentations
would be an excellent way for Trustees in Denny's position to
recommend sources of expert information while avoiding being
compromised, and remaining comfortable that the issues and benefits
for improvements to the WMF strategy, and best use of funding, were
being properly explored.

Fae


On 12 April 2016 at 12:30, Anthony Cole <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Ting.
>
> You say, "...a board member should not foster his or her own pet projects."
>
> It's just one vote out of ten (normally). If they can't persuade their
> colleagues, the motion won't pass.
>
> In the case of community-selected trustees, they were put there by people
> who know their enthusiasms and expect them to do what they can to allow
> those initiatives to flourish, and who trust them not to do that at the
> expense of the overall shared mission.
>
> Shouldn't a discussion affecting an initiative include the very trustee who
> is (likely) the best informed and best placed to explain things to the
> other trustees?
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 7:09 PM, Ting Chen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hello Anthony,
>>
>> in my opinion a board member should not foster his or her own pet
>> projects. The WMF board members are leading a global movement. When
>> everyone of them are fosting their own pet projects other projects may
>> suffer. The board members should be beyond the single projects and give
>> directions, like do more for the small projects, instead of single out the
>> Swahili Wikipedia (just as an example).
>>
>> This does not mean that the board members should not continue their
>> involvement in the projects, but then as community members, not having more
>> power or say than other community members.
>>
>> Greetings
>> Ting
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 04/12/2016 um 01:03 PM schrieb Anthony Cole:
>>
>>> Ugh. Sorry. I mean: should involvement in and advocacy for a particular
>>> movement initiative disqualify one from voting on motions related to that
>>> initiative?
>>>
>>> Anthony Cole
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Anthony Cole <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> jytdog, regarding:
>>>>
>>>> "Going forward, there should be a) a clear disclosure of relevant
>>>> outside interests
>>>> and b) a pre-agreed COI management plan where those interests conflict
>>>> with a Trustee's obligations, before Trustees formally step into the
>>>> role."
>>>>
>>>> When you say "relevant outside interests" what do you mean?
>>>>
>>>> I'd love to hear Denny's thoughts on this. Also, Denny, I'm interested to
>>>> hear you were concerned about a conflict of interest with Wikidata. I'm
>>>> just now rethinking the question of internal conflicts of interest. Are
>>>> they necessarily a bad thing? You were elected by a community who, I
>>>> think,
>>>> expected you to create an environment where Wikidata could flourish. Is
>>>> it
>>>> a bad thing to have advocates for movement initiatives on the board?
>>>>
>>>> Anthony Cole
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Anthony Cole <[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Good points worth repeating, though, jytdog.
>>>>>
>>>>> We're learning as we go here. COI is notoriously difficult to anticipate
>>>>> and manage. None of us, that I'm aware of, thought about - or at least
>>>>> discussed - the implications of his Google role when he ran for the
>>>>> board,
>>>>> and when it became too onerous to manage, Denny had the wisdom to step
>>>>> away.
>>>>>
>>>>> He's an enormous asset to this movement; as I said, we're lucky to have
>>>>> him, and I'm very grateful for all he's contributed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anthony Cole
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 4:44 PM, jytdog <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> This is kind of frustrating.  Lila (speaking for the board) in her "Why
>>>>>> we
>>>>>> changed
>>>>>> <
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Lila_Tretikov%27s_statement_on_Why_we%27ve_changed
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> message, identified falling page views (creating a threat of falling
>>>>>> donation revenue) caused by folks like Google repurposing our content
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> an
>>>>>> "existential challenge".    I am not sure I agree with that, but the
>>>>>> WMF
>>>>>> Board and the former ED said that.  (Jimmy confirmed that on his Talk
>>>>>> page,
>>>>>> too)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The key thing about Denny's COI issues as they unfolded, is that he was
>>>>>> surprised and frustrated about the problems managing his COI ended up
>>>>>> causing - so much so that he quit.  That stuff actually happened.
>>>>>> Debating
>>>>>> what his COI was or whether it mattered is really beside the point...
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> all murky because whatever management plan was worked out - whatever
>>>>>> areas
>>>>>> actually were identified as problematic - we do not know, as that plan
>>>>>> wasn't made public.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Going forward, there should be a) a clear disclosure of relevant
>>>>>> outside
>>>>>> interests and b) a pre-agreed COI management plan where those interests
>>>>>> conflict with a Trustee's obligations, before Trustees formally step
>>>>>> into
>>>>>> the role.  What happened with Denny doesn't have to happen again.  That
>>>>>> seems to be the key issue looking forward.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm repeating myself, and will stop now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 2:28 AM, Anthony Cole <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree with all of that, MZ. As to your questions:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Shouldn't we be applauding Google and others for helping us share our
>>>>>>> knowledge with the world?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "What size do you think the Wikimedia Foundation should be in terms of
>>>>>>> yearly
>>>>>>> budget and number of full-time employees? How much bigger or smaller
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> should
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the Wikimedia Foundation be than other Wikimedia chapters?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It depends on what we want them to do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "...are you sure that we're all agreed that this [Google impacting
>>>>>>> Wikipedia's
>>>>>>> page views and the ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> problematic?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm less concerned than many, and I'm sure others are unconcerned.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "If Google causes page views to go down and our sites are directly hit
>>>>>>> less frequently,
>>>>>>> that actually saves us money, doesn't it?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If our page views drop by 50% and this halves our fundraising
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> capacity, I
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> doubt that would be offset by the saved hosting costs. But I'm no
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> expert on
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> these things.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anthony Cole
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:46 AM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anthony Cole wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Google's "info boxes" and their answers at the top of their results,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> we're
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> all agreed now, I think, are impacting Wikipedia's page views and,
>>>>>>>>> consequently, our ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Google and others have a direct interest in their data being
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> accurate and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> reliable. We already see that Google has a "report a correction"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> feature
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> for some of its services. It's in both Wikimedia's interest and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> re-users'
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> interest for the underlying data source to be update-to-date and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Our mission is to spread free educational content to the world and we
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> our data available for re-use for this purpose. Shouldn't we be
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> applauding
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Google and others for helping us share our knowledge with the world?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As far as threats to direct-to-user fund-raising go, I'd put
>>>>>>>> organizational instability ahead of Google at the moment. The
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wikimedia
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Foundation has repeatedly been in the news lately for ongoing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> management
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> issues, both in its executive team and in its board of trustees.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What size do you think the Wikimedia Foundation should be in terms of
>>>>>>>> yearly budget and number of full-time employees? How much bigger or
>>>>>>>> smaller should the Wikimedia Foundation be than other Wikimedia
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> chapters?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even if we accepted your premise that Google was impacting
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wikipedia's
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> page views and the ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers
>>>>>>>> (citations needed, to be sure), are you sure that we're all agreed
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> this is problematic? If others re-using our content has a side effect
>>>>>>>> of reducing donations to Wikimedia Foundation Inc., donations which
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> received through questionable and increasingly obnoxious on-site
>>>>>>>> advertisements, you will not find universal agreement that this donor
>>>>>>>> reduction would be terrible. As others have argued previously, small
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> recurring donations are a means of providing accountability for the
>>>>>>>> entities entrusted with these monetary donations. If potential
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> donors no
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> longer trust the Wikimedia Foundation to manage and distribute this
>>>>>>>> money, no longer donating financially is practical and wise.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If Google causes page views to go down and our sites are directly hit
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> less
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> frequently, that actually saves us money, doesn't it? We're
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> theoretically
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> then off-loading some of our hosting costs to Google, Facebook, and
>>>>>>>> others who are downloading and re-uploading our data to the Web,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> exactly
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> as we mandated that anyone be able to do. With multiple copies of the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> data
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> on the Web, we're better ensuring that the content lives on in
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> perpetuity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> MZMcBride
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>>>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>>>>>>> New messages to: [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>



--
[hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.

_______________________________________________
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] [recent changes]

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Anthony Cole
Hoi,
I do appreciate Denny. However, your notion that "we're lucky to have him"
flies in the face of him leaving the board. He now does no longer a COI
working at Google. Have you considered that he might have been more
worthwhile to us having remained on the board and having been more
outspoken even given this COI?
Thanks,
       GerardM

On 12 April 2016 at 11:07, Anthony Cole <[hidden email]> wrote:

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

Toby Dollmann
In reply to this post by Brill Lyle
On 4/9/16, Brill Lyle <[hidden email]> wrote:

> One thing Wikimedia seems to do quite well is torture people who want to
> contribute by rules and policies that I think, quite frankly, are
> unworkable.

That is so true, and I am reminded by a remarkably curious incident
today regarding the disclosed Conflict of Interest editing by the
legal firm of Carter-Ruck representing a high profile financier of
global terrorism (per Wikipedia)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yassin_Kadi#Outstanding_Edit_Requests

A member of the article subject's international coordinating legal
team based in London, Carter-Ruck, had repeatedly "threatened" to make
live edits to his client's article, and has just made a series of
controversial changes to his client's article on Wikipedia after
community editors were unwilling to accommodate his tendentious (and
poorly sourced) demands.

However, and strangely, the editor who reverted this lawyer's
vandalism to uphold site policy was instead immediately indefinitely
blocked by Risker. The blocked editor had also approached an ARBCOM
member seeking guidance on dealing with the situation.

Is it therefore now the official Wikimedia / ARBCOM policy that
conflicted editors and especially lawyers editing on behalf of their
(global terrorist sponsor) clients are preferred over community
editors throughout the Wikimedia publishing empire ?

Can we get a full explanation from the Arbs involved in this block
citing the WMF / community  policies they applied ?

Toby

On 4/9/16, Brill Lyle <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I find this issue of Conflict of Interest exceedingly problematic.
>
> Almost every person working and living today will have a conflict of
> interest somehow, especially as one becomes a contributor to any of the
> Wikimedia projects, gets to know people, tries to organize events or
> promote the value of Wikipedia, Wikimedia, etc. Or if you work in any field
> that specializes in anything online or technical. It is an impossible
> situation.
>
> I think that Wikimedia deals with this very badly -- and obviously at great
> personal cost to talented, giving people. I am sorry.
>
> And to the bigger problem: Wikimedia loses a smart person who has loads of
> ideas and expertise -- and is a contributor to Wikidata (one of the best &
> most exciting projects to be visited upon Wikimedia) because of this arcane
> and quite frankly needing to be re-evaluated rule? I see this as one of the
> many problems of Wikimedia.
>
> EVERYONE has conflict of interest. We need the smartest and brightest minds
> out there to contribute whatever they willingly can and will do on a
> volunteer basis. How can they not have connections to the real world as
> well as to online? Do we expect volunteers to be in their bunkers
> somewhere, siloed from the world, that these clean folks are the ones to
> move Wikimedia forward? It's laughable.
>
> One thing Wikimedia seems to do quite well is torture people who want to
> contribute by rules and policies that I think, quite frankly, are
> unworkable.
>
> Requiring some sort of absolute clean Conflict of Interest is an impossible
> ideal. It is also obviously hurting the community.
>
> There is much change happening. I think it's an opportunity for newbies
> such as myself as well as folks with longer views to make things better. Or
> these mistakes will continue to plague the Wikimedia community -- and we
> will all lose out.
>
> - Erika
> *Erika Herzog*
> Wikipedia *User:BrillLyle* <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrillLyle>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
12