Re: [Foundation-l] Use of moderation

[Sue Gardner]

2009/9/8 Austin Hair :

> In Buenos Aires I had multiple people ask (even practically beg) me to
> do something about foundation-l.  One person said "fucking moderate
> foundation-l, already!"—to which I explained why I didn't think that
> moderating individuals was a solution, but had to admit that I didn't
> really have a better one.
>
> I've created http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Improving_Foundation-l for
> brainstorming of how to make this list a little bit less of a
> cesspool.  Please feel free to ignore the initial thoughts I banged
> out as a starting point and refactor as you will.  If there's
> consensus on a better model, I'll happily implement it; even if there
> isn't, at least getting more people's thoughts on the matter is a
> start.

Thanks Austin -- I have a lot of sympathy for your task here, and I
really appreciate you trying to come up with solutions that will help
foundation-l improve.

Personally, I use foundation-l because it's our most accessible public
channel for information-sharing and dialogue -- but that doesn't mean
I like it much; I don't.  I'm sure we all know plenty of people who
unsubscribed long ago, either because they don't like the generally
negative tone here, and/or because they find the signal-to-noise ratio
too low to suit them.   I assume that becomes (or long ago, became) a
self-reinforcing cycle, with an increasing number of
constructive/positive people leaving or falling silent, ceding the
mailing list to negativity.

It may sound like I am being really critical of the people who _are_
active here: I actually don't intend to be.  I think tough questions
and constructive criticism, done in good faith and with an open heart,
are a service to us all.  But I also believe we've lost our balance a
little, and it would be good to have some more appreciation and warmth
amidst the other stuff.

So I will do my bit by appreciating Austin. Thanks for making the page :-)







-- 
Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Report to the Board of Trustees June 2009

[Sue Gardner]

Report to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

Covering:   June 2009
Prepared by:Sue Gardner, Executive Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Prepared for:   Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

MILESTONES FROM JUNE

1.  Finalization and approval of the 2009-10 Annual Plan and staff goals
2.  2008-09 staff performance reviews
3.  Hiring interviews for the Strategy Project

KEY PRIORITIES FOR JULY

1. Finalization of staff hiring for Strategy Project
2. Advisory Board member Wayne Mackintosh will visit the Wikimedia
Foundation for meetings related to strategy, technology and outreach
3. Proposals from public relations firms will be reviewed for the
2009-10 communications campaign

THIS PAST MONTH

In June, Facebook overtook the Wikimedia Foundation sites as the
fourth-most-popular in the world, with Wikimedia dropping to number
five, serving 302 million global unique visitors according to comScore
Media Metrix.  Currently, the most popular web properties in the world
are 1. Google sites, 2. Microsoft sites, 3. Yahoo sites, 4.
Facebook.com, and 5. Wikimedia sites.

2009-10 ANNUAL PLAN

In June, following months of consultation and planning, Sue Gardner
and Veronique Kessler finalized the 2009-10 Annual Plan and presented
it for approval to the Board of Trustees at a special IRC meeting June
16. The Board voted unanimously in support of the plan.  The 2009-10
Annual Plan and an FAQ are at:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2009-2010_Annual_Plan_Questions_and_Answers

STRATEGY PROJECT

During June, interviews began for the Strategy Project team. The
Wikimedia Foundation received more than 200 applications for the
Project Manager position, most from people with project manager
experience in for-profit technology companies.  Sue, Erik Moeller and
Jennifer Riggs interviewed seven candidates for the Project Manager
role.  More than one hundred people applied for the Facilitator
position, including many people with professional backgrounds in
facilitation and organizational development, as well as several
Wikimedia community members: Sue, Erik and Jennifer interviewed five
candidates.  More than one hundred people applied for the Research
Analyst position. Sue, Erik and Erik Zachte interviewed six candidates
for the Research Analyst role.  Hiring decisions will be announced by
mid-July.

OUTREACH & PROGRAMS

During June, Jennifer Riggs and Frank Schulenburg worked with a
volunteer team to finalize nearly nine months of preparations for a
July Wikipedia Academy staged in partnership with the National
Institute of Health. This event is intended to model new strategies
for welcoming new editors and sustaining their participation.

Jennifer worked with Sue, Erik Moeller and Veronique to review and
evaluate proposals submitted through the Chapters Funding Request
process. Twenty-six of thirty proposals received were approved.
Recipients will be posting descriptions of their events and lessons
learned on Meta, linked from
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters/WMF_grants

Sara Crouse and Cary Bass continued to support the Wikimania
scholarships committee and coordinate travel bookings for scholarship
recipients.

Cary recruited a volunteer team to conduct an analysis of the
efficiency, effectiveness and levels of customer service provided
through the current OTRS customer service ticket system.

COMMUNICATIONS

Major coverage during June revolved around the following stories:

1. Keeping news of kidnapping off Wikipedia (June 28): Reports of the
freeing of kidnapped NY Times journalist David Rohde by the Taliban in
late June drew international coverage, much relating to Rohde's
Wikipedia page.  News of Rohde's kidnapping had been kept off Wikipedia
by Jimmy Wales and other volunteers through careful application of
Wikipedia's policies on reliable sourcing and biographies of living
persons.  Coverage was mostly positive: the intent was applauded, but
some onlookers felt it set a worrying precedent.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/techchron/detail?&entry_id=42811
http://features.csmonitor.com/innovation/2009/06/29/was-wikipedia-correct-to-censor-news-of-david-rohdes-capture/
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/technology/internet/29wiki.html

2. Michael Jackson's death “breaks the internet,” sets a record for
Wikipedia (June 26):
News of Michael Jackson's death caused traffic to surge on some big
sites including Wikipedia, with over one million hits to Jackson's
Wikipedia article in a single one hour period.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/06/26/michael.jackson.internet/
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/techchron/detail?blogid=19&entry_id=42557
http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/news/2009/06/26/michael-jackson-is-dead-news-of-tragic-death-brings-google-and-wikipedia-to-a-halt-115875-21472173/

3.Wired editor and prominent author Chris Anderson apologized
following criticisms that his new book "Free" contained unattributed
t

Re: [Foundation-l] Use of moderation

[Sue Gardner]

Sorry for top-posting, Brian. (I'm walking home, am on my Blackberry.)

I don't feel super-comfortable posting on behalf of the staff, but I think it's 
fair to say that some of the staff are a little afraid to engage on 
foundation-l --- it can be intimidating, especially for new people. I think the 
staff feels both an obligation and a desire to engage with community members, 
but some tend to do it in forums that feel safer and more supportive (which 
might be on internal-l, in structured or semi-structured IRC conversations, 
etc.). I think that's not necessarily ideal, but it's very human and 
understandable.

I don't think the answer to the problem is to focus on reducing the level of 
negativity -- I think that's backwards-looking and hard to do helpfully. But I 
think that if we aim to be generous and kind with each other, when that is 
appropriate, that could/would create a virtuous cycle of its own :-)

-Original Message-
From: Brian 

Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:29:09 
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Use of moderation


On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 7:44 PM, Austin Hair  wrote:

> I've created http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Improving_Foundation-l for
> brainstorming of how to make this list a little bit less of a
> cesspool.
>

Austin, your page says nothing about the kinds of conversations you would
like to see on foundation-l.

My take on foundation-l is that the foundation doesn't take it very
seriously. They recognize the potential of a mailing list and like the
possibilities, but in practice there are too many people being overly
critical of the foundation here for it to be useful to them. Also, the
topics of discussion often seem like useless jabs that aren't really in the
direction of progress. People are just itching to find the foundation doing
something wrong so they can start a riot.

This is unfortunate - why are so many people more interested in
backwards-looking criticism than forward-looking progress? Some of us feel
that the foundation has become out of our reach. That no matter how much we
discuss and try to reach consensus it will just be too hard, or there will
be a lack of interest in our consensus at the foundation, for any real
change to happen. You practically have to get a grant on behalf of the
foundation anymore in order to convince them you've got a good idea.

Sue recently posted a couple of articles to foundation-l that were cookbooks
for how to shut people that you perceive to be unproductive out of your
community. That was obviously a flawed e-mail to send. Of course we are all
aware of people who want to discuss the color of the bike shed. Discussing
the difference between red and blue is not, in fact, a priori bad, and there
should be some of that. More generally however the foundation should take it
upon themselves to increase the level of discourse on these lists by seeding
it with great topics, and, more importantly, allocating time from each of
their employees in which they are expected to participate in these
discussions. This is, after all, the Wikimedia Foundation's mailing list.
And yet with dozens of employees the Foundation's voice is but a whisper
here.

To me, this is the thing that has gone most wrong about this list. The
Foundation just isn't here. They may be subscribed, and they may read, but
they do not participate. They do not lead by example (with a few notable
exceptions) by raising the level of discourse, and most all of Foundation
business is conducted either in person, or in private e-mails. We feel like
we have to shout in order to get their attention, and that not only do we
not know what they are up to, but we have no say in it.

I have seen it said several times that this list has too much traffic. I
think that's an overgeneralization - it has too much negative traffic. This
list can handle as much productive traffic as the foundation cares to seed
it with. Rather than having that conversation over private e-mail, consider
whether it could benefit from the voices of a few community members. If
nobody replies that's fine because by sending it the foundation has both
increased the level of transparency in its thinking and operations and also
let the community know that it takes what they say seriously.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Report to the Board of Trustees June 2009

[Sue Gardner]

Hi Thomas!

Sorry to top-post, and to be late replying. I believe that all 26
proposals are up now on the meta page. Let me know if you can't find
it, and I can post the link tonight when I'm back on my laptop.

Thanks,
Sue

On 09/09/2009, Thomas Dalton  wrote:
> Once again, thank you for this. One question:
>
> 2009/9/9 Sue Gardner :
>> Jennifer worked with Sue, Erik Moeller and Veronique to review and
>> evaluate proposals submitted through the Chapters Funding Request
>> process. Twenty-six of thirty proposals received were approved.
>> Recipients will be posting descriptions of their events and lessons
>> learned on Meta, linked from
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters/WMF_grants
>
> I emailed Jennifer shortly after the requests were approved asking if
> the details of what was and wasn't approved would be made public and
> was told it would once the chapters had all been contacted and had had
> a chance to accept the grants. As far as I can see, that information
> has yet to be made public. Has that plan changed or is there just a
> delay?
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


-- 
Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Report to the Board of Trustees June 2009-

[Sue Gardner]

Fair enough, Brion :-) -- I'm just going to amplify and elaborate a
little on Jennifer's original mail. I think some of this is on the
meta page, but I'll say it here anyway.

The purpose of the chapters grant process is to make money available
to people to get good work done. The basic assumption underpinning it
is that those people know best what they need to make progress towards
our shared goals. They know their culture best, they know their
situation best, and they know best what will help them get stuff done.

Because of that, the intent of the Wikimedia Foundation is to provide
a simple lightweight process for grants approval. Many chapters have
never applied for a grant in any context: they are learning how to do
it, and we want to support that learning. We have an obligation to
apply some scrutiny to their requests (and we do), but we also
acknowledge that we at the Foundation may or may not have any
particular expertise in Portugese culture, or German culture, or
Indian. We don't pretend to be the experts in their specific context.

To that end, we're comfortable applying some scrutiny and finetuning,
which Jennifer has done --- but we do also want to trust them, and to
assume good faith. I am confident that the Portugese grant recipients,
like the other recipients, will put the money to good use. They're
required to report on what they did with it, and we expect that if the
money turns out to be too much, or the need turns out to be somewhat
different than planned, they will tell us so, and we will work out
something sensible that is not wasteful.

Probably some mistakes will be made, and we will learn from that. That
will be unavoidable, and is also a desirable part of the process. Part
of the purpose is to learn -- all of us, together. And that is also
why the process is public: so people other than the Foundation and the
grant recipients, can comment and influence and share and learn.

On the whole, I am confident the money will be well-used, and will
achieve its goal: supporting people in advancing our shared mission,
in ways that make sense in their context.

Thanks,
Sue


On 11/09/2009, Brion Vibber  wrote:
> May I respectfully suggest that further discussion on this thread be
> taken offlist until new arguments come to light which have not already
> been posted?
>
> -- brion
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


-- 
Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] WMF Office Move

[Sue Gardner]

2009/9/16 Thomas Dalton :
> 2009/9/17 Daniel Phelps :
>> We look forward to the future in our new location and hope that we get
>> a chance to have you all visit us.  We will do our best to post photos
>> as we settle in so that people can imagine us all in our new setting.
>
> This sounds very exciting! Until you get some photos, is this the place?
>
> http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=149+New+Montgomery+Street,+3rd+Floor,+San+Francisco,+CA+94105&sll=37.786555,-122.399604&sspn=0.008886,0.01929&ie=UTF8&ll=37.786802,-122.399737&spn=0.000278,0.000603&t=h&z=21&layer=c&cbll=37.786802,-122.399737&panoid=o1HKtiN5txSMU7LGzfPPYw&cbp=12,42.53,,0,-8.62
>

Yes, that's it!  We'll try to put some photos on Commons next time we
have access to the space - within a few weeks.  The interior has a
nice feel/tone -- it's not tremendously different from what we have
now, just bigger.

George is correct too about the lack of parking.  We found ourselves
making a number of tradeoffs (e.g., "car versus public transit": we
are majority public transit people. "Ground floor
open-to-random-passersby versus upper-floor less-porous": we are not
big enough to be open to the general public, with tours and data
displays and so forth.). They were good conversations, about who we
are and how we imagine ourselves both as a group of people, and as an
organization.

The neighbourhood is good for us -- it's neutral messaging-wise, it
offers easy public transit access via the BART train system (which
goes to the airport), it's awash in cheap, interesting restaurants,
plus it's very busy, which should equate to safer.  Overall, I think
being there will enable us (as Daniel said) to engage more easily with
local people and with visitors :-)

Thanks,
Sue

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Announcement: Jennifer Riggs leaves Wikimedia

[Sue Gardner]

Hi folks,

I'm sorry to tell you that as of September 18, Jennifer Riggs will be
leaving the Wikimedia Foundation.

Since joining us last April, Jennifer has helped the Wikimedia
Foundation to improve in some important ways. She has helped Frank,
Cary and Jay better structure their work, and she supported the
staging of the NIH Wikipedia Academy in Bethesda, managed the chapters
grants process, and represented Wikimedia at the GLAM-Wiki conference
in Australia.  That was all good work, and I thank her for it.

However, Jennifer and I have agreed that despite those contributions,
she ultimately will not be a good fit for the Chief Program Officer
role.  That doesn't mean her path will never cross ours again, and
it's not a decision intended to reflect badly on her skills or
abilities.  Obviously we both wish things had played out differently.

As you know, the Wikimedia Foundation has never had a Chief Program
Officer - it's a completely new position and there's no obvious career
path to prepare someone for it.  It's sad this first attempt to fill
the role hasn't worked out, but it is perhaps, in retrospect, not that
surprising.  Over the next month or so, we'll be revisiting the role
and its responsibilities to ensure the conditions are in place to
enable a new Chief Program Officer to succeed: I am looking forward to
beginning that process.   I expect it will take at least three months,
and possibly more, to place a new person in the role: I'll keep you
aware of our progress.  You can expect that at some point the position
will be posted on the Wikimedia Foundation website, and we'll announce
that here when it happens.

I recognize that Jennifer's departure may leave you with questions
about what happened, or what will happen next.  I know you'll
understand that some information will be confidential, but I'll be
happy to tell you whatever I can.

I want to thank Jennifer for her contributions to Wikimedia during her
time with us, and for her professionalism. Please join me in wishing
her all the best in future.

Thanks,
Sue



-- 
Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Announcement: Jennifer Riggs leaves Wikimedia

[Sue Gardner]

Thanks Thomas; we're sorry about it too.

The real problem won't be so much "who will take over the work" -- Jennifer had 
only been on the job about five months, so she was mostly in 
building/thinking/planning mode rather than executing mode. So the real problem 
will be a hit to our ability to plan and think deeply about program work in 
general. (What I mean by that is our thinking will be stalled, and won't 
advance as quickly as it would have with a CPO in place. And some long-wanted, 
hoped-for work will be on hold, or will proceed more slowly than it otherwise 
would have.)

Here's an example: As you know, we have long wanted to create a program making 
grants to volunteers -- both to chapters and individual Wikimedians.  Erik and 
I launched the chapters grantmaking process prior to Jennifer's arrival, but by 
ourselves we didn't have capacity to put much time into it.  When she arrived, 
Jennifer picked it up and successfully made grants to 21 chapters.  We had 
wanted to expand the program to include grants to individuals, which Jennifer 
would have done. With her leaving, three things will happen. 1) The existing 
chapters grants still need to be managed. 2) The launch of individual grants 
will be delayed. And 3) Our longer-term, big-picture thinking about grantmaking 
will be slower to evolve, because it won't benefit from having a person whose 
primary job is thinking about that kind of work.

So --in my example above-- there's an immediate problem, which is who will 
manage existing grants.  (The answer to that isn't determined, but it will 
probably be Erik.  He has lots of other work to do, but happily he also has 
enormous capacity for throughput.)  But the bigger problem is that our overall 
capacity to get smarter and more thoughtful about grantmaking in general, and 
to expand the existing program, will happen more slowly than it would have with 
a CPO in place.

I don't mean to dismiss your question: it's a good one, and the answer is 
essentially that different people will pick up different bits of work -- 
essentially, we revert to the world before we had a CPO, in which some 
combination of me, Erik, Frank, Jay and Cary handle it.  

If anyone needs a particular contact for work they'd been doing with Jennifer, 
please let me know, offlist or on, and I'll find or create an answer for you.

Thanks,
Sue



--Original Message--
From: Thomas Dalton
Sender: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
ReplyTo: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Announcement: Jennifer Riggs leaves Wikimedia
Sent: 17 Sep 2009 8:44 AM

2009/9/17 Sue Gardner :
> However, Jennifer and I have agreed that despite those contributions,
> she ultimately will not be a good fit for the Chief Program Officer
> role.  That doesn't mean her path will never cross ours again, and
> it's not a decision intended to reflect badly on her skills or
> abilities.  Obviously we both wish things had played out differently.

I'm sorry to hear that. I wish Jennifer the best of luck with her
future career and you the best of luck finding a replacement.

It sounds like there will be several months between CPOs - who will
take over Jennifer's duties in the interim?

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Italia being sued

[Sue Gardner]

2009/9/17 Frieda Brioschi :
> 2009/9/16 Mike Godwin :
>> We've had a lot of experience of spurious reports of lawsuits originating in
>> Italy.
>
> How many originating from Wikimedia Italia?
>
>> I'd like to see any official complaints that have been filed in Italian
>> courts (or elsewhere) against Wikimedia Italia.
>
> I'll forward to you a copy of the document in few minutes. It's in
> italian. Is it ok for you?
>
>> The chapter's defense (the
>> chapter doesn't produce Wikipedia content) should be straightforward under
>> any European legal regime, but obviously we will take an interest in any
>> case that seems to be going the wrong way.
>
> Even if Italy is part of Europe, sometimes I'm sure it's a so civil country..

Thank Frieda.  Mike's out of the office today meeting with the Mozilla
lawyers, but he'll take a look at this when he gets back.  Don't
worry: we will do whatever's necessary to support you :-)

-- 
Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the French cultural authorities

[Sue Gardner]

tions most of whom do not have the
> technical, legal and financial infrastructure to deal with them
> * collaborate with free content sites such as Wikipedia - more on this.
> http://david.monniaux.free.fr/pdf/rapport_culture.pdf (scanned version)
> http://david.monniaux.free.fr/pdf/rapport_culture_ocr.pdf (OCR version)
>
> The cultural services are reluctant to release pictures under free
> licenses. When I met them, they expected that it would be possible to
> "negotiate" with Wikipedia and get an exemption from this requirement. I
> explained to them that freedom was not negotiable. It was, I think, very
> surprising to them that Wikipedia, an amateurish organization, would
> dare say that to the Government!
>
> I proposed a way out: release lower resolution pictures under free
> license, keep high resolution pictures (those suitable for art books,
> posters and so on) proprietary. The suggestion has been retained by the
> commission - even though they still seem to toy with this idea of
> "negotiation".
>
> In the meantime, the National Library of France (www.bnf.fr) announced
> it was entering negotiations with Google for digitizing their content.
> This would announce a sharp change in policies since when Jean-Noël
> Jeanneney was head of the library - Jeanneney had written a book
> denouncing Google's hold on the world.
>
> I seized the occasion to make our point of view heard. On Wednesday
> September 16, I published in op-ed column in the national daily
> Libération, explaining that our cultural policies on were
> counterproductive - rather than fight the "American cultural invasion"
> as their proponents suggest, they actually reinforce this invasion by
> making French content invisible on the Web - because it is kept proprietary.
>
> *** This is, I think, the first time such ideas were exposed in the
> mainstream media. ***
>
> Since the report called for renewed contacts between the Ministry and
> free content sites, I wrote to them thanking the Minister for sending
> the report and telling them that we are at his disposal for further
> discussion with his services.
>
> We are trying to keep up the "buzz" on these issues - see the Heritage
> Day email.
>
> Just to avoid misconceptions:
>
> I do not expect that anything will change soon in the policies of French
> cultural institutions. It is extremely difficult to change the policies
> of large, traditional organizations unless there is a strong political
> will to do so - and I do not think that putting up free content online
> is a national priority.
>
> My foremost goal is to get the ideas of free content and free access
> across, to the common public and to the people in charge.
>
> This is not so easy, because there are many misconceptions about what
> Wikipedia is about. For instance, contrary to what is often implied by
> the media, Wikipedia is not a free-for-all where anybody can do anything
> anytime - but many people believe it and thus are horrified by such a
> pandemonium, and because of this, they simply won't listen to what we
> say. Simply overcoming such misinformation is already considerable work.
> It took us years to be considered respectable enough to be heard by
> officials, and to get a short op-ed printed in the press. This means
> that in the meantime, myself and others (Florence Devouard, Pierre
> Beaudouin, and so on) had to go to many meetings, whose outcome many
> often just have been that people that did not know us would then see
> that we are not dangerous anarchist teenagers or raving idealists, but
> sensible, responsible folks.
>
> --
> http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
> http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
> http://fr.wikisource.org/ | Bibliothèque libre
> http://wikilivres.info | Documents libres
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


-- 
Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] strategic planning process update

[Sue Gardner]

2009/9/22 Eugene Eric Kim :
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Pavlo Shevelo  
> wrote:
>> "Who will decide what the strategy will be, and what will be the
>> decision-making process?"
>>
>> this page explains nothing about (or explains in no detail if somebody
>> prefers) how main stakeholder - Foundation will make decision about
>> said strategy. The huge, extremely intensive (and effective, if we
>> will do our best) Earth-wide pipeline for proposal preparation - it's
>> good. But what will be in the very end? How Foundation will decide
>> what idea is good enough to stand behind it (and to put money in it)?
>
> Sorry for taking so long to respond, Pavlo. I'm not sure I'm the right
> person to respond to this. I'll do my best, you can tell me if you
> think it's clear, and hopefully other folks from the Foundation will
> jump in.

I just saw this thread; I'm happy to jump in.

What Eugene says is all accurate -- let me expand a little.

Essentially, the purpose of the project is to develop a strategy for
the Wikimedia movement, not just for the Wikimedia Foundation.  What
that means is that no single entity will be able to approve and drive
forward the whole thing: individual players will drive forward the
pieces that compel and engage and inspire them.

So for example:

* If it looks like it makes sense to stage a lot of events aimed at
broadening participation in developed countries, the chapters would
logically take the lead on that.

* If it looks like it would make sense to conduct a massive awareness
campaign in India, that would probably be moved forward in partnership
between the Wikimedia Foundation and what might be -by then- an
approved, new Indian chapter.

* If it looks like a very strong focus on mobile makes sense, I expect
that would be something driven forward by the tech staff at Wikimedia,
in partnership with individual volunteer devs, and possibly supported
by relationships with for-profit firms such as Orange.

* If there is a simple thing that looks sensible, and one person wants
to, and is able to, achieve it by him or herself, they would just do
that. They wouldn't need to wait for anyone's goahead.

You see what I mean?  Essentially, the goal is that each player will
make its own decisions based on its own context -- its own capacity,
its skills and abilities and interests, its own goals and priorities.
People will be able to do that however they want, in whatever process
works for them.

With regards to the Wikimedia Foundation, as Eugene said, if the
process works well, it (the process) will deliver to the Board a set
of high-level recommendations in key areas.  By that time work will
have been done, especially in the later stages of the task force work,
to try to ensure the recommendations are synched up with each other
and make sense together as much as possible --- but there will
probably be a few areas in which incompatible (mutually exclusive)
recommendations are submitted.  The Board of Trustees will then work
to resolve whatever contradictions are present, and to prioritize the
work it wants to get done. And then, if all has gone well, it will
approve the strategy plan.

Hope that helps.  And -- Board members should please speak up here
also, especially if there are nuances to their understanding that
differ from mine or Eugene's.

Thanks,
Sue





-- 
Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] strategic planning process update

[Sue Gardner]

2009/9/23 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
> Sue Gardner wrote:
>
> 
>
> .
> Let me just say as a board election candidate who in the final
> tally didn't get the nod from the voters, that I personally think
> your grasp of what is relevant and vital to the eventual full
> expression of our missions potential is nothing short of phenomenal.
>
> Even decisively sharpest in focus in my mind is the fact that you
> can see so clearly even though you are a person who wasn't
> brought up "in house". I hope you will excuse my mention of the
> fact in the context of my noting my high approval of your vision.
>
> Honestly, I personally had a few doubts when your appointment
> was initially announced; they quickly receded towards a "wait and
> see" attitude. Now I am quite willing to state for the record, that I
> for one think the Foundation awesomely got its ducks in a row when
> it chose you to lead the foundation. Make of that what you will.

Wow, Jussi-Ville; I like it, thank you :-)

Wikimedia is not always a tremendously warm culture, and I am
sometimes guilty of feeling a little under-appreciated.  This mail
made me happy.   I don't even care if you've already changed your
mind: it was super-kind, and I thank you for it :-)

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Report to the Board July 2009

[Sue Gardner]

Hi folks,

I've been holding up release of this report, waiting on comScore data.
 It's still pending, so I will just re-release with it, once it's
available.  Enjoy :-)

Thanks,
Sue

Report to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

Covering:   July 2009
Prepared by:    Sue Gardner, Executive Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Prepared for:   Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

MILESTONES FROM JULY
   1. Hiring concluded for the Strategic Planning Project
   2. New fiscal year begins
   3. First Wikipedia Academy in the United States

KEY PRIORITIES FOR AUGUST
   1. Prepare for and attend Wikimania 2009 and associated Board
of Trustees meeting in Buenos Aires, Argentina
   2. Beta roll-out of first usability improvements
   4. Begin planning process to seek funding for new data center
   5. Meetings with donor prospects

THIS PAST MONTH

STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS

During July, two members of the Wikimedia Advisory Board, Wayne
Mackintosh and Benjamin Mako Hill, separately visited the office to
share their expertise and help influence the strategy planning
project.  Discussions included possibilities for community support
structures, outreach and partnership models as well as sharing of
learnings from the free software and open source movements.  Several
proposals based on these conversations will be posted to the strategic
planning project pages.  Thomas de Souza Buckup, a Brazilian
Wikimedian, also visited the office of the Wikimedia Foundation, and
held meetings with staff.

Eugene Eric Kim and Philippe Beaudette joined the Wikimedia Foundation
staff to fill the Project Manager and Facilitator positions for the
Foundation's collaborative strategy development project.

Eugene was announced as the Project Manager for the strategy project.
Eugene is principal and co-founder of Blue Oxen Associates
<http://blueoxen.com/>, a San Francisco-based socially-conscious
consulting firm that focuses on understanding and improving how people
collaborate. He's worked at all levels of the collaborative process,
from strategy development to facilitation.  His past clients have
included People for the American Way, NASA, the Institute for
International Education, Socialtext, and the Sierra Club. Eugene is
also a long-time member of the Wiki community. He is the co-author of
PurpleWiki, he spoke at the first Wikimania conference in Frankfurt,
he was a keynote speaker at WikiSym 2006, and he was one of the
instigators of the first RecentChangesCamp.

Philippe Beaudette joined the Wikimeda Foundation as Facilitator for
the strategy project. Philippe is a trusted member of the Wikimedia
volunteer community.  He's a three-year member of the Board of
Trustees Election Committee, a two-year trusted administrator for the
English Wikipedia, and has twice been granted temporary administrator
status for meta for election-related activities.  He has also been a
volunteer for OTRS, and has helped the Wikimedia Foundation in the
development of a grant proposal. Outside Wikimedia, Philippe has a
background in American electoral politics, where he has worked as
Deputy Campaign Manager, Operations Manager and Technology Director on
a number of state and federal campaigns, as well as for the non-profit
Progressive Alliance Foundation.  He has also worked as a technology
consultant in the for-profit sector in the United States, Italy and
the United Kingdom.

The strategy project also intended to hire a Research Analyst and
interviewed a number of candidates, but has since reconsidered that
role, and will rededicate those resources to other work in the
project. That may possibly include efforts to bring in external
expertise of various kinds, and/or to bring in the perspectives of
developing countries.

Eugene and Philippe started working on the strategic planning process
in mid July. They've been working closely with Bridgespan and senior
Foundation staff on the details of the process. They've also been
holding weekly brown bag discussions and IRC office hours. Finally,
they launched the strategic planning Wiki
<http://strategy.wikimedia.org/>, and they're encouraging people to
submit proposals for what they think the movement should be working on
over the next five years.  The Bridgespan Group worked throughout July
to build the fact base <http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fact_base>
for the strategic planning process, supported by individual
Wikimedians and Wikimedia Foundation staff.

TECHNOLOGY

MediaWiki contract developer Andrew Garrett worked on modernizing the
LiquidThreads discussion forum extension and solicited feedback from
users and the Usability Initiative team on the user interface. The
Foundation hopes to start deploying LiquidThreads in some isolated
areas in the next couple of months to get real-world usage feedback;
in the long term this should help clear up many of the usability
problems with th

Re: [Foundation-l] Announce: Brion moving to StatusNet

[Sue Gardner]

2009/9/28 Brion Vibber :
> I'd like to share some exciting news with you all... After four awesome
> years working for the Wikimedia Foundation full-time, next month I'm
> going to be starting a new position at StatusNet, leading development on
> the open-source microblogging system which powers identi.ca and other sites.

Obviously I've talked with Brion in person, so he knows this, but I
will say it publicly too: he will be hugely, enormously, massively
missed.

What Michael says is true: people have a right to pursue their dreams
and goals and personal development wherever it takes them, and I too
am happy that Brion will continue to be moving forward the free
culture agenda and helping to build a better ecosystem of projects and
organizations. I've got an account on identi.ca which I haven't yet
used: perhaps my first use of it will be congratulate Brion on his new
job :-)

IMO Brion is the single most central figure in the Wikimedia movement,
second only to Jimmy.  His work with us should be honoured and
celebrated.  We'll be doing some of that inside the staff within the
next few weeks, and I expect the Board will plan something for him
too.  But we'll need to be creative: after all, there is already a
Brion Vibber Day.  New ideas are welcome :-)

Thanks,
Sue

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Status of flagged protection (flagged revisions)for English Wikipedia.

[Sue Gardner]

Greg, I really don't want to reply to the specifics of this conversation -- 
Brion and Erik and others are much more deeply involved, and therefore better 
situated to respond.

But I will say this: I know some people have speculated, or asked, if the 
Wikimedia Foundation is deliberately holding up implementation of FlaggedRevs 
in English Wikipedia, because the staff doesn't want it, or thinks it's a bad 
idea. For the record: we are not.

I personally am worried that an aggressive deployment of FlaggedRevs may act as 
a barrier to new participants. The statistics for new editors on the German 
Wikipedia seem to suggest that their implementation has in fact caused a 
decline in new editors.  I find that worrying.  But I realize that 1) there may 
be other factors at play on the German Wikipedia, affecting participation, that 
are unrelated to FlaggedRevs, 2) the implementation of FlaggedRevs for English 
is quite different from the implementation on the German Wikipedia, and 3) the 
English community has made a decision, which it has every right to do.  To be 
super-clear: the staff of the Wikimedia Foundation is not deliberately holding 
up rollout of FlaggedRevs on the English Wikipedia because of concerns about 
whether it's a good idea.

WRT to your point about relative priorities: the Wikimedia Foundation has 
gotten funding from the Stanton Foundation and the Ford Foundation,  that's 
specifically earmarked for usability work. That is good: usability is a 
critical priority. We can't reallocate that funding to other technical work: 
it's restricted to the purpose for which it was given.

I hear your frustration about the slowness of implementation and I sympathize. 
But I don't want you to believe FlaggedRevs is being deliberately held up: it 
isn't.

Thanks,
Sue
-Original Message-
From: Gregory Maxwell 

Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:59:44 
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Status of flagged protection (flagged revisions)
for English Wikipedia.


On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Erik Moeller  wrote:
>>> and we're also concerned about the potential negative impact on
>>> participation.
>> Please help me understand the implications of this statement.
>
> It simply means that
>
> a) we want to make sure that for the production roll-out, the user
> interface is not insane and appropriate to the specific en.wp
> configuration that's been proposed;

Aren't our volunteers qualified to contribute to this?

> b) we'll want to track participation metrics after the roll-out to see
> what the impact of this technology is.

I'm not sure what after the fact analysis has to do with the
deployment schedule.

> Accusations of "obstructionism" don't help; I understand where these
> come from, but it's a massive case of assume bad faith. Please stop
> it.

"Bad faith" — I don't think those words means what you think they mean.

I don't think anyone at the WMF is acting in bad faith.  Surely if you
intended to harm Wiki(p|m)edia you could come up with something better
than this.

My leading hypothesis were either that the staff was incredibly
overloaded with new initiatives like usability and strategywiki that
there simply hasn't been time to even make a simple configuration
change; ghat WMF's priorities have become so warped due to petitioning
by niche interests that it can't complete a simple request for its
largest project, or that the WMF staff has decided that it knows
better than hundreds of contributors and that it needed to act
paternalistic and protect the community against its own decision by
ignoring it.  I am not the only person to harbor these concerns, for
example see 
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled_revisions&diff=316628512&oldid=316625478
.

All off of these can be supported by the facts in front of me; None of
them reflect very positively on Wikimedia's staff, but neither require
even an ounce of bad faith.

If "assume good faith" has become a code-word for "pretend everything
is done perfectly; ignore problems; provide no criticism" then it's an
aspect of our culture that needs to be eliminated.

I felt the latter hypothesis was supported by your statement that
"we're also concerned about the potential negative impact on
participation".   Even with your clarification I can't help but
understand that when I ask 'Why is FOO being delayed'  and you respond
(in part) 'Because we are concerned that it will harm things'  that
you aren't saying that you're intending to obstruct the deployment...

Extracting the purest (strawman?) form of statement: "It has not been
done yet, in part, because we think what the community decided may
harm participation. However, we aren't working with the community to
ameliorate this harm" is pretty much the definition of obstruction.

This is precisely the thing I was talking about when I said that I'm
concerned that Wikimedia is treating the contributors as 'users'
rather t

[Foundation-l] Report to the Board August 2009

[Sue Gardner]

Report to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

Covering: August 2009
Prepared by: Sue Gardner, Executive Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Prepared for: Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

MILESTONES FROM AUGUST
* Engagement of recruiters to fill new positions and vacancies: Chief
Development Officer, vacant Board “expertise” seat, and Chief
Technical Officer
* Wikimania 2009: scholarships finalization, staff attendance and
presentation preparations, preparations for board meeting
* Soft-launch of the Strategic Planning Project

KEY PRIORITIES FOR SEPTEMBER
* Strategic Development Process
* Communications Campaign Kick-off
* Finalization of Office Move details
* Meetings with donor prospects

THIS PAST MONTH

REACH

In August 2009, the Wikimedia Foundation sites held steady as the
fifth most-popular web property in the world with 307 million global
unique visitors, according to comScore Media Metrix.

WIKIMANIA BUENOS AIRES

The fifth annual Wikimedia conference, Wikimania 2009, took place in
Buenos Aires, Argentina from August 26 to 28. The conference hosted
more than 500 Wikimedians and supporters from around the world. Talks
and workshops gave attendees new insights into the Wikimedia projects,
other free knowledge efforts, and the challenges and opportunities
facing the movement.

Wikimania 2009 was attended by 57 Wikimedians on scholarships funded
by the Richard Lounsbery Foundation, Wikimedia Germany, the Open
Society Institute and the Wikimedia Foundation. The dollar value of
those scholarships totalled approximately USD 100,000. This
represented huge growth from Wikimania 2008 in Alexandria, which a
total of nine people attended via scholarships, funded by OSI and
totalling USD 10,000. More on the scholarships process later in this
report.

Twenty Wikimedia Foundation staff traveled to Buenos Aires to
participate at Wikimania. Staff who attended were: Brion Vibber, Cary
Bass, Erik Moeller, Erik Zachte, Eugene Eric Kim, Frank Schulenburg,
James Owen, Jay Walsh, Jennifer Riggs, Kul Takanao Wadhwa, Mark
Bersgma, Naoko Komura, Nimish Gautam, Philippe Beaudette, Rand
Montoya, Rob Halsell, Sara Crouse, Sue Gardner, Tim Starling and
Tomasz Finc. Staff participated in the conference as workers (e.g.,
supporting the Board meeting and press conference), as panelists,
workshop leaders and speakers, and as participants. At the close of
the conference, Sue gave a keynote talk on the Wikimedia Foundation:
The Year in Review and The Year Ahead. In it, she focused on some of
the challenges facing Wikimedia, including flagging participation
trends and a need for more openness and friendliness to new people,
and pointed to the strategy project as a way for all Wikimedians to
participate in charting our course for the next five years.

The following presentations were given by Foundation staff members
(see links for videos and, in most cases, slides):

The Year in Review and the Year Ahead - Sue Gardner
http://wikimania2009.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proceedings:112

NIH Wikipedia Academy 2009 - Frank Schulenburg and Jay Walsh:
http://wikimania2009.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proceedings:334

Wikimedia Technical Infrastructure - Rob Halsell
http://wikimania2009.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proceedings:103

Scaling Up the Wikimedia Movement - Erik Moeller
http://wikimania2009.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proceedings:298

What can Wikimedia learn from the Red Cross? - Jennifer Riggs
http://wikimania2009.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proceedings:207

Wikimedia in Numbers - Erik Zachte
http://wikimania2009.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proceedings:144

Collaborative Video on Wikipedia - Michael Dale
http://wikimania2009.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proceedings:332

Wikipedia Usability Initiative - Naoko Komura
http://wikimania2009.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proceedings:237

Documenting best practices in public outreach - Frank Schulenburg
http://wikimania2009.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proceedings:335

The Wikimedia tech community organized a separate "codeathon" running
in parallel to the main event. See the summary provided by Brion
Vibber here:
http://wikimania2009.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proceedings:86

Related blog post by Domas:
http://techblog.wikimedia.org/2009/08/traffic-reduction/

Note the generally excellent video coverage of Wikimania 2009, thanks
to the local team, who received some help from the Wikimedia tech
community to get the videos to Commons. Additional videos can be found
here:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikimania_2009_presentations
http://wikimania2009.wikimedia.org/wiki/Schedule

The Wikimedia Foundation expresses its heartfelt appreciation to the
local planning team, and everyone else who helped make Wikimania 2009
such a successful and enjoyable event.

STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS

In August, the Strategic Planning Project soft-launched with a Call
For Proposals asking Wikimedians to develop and share proposals aimed
at helping the movement better achieve its goals. Since then, over 350
proposals were submitted on the strategy wiki, all of which

Re: [Foundation-l] How to make a puzzle globe

[Sue Gardner]

Yes, correct Delphine. There's only the one :-)

--Original Message--
From: Delphine Ménard
Sender: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Cc: effeietsand...@gmail.com
ReplyTo: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] How to make a puzzle globe
Sent: 1 Nov 2009 2:27 PM

On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 21:56, effe iets anders  wrote:
> is this the same as the one in the Office?

On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 22:13, Philippe Beaudette
 wrote:
> It is.

It is actually _the_ one at the office, I don't think there are two of
these, are there?

Delphine


-- 
~notafish

NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will
get lost.
Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

[Sue Gardner]

I agree with you, David.

The usability work is a necessary precondition to bringing in new editors. It's 
essential for us to remove obvious, simple usability barriers that are impeding 
people who want to help.

But it's not the whole story, and I suspect that social barriers to 
participation will in the end prove much more difficult to overcome, compared 
with technical barriers. 

Basically, there are a lot of people who would like to contribute to Wikipedia, 
but who find us impenetrable.  

We know that new people's edits are increasingly reverted. Sometimes the 
reversions come without explanation; other times, they are explained curtly, 
unkindly, or using language (eg in templates) that newcomers don't understand.  
The net effect is that new people end up discouraged, and they don't stay.

In order to bring in and retain new editors, we need to make it possible for 
people to edit productively, without needing to develop deep expertise in our 
policies and practices.  Frank Schulenburg's "bookshelf" project will create a 
series of orientation materials for new people: that will help some. But there 
is lots of other work that needs to happen, in my opinion: we need to encourage 
friendliness, we need to make the editing experience more supportive and 
enjoyable for everyone (not just new people), and we need to simplify policies 
and practices to make it easier for new people to engage easily and usefully.

People who want to help do some of this work should engage on the strategy 
wiki: there's a task force focused on community health that will be looking at 
these issues.  I can't post the URL (I'm on my Blackberry and between meetings) 
-- but if nobody posts it within the next few hours, I'll do it once I'm back 
at my laptop.

Thanks,
Sue

-Original Message-
From: David Moran 
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:28:24 
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

Getting back to the content of the article: I get that inclusionism vs
deletionism is a tired way to talk about divisions between camps of editors,
and that everyone rolls their eyes when you start talking about it, but
yeah, it's real.  Every single person I know who was once a producing
contributor but who has now left the project (including me these days,
functionally--my monthly edit numbers have gone from quadruple to single
digits) did so because of having the same kind of arguments with the same
people over and over again about what deserved to be in the encyclopedia.
Which is anecdotal and statistically insignificant, I know.  But it is
undeniable that Wikipedia, as a system, encourages (by its relative ease vs
the alternatives) the removal of content, rather than the creation of good
content, or the polishing of bad or mediocre content, the latter of which is
a dreary chore.  To an extent, the destruction of content is as healthy and
vitally necessary a part of the Wikipedia ecosystem as its reverse.

I think a lot of attention is paid to the way the technical interface is
hostile to newbies, and making that more user-friendly and democratic is
certainly a concern that needs to be addressed.  But I think the tendency of
older users, or certain editorially minded users, to squat on the project
and bludgeon newer users with policy pages rolled up into sticks is just as
much if not more responsible for driving away the new users we need to
replenish our ranks.

FMF


On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Steven Walling wrote:

> So the content of the WSJ article may be behind a paywall, but I just did a
> cursory search of the researcher's 2009 Ph.D. thesis which was a
> quantitative
> analysis  of Wikipedia in
> several languages.
>
> I didn't see any of the graphs from the piece or any conclusions in the
> thesis which are equivalent to the statements made in the Journal, so this
> must be new research.
>
> Steven
>
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Michael Snow  >wrote:
>
> > Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> > > books are available for years the copy of
> > > the day may be available in a library, but how about last years copy of
> > the
> > > WSJ ? Do you really think the WSJ can be found in every USA library ??
> > >
> > I don't know about "every" library, but libraries are about more than
> > just books, and librarians are not unaware of the wonders of databases
> > in our modern digital age. For those of us that use libraries, I
> > encourage you to familiarize yourselves with the collections your
> > library may be able to provide access to online. I've certainly relied
> > on my library privileges for such sources many times in the course of
> > editing Wikipedia, particularly news archives (including the Wall Street
> > Journal).
> >
> > --Michael Snow
> >
> > ___
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundati

[Foundation-l] [Announcement] Danese Cooper joins Wikimedia as CTO

[Sue Gardner]

Hi folks,

I'm delighted to announce that the Wikimedia Foundation's new Chief
Technical Officer is Danese Cooper, an experienced technology manager
and open-source evangelist. Danese will start with Wikimedia on
February 4, 2010.

As you know, we've been searching for a CTO since last fall, when
Brion announced his decision to leave Wikimedia for StatusNet. We were
looking for someone with plenty of leadership experience and a deep
understanding of open source technology, who could lead our technical
staff, evangelize on behalf of Mediawiki, and set up systems and
processes to help our staff and Wikimedia technology volunteers work
successfully together. Danese fits the bill on all counts: I'm very
happy she'll be joining us.

Danese has a wealth of experience in open source technology. Most
recently, she developed open source strategy for the tech start-up
REvolution Computing. Prior to that, she was Senior Director of Open
Source Strategies at Intel from 2005 until 2009, and Chief Open Source
Evangelist at Sun Microsystems from 1999 to 2005. In those roles, she
led or supported major open source initiatives, including Sun's
OpenOffice.org application suite, the Java platform, JXTA, NetBeans,
GridEngine, OpenSolaris and Intel's Channel Software Operations and
Moblin platform initiatives. Prior to working at Sun, she managed
technology teams at Symantec and at Apple Computing for a total of
nine years.

Danese is a Board member at the Open Source Initiative, the non-profit
organization that maintains the Open Source Definition and approves
open source software licenses. She is also a member of the Apache
Software Foundation, and serves on a Special Advisory Board for
Mozilla. Danese has lived and traveled internationally, particularly
in developing countries, and speaks several languages, including
French and Moroccan Arabic.

As CTO, Danese will be responsible for ensuring Wikipedia and the
other Wikimedia projects run reliably and perform well from a
technical standpoint. She will also be responsible for supporting the
development of Wikimedia's open source software stack including
MediaWiki, and for creating technical strategy and technical projects
to drive increases in Wikimedia projects' reach, quality and
participation. Her background as an evangelist will be particularly
important, because the health of the Wikimedia volunteer developer
community is critical to Wikimedia's ability to successfully serve
people in multiple geographies and languages.

All technical staff and contractors will report to Danese. Initially,
Danese will focus on filling some key staffing gaps, and on leading
the stabilization of Wikimedia's technology infrastructure: ensuring
predictable and secure operations and backups, improving monitoring,
APIs and database dumps, and establishing an additional US-based data
centre to give us safe fail-over capability. She has an important job
and lots to do: I ask you all to join me in welcoming and supporting
her.

Danese will begin her work February 3. Until June 30, Danese has a
standing one day/week commitment to support the code review process of
the SETI Institute.

Finally, I want to thank the Walker Talent Group
(www.walkertalentgroup.com) for its pro bono work helping recruit
Danese, as well as Advisory Board member Roger McNamee for introducing
Wikimedia to Walker. Their help is much appreciated.

Sue Gardner
Executive Director, Wikimedia Foundation




-- 
Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Great news! Google gives Wikimedia USD 2 million

[Sue Gardner]

Hi all,

I am delighted to tell you that Google is giving Wikimedia a grant of
USD 2 million.  It will come to us via the Google Fund at the Tides
Foundation, which handles all of Google's philanthropic activity, and
it is completely unrestricted.

We'll be putting out a press release tomorrow, but I wanted to tell
you beforehand.  This is really great news.  It's important to us
financially, of course, but I see it as equally important from a
symbolic perspective.  I believe that Wikimedia and Google are natural
allies and partners --- we both want to help provide people everywhere
around the world with information.  It seems natural to me that Google
would want to support Wikimedia's work, and I am happy they are doing
it.

You probably know that Google and Wikimedia -–both editors and
Wikimedia Foundation staff-- have, from time to time, collaborated on
projects together.  (For example, the Google team has created
functionality inside the Google Translate Toolkit that enables editing
and uploading of translated articles to Wikipedia.)  This grant will
not be channeled specifically towards Google-related activities: it
will go into our general operating revenues. Having said that, I look
forward to Google and Wikimedia continuing to do good work together.

The press release is below.  It will go out tomorrow morning , but you
don't need to keep this news confidential.  Feel free to tell your
friends :-)

Thanks,
Sue Gardner




Wikimedia Foundation announces $2 million grant from Google
Donation will support capacity investments in Wikipedia and other free
knowledge projects

EMBARGOED UNTIL 8:00AM PST, February 17 2009

SAN FRANCISCO, CA February 17, 2009 -- The Wikimedia Foundation, the
non-profit that operates Wikipedia, today announced that it has
received a $2 million (USD) grant from the Google Inc. Charitable
Giving Fund of Tides Foundation. This is the Wikimedia Foundation's
first grant from Google. The funds will support core operational costs
of the Wikimedia Foundation, including investments in technical
infrastructure to support rapidly-increasing global traffic and
capacity demands. The funds will also be used to support the
organization's efforts to make Wikipedia easier to use and more
accessible.

"Wikipedia is one of the greatest triumphs of the internet," offered
Google co-founder Sergey Brin. "This vast repository of
community-generated content is an invaluable resource to anyone who is
online."

Wikipedia founder and Wikimedia Foundation board member, Jimmy Wales,
also commented on the Google gift. "We are very pleased and grateful.
This is a wonderful gift, and we celebrate it as recognition of the
long-term alignment and friendship between Google and Wikimedia. Both
organizations are committed to bringing high quality information to
hundreds of millions of individuals every day, and to making the
Internet better for everyone."

The two organizations have a long-standing working relationship. Most
recently, Google and the Wikimedia Foundation have partnered to
support translation of Wikipedia content into key languages with
relatively small Wikipedia editions. Google's Translation Toolkit
supports direct online translation of Wikipedia articles, and has been
used by Google in Wikipedia translation pilot projects with speakers
of Arabic, Hindi, and Swahili.

Sue Gardner, executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, offered:
"It is wonderful that Google has stepped forward as a major supporter
of a global, non-profit information commons. With this generous grant,
we will be able to fund additional operations and development work to
increase access and contributions to our free knowledge projects
globally."

Wikimedia's support comes primarily from individual donations made by
regular users of Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation completed its
2009-10 fundraiser in January. During the drive, 240,000 individuals
donated more than $8 million, representing three quarters of its
planned revenue for the fiscal year.

-- 
Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] New jobs posted: Chief Development Officer and Chief Global Program Officer

[Sue Gardner]

Hi folks,

Heads-up that the Chief Development Officer (fundraising) and Chief
Global Program Officer positions have been posted to the Foundation
wiki.

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings/Chief_Development_Officer
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings/Chief_Global_Program_Officer

Both roles will remain open until they are filled: please scour your
own networks for good candidates, and feel free to share the position
descriptions widely.   Recruiting for both positions is being handled
by m/Oppenheim Associates: you can contact Lisa Grossman at
lisag(at)moppenheim.com with inquiries, nominations and/or CVs.  Or
you can ask me questions here.

Thanks,
Sue







-- 
Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] [Announcement] Philippe Beaudette becomes Head of Reader Relations

[Sue Gardner]

As I'm sending this, I'm wondering: have we actually started an
announce-only list? If so, and if someone reminds me, I will post this
there too :-)


Hi folks,

I'm delighted to tell you that Philippe Beaudette will be staying with
the Wikimedia Foundation following the completion of the strategy
project this summer.  This makes me really happy: Philippe has been
doing terrific work, and I'm delighted he's agreed to stay on with us.

In his new role, Philippe will become the Wikimedia Foundation's
first-ever Head of Reader Relations.  As such, he will act as an
advocate for readers inside the projects and within the staff.  His
first focus will be to work with Wikimedia volunteers to establish and
maintain systems enabling them to provide good service to readers who
have inquiries, complaints and comments.  A lot of this will involve
taking existing FAQ material, cleaning it up, and making it publicly
available to readers.  That'll involve some writing and synthesizing
work, and also coordinating with volunteers to have material
translated and localized.

Philippe's background makes him ideal for this role.

He has been a long-time member of the Wikimedia volunteer community,
both as an administrator on several sites, and as a volunteer for
OTRS, where he successfully resolved some particularly difficult
complaints regarding biographies of living people.  He's very familiar
with Wikimedia project policies and practices.

Outside Wikimedia, Philippe has significant customer service
experience, including running a large customer contact centre for
Convergys Corporation, a global firm specializing in relationship
management.  He also helped many organizations, including two of the
world's largest insurance providers, develop customer service
environments, while working for Siebel.  He also has a background in
American electoral politics, including working as Deputy Campaign
Manager, Operations Manager and Technology Director on a number of
state and federal campaigns, as well as for the non-profit Progressive
Alliance Foundation.

He has worked in the United States, Italy, and the United Kingdom.

All of this, in my view, makes Philippe ideal to handle reader
relations for us: he's got lots of experience managing complex
stakeholder relationships with tact and sensitivity, and creating
systems that scale.

Both Philippe and I expect his role will evolve once the Chief Global
Program Officer (CGPO) arrives.  I thank Philippe for his flexibility
and trust in taking this on and relocating to San Francisco, despite
that lack of certainty :-)

Philippe will report to me until the CGPO arrives, whereupon he'll
report to that person. He's in the midst of beginning his move to San
Francisco now (with a side trip to Berlin for the chapters meeting).

You might wonder why this job wasn't posted and boarded. Generally, I
do aim to post and board all jobs; I think it helps the Wikimedia
Foundation to surface the best-possible candidates, to be fair in our
hiring, and to be seen to be fair.  In this instance though, I decided
it was better not to. Philippe has done a great job over the past nine
months, we are undoubtedly going to need the kinds of skills and
experiences he brings to us, and I didn't want him to start
job-hunting as his work on the strategy project came to a close.
Given that, and given that the job may evolve when the CGPO arrives,
posting and boarding -in this particular context- seemed
inappropriate.

Philippe has been a great addition to our team in the time he's been
with us, and I look forward to his continued contributions. Please
join me in welcoming and congratulating him.

Thanks,
Sue


-- 
Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] [Announcement] Philippe Beaudette becomes Headof Reader Relations

[Sue Gardner]

Hi Nemo,

One answer is "Cary's work has overlap with everybody's work."  Seriously: 
shortly after I arrived at Wikimedia, Cary and I had a conversation about 
whether everybody on the staff should coordinate their 
activities/communications with Wikimedians through Cary, since Cary's title is 
Volunteer Coordinator. We quickly decided that no, that didn't make sense: 
Cary can't, and doesn't want to, be a bottleneck for staff working with 
volunteers: everybody on the staff needs to be working with all kinds of 
volunteers, all the time.  

More specifically; yes, Philippe will be working with OTRS with the goal of 
helping create and disseminate messaging. I don't think that'll interfere with 
Cary's work. If it does, Cary and Philippe will flag it, and we'll figure it 
out.

Thanks,
Sue

-Original Message-
From: "Federico Leva (Nemo)" 
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 22:10:23 
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] [Announcement] Philippe Beaudette becomes Head
 of Reader Relations

Sue Gardner, 14/04/2010 08:11:
> His
> first focus will be to work with Wikimedia volunteers to establish and
> maintain systems enabling them to provide good service to readers who
> have inquiries, complaints and comments.  A lot of this will involve
> taking existing FAQ material, cleaning it up, and making it publicly
> available to readers.  That'll involve some writing and synthesizing
> work, and also coordinating with volunteers to have material
> translated and localized.

«readers who have inquiries, complaints and comments» often write to 
OTRS. Will Philippe work also on OTRS? If this is the case, how will his 
role be distinct from Cary's?

Nemo

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Flagged Protection update for April 29

[Sue Gardner]

(Sorry for top-posting: Blackberry.)

I just want to add a brief note supporting what William's saying.  Yes -- it 
definitely takes more time to respond to angry or hostile-seeming mails.  Trust 
gets impaired, and so the respondent spends time trying to figure out whether 
the person's really angry, or just curt... maybe asking other people if they 
have any insight and then framing a very careful reply and rereading it for 
tone before hitting send.  Essentially, it's just easier and faster to have 
open conversation if the tone is constructive all round.

So yes: hostility costs money.  One answer to that is F2F meetings.  Spending 
in-person time together definitely builds trust and friendliness. Once we know 
each other as human beings, online interactions are faster, easier, with less 
friction.

I for example have now met Thomas Dalton in person three or four times, which 
is good. I like him much more now than I used to :-)

Thanks,
Sue

-Original Message-
From: William Pietri 
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 18:23:13 
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Flagged Protection update for April 29

On 04/30/2010 05:37 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 1 May 2010 01:32, William Pietri  wrote:
>
>> You should keep in mind that it definitely takes me more time and more
>> energy to deal with non-nice requests.
>>  
> Really? How does me adding more words to my emails save you time?
>

It's not the quantity of words, but the choice of them.

When I am dealing with a polite message, I can write a quick reply. With 
a prickly one, I have to do more drafts, so I can get past my first 
reaction, a mainly negative one, and produce something positive in tone 
and substance. I also need more time between messages, so that my 
irritation in one doesn't slop over onto some undeserving correspondent.

As long as we're on the topic of etiquette, I find it frustrating when 
people pick out one particular bit to reply to and ignore the broader 
point. I add that only because I'm not sure if this was part of your 
intentional policy against niceness, or a more accidental sort.

Hoping that is useful,

William


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] How to make unstoppable petty complaint afeature?

[Sue Gardner]

I said something to someone in the office today, that I think might be worth 
sharing here. It's just an observation from my past life as a journalist, but 
it feels germane.

In newsrooms, it is very very common for experienced senior editors to be curt 
and gruff --- in general, but particularly with new news staff.  It's a cliche 
you see all the time in TV and movies -- e.g., the Lou Grant type character.

I think it's inherent to the work. Experienced editors have seen it all: they 
are a little tired, a little jaded, a little cynical.  They talk in shorthand 
among each other, and they're impatient with newcomers. That's understandable 
and it's forgiveable.

The trick is, I think, to create a healthy mix. Wikimedia needs experienced 
editors who have good judgment and can recognize patterns and coach and guide 
the inexperienced. It also needs a regular influx of new people who can bring 
fresh perspectives and new insights, and relieve experienced people of grunt 
work they're tired of doing.  Good newsrooms have a healthy mix of both, and we 
need that too.

I hear you Nathan, when you say you're loathe to expose new people to our 
current culture -- I know our public outreach staff sometimes feel that way 
too. But I think it's essential: we need to bring in new people and help them 
get through their early days with us, in order to ensure an overall healthy 
balance.  We're a bit out of kilter now, but I think with some effort on 
everybody's part, we can rebalance into good health.

Thanks,
Sue

-Original Message-
From: Nathan 
Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 22:46:44 
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] How to make unstoppable petty complaint a
feature?

It's not just changes that draw petty, sarcastic and juvenile replies
for Wikipedians. We have a pervasive problem of burnout, wherein our
more experienced contributors became jaded and disillusioned and make
a practice of appalling behavior. Two recent cases in point... I don't
need to explain the Tanthalas situation more than just to mention it
as an example, but the second case is, I think, more serious. An
administrator replies to a plea for help from a new contributor, who
has uploaded his own work several times and tried to release it under
public domain. Rather than explain, the administrator uses what
appears to be his boilerplate response - snide, condescending, and
perfectly tailored to send this new contributor away with a bad taste
of the entire project. [1][2]

Unfortunately this type of interaction isn't even unusual. In some
respects it appears to be the norm, in fact, and there doesn't seem to
be any effective way of addressing this problem. I can no longer
recommend people to become involved in editing, because frankly I
refuse to subject friends and colleagues to the risk of this type of
treatment. Perhaps the Foundation should put some effort into this
issue before soliciting new participants who are likely to be shocked
at the editing culture.


Nathan

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fastily#SYS_logo.png
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sfan00_IMG#Fair_use

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Statement on appropriate educational content

[Sue Gardner]

On 7 May 2010 16:07, Kim Bruning  wrote:
> On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 12:30:18PM -0700, Michael Snow wrote:
>> announce-l still has issues. The Board of Trustees has directed me to
>> release the following statement:
>>
>
> Just to be sure:
> Are there no other statements that have been made by the board
> or are being planned to be made by the board on this subject?
>
> sincerly,
>        Kim Bruning

Kim, the board (and I) have been talking about this for the past
couple of days, and we'll continue to talk about it over the next
couple of weeks.  I think it's fairly likely there will be some kind
of statement or statements at the end of that.  I'm expecting that
over the next few weeks, we all will be paying attention to the
conversations on Commons and elsewhere, including here.

Thanks,
Sue





-- 
Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening

[Sue Gardner]

Hi folks,

I'm aiming to stay on top of this whole conversation -- which is not
easy: there is an awful lot of text being generated :-)

So for myself and others --including new board members who may not be
super-fluent in terms of following where and how we discuss things--,
I'm going to recap here where I think the main strands of conversation
are happening.  Please let me know if I'm missing anything important.

1) There has been a very active strand about Jimmy's actions over the
past week and his scope of authority, which I think is now resolving.
That's mostly happened here and on meta.

2) There is a strand about a proposed new Commons policy covering
sexual content: what is in scope, how to categorize and describe, etc.
 This policy has been discussed over time, and is being actively
discussed right now.  It is not yet agreed to, nor enforced.  I gather
it (the policy) reaffirms that sexual imagery needs to have some
educational/informational value to warrant inclusion in Commons,
attempts to articulate more clearly than in the past what is out of
scope for the project and why, and overall, represents a tightening-up
of existing standards rather than a radical change to them. It's here:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Sexual_content

3) There is a strand about content filtering (and, I suppose, other
initiatives we might undertake, in addition to new/tighter policy at
Commons).  This discussion is happening mostly here on foundation-l,
where it was started by Derk-Jan Hartman with the thread title
[Foundation-l] Potential ICRA labels for Wikipedia.  AFAIK it's not
taking place on-wiki anywhere.
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/195663

I also think that if people skipped over Greg Maxwell's thread
[Foundation-l] Appropriate surprise (Commons stuff) -- it might be
worth them going back and taking a look at it.  I'm not expressing an
opinion on Greg's views as laid out in that note, and I think the
focus of the conversation has moved on a little in the 12 hours or so
since he wrote it.  But it's still IMO a very useful recap/summary of
where we're at, and as such I think definitely worth reading.  Few of
us seem to gravitate towards recapping/summarizing/synthesizing, which
is probably too bad: it's a very useful skill in conversations like
this one, and a service to everyone involved :-)
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/195598.

Let me know if I'm missing anything important.

Thanks,
Sue



-- 
Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Potential ICRA labels for Wikipedia

[Sue Gardner]

e of that controversial image 
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer)
>> 4: Do filters understand per page labeling ? Or do they cache the first RDF 
>> file they encounter on a website and use that for all other pages of the 
>> website ?
>> 5: Is there any chance the vocabulary of ICRA can be expanded with new 
>> ratings for non-Western world sensitive issues ?
>> 6: Is there a possibility of creating a separate "namespace" that we could 
>> potentially use for our own labels ?
>>
>> I hope that you can help me answer these questions, so that we may continue 
>> our community debate with more informed viewpoints about the possibilities 
>> of content rating. If you have additional suggestions for systems or 
>> problems that this web-property should account for, I would more than 
>> welcome those suggestions as well.
>>
>> Derk-Jan Hartman
>
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening

[Sue Gardner]

Yeah, Pryzkuta, I know there are lots of debates happening everywhere; that's a 
good thing --- obviously talking about all this stuff is good, and people 
should use whatever mechanisms work for them. All the discussions are good, and 
everybody is bringing useful stuff to the table.

Re Jimmy, my understanding is that he has voluntarily relinquished the ability 
to act globally and unlilaterally, in an attempt to bring closure to that 
thread of discussion, because he thinks it's a distraction from the main 
conversation.  Which is, the projects contain, and have contained, material 
which many people (different groups, for different reasons) find objectionable. 
The main question at hand is: what, if anything, should be done about the 
inclusion in the projects of potentially objectionable material.  Should we 
provide warnings about potentially objectionable material, should we make it 
easy for people to have a "safe" view if they want it, should we make a "safe" 
view a default view, and so forth.

My view is that Jimmy and others have brought closure to the "scope of Jimmy's 
authority" question. In saying that, I don't mean to diminish the importance of 
that question -- I realize that many people are angry about what's happened 
over the past week, and it will take time for them to be less angry.   But I 
think Jimmy's goal --which I support-- is to enable people to now move on to 
have the more important conversation, about how to resolve the question of 
objectionable material.

To recap: it's a big conversation, and it's happening in lots of places. That 
may need to happen for a while. I would like to see us move into a synthesis 
phase, where we start talking in a focused way, in a few places, about what we 
should do to resolve the question of objectionable material.  I think the 
thread by Derk-Jan is a step towards that.  But it may be that we're not ready 
to move into a synthesis phase yet: people may still need to vent and 
brainstorm and so forth, for a while.

Thanks,
Sue

-Original Message-
From: Przykuta przyk...@o2.pl
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 00:16:02 
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l]
Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the d
iscussion ishappening


> 1) There has been a very active strand about Jimmy's actions over the
> past week and his scope of authority, which I think is now resolving.
> That's mostly happened here and on meta.
> 
Sue - everywhere - mailing lists, IRC channels, village pumps... 

We need to talk as Wikimedia Community. There is no authority without 
communication - face to face(s); keyboard to keyboard. The biggest fire (RfC 
flame) is here: 
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Remove_Founder_flag

400 votes - 400 users 

Maybe the best way will be to start special IRC debate - about past, present 
and future. (and again, and again, and again - yeah)

Yes... We have bigger problems, but... maybe not. This is real trouble.

przykuta

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening

[Sue Gardner]

Yeah. I don't remember exactly what Ting said, and even if I did, I wouldn't 
comment on it.  But FWIW to your point, Ting's not in a chapters-selected seat; 
Ting was elected by the Wikimedia community.

--Original Message--
From: David Gerard
To: Sue Gardner GMail
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is 
happening
Sent: 9 May 2010 4:21 PM

On 10 May 2010 00:04, Sue Gardner  wrote:

> My view is that Jimmy and others have brought closure to the "scope of 
> Jimmy's authority" question. In saying that, I don't mean to diminish the 
> importance of that question -- I realize that many people are angry about 
> what's happened over the past week, and it will take time for them to be less 
> angry.


Ting's statements on the role of the Board (that it should regulate
project content) will also take some digesting. I doubt chapters
outside the US put people forward for the Board thinking this would
mean the Board supporting content removal to appease Fox News.


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimania 2011 announcement

[Sue Gardner]

On 11 May 2010 11:50, phoebe ayers  wrote:

> The Wikimania jury has selected Haifa, Israel as the location for
> Wikimania 2011.

Congratulations to the Haifa team!  I attended Wikimedia Israel's
Wikipedia Academy last year; it was terrific, and I'm confident
they'll do a great job with Wikimania.

And thanks to the jury and its moderators: Mariano, Austin, Mako,
Teemu, Delphine, James, Joseph, Stu, Phoebe, James & Cary.  I know we
all appreciate your hard work.  (James definitely had some late
nights, and I will be curious to see if he volunteers for the jury
again next year ;-)

Thanks,
Sue






__
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Fwd: Announcing new Chief Global Development Officer and new Chief Community Officer

[Sue Gardner]

Hi folks,

Forwarding from the announce list, since it does not yet auto-forward :-)

Thanks,
Sue

-- Forwarded message --
From: Sue Gardner 
Date: 2 June 2010 19:08
Subject: Announcing new Chief Global Development Officer and new Chief
Community Officer
To: wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org


Hi folks,

I am really happy to announce two important new Wikimedia Foundation
hires.  Zack Exley will be Wikimedia's new Chief Community Officer,
and Barry Newstead will be our Chief Global Development Officer.  Both
will start just before Wikimania, and will join us in Gdansk.

There will be a press release going out tomorrow, but the news isn't
confidential: please feel free to tell whoever you like.

Zack Exley will be our new Chief Community Officer.  Zack joins
Wikimedia from the Chicago-based firm Thoughtworks where he oversaw
strategy and technology projects for organizations like Obama For
America, Rock the Vote, and Global Zero.

Zack has a long history of mobilizing people and facilitating them
reaching their goals.  During the nineties, he worked as a labour
organizer and software developer.  In 2002, he joined MoveOn.org as
director of organizing, where he ran mobilization and fundraising
campaigns – and in the same period, helped the Howard Dean campaign
with its online fundraising.  Zack left MoveOn.org to become online
communications and organizing director for the 2004 Kerry-Edwards U.S.
presidential campaign, where he ran the team that raised $125 million
online for Kerry, and also oversaw online-to-offline organizing
efforts responsible for mobilizing hundreds of thousands of field
volunteers.  In 2005, he led internet strategy and online fundraising
for the UK Labour Party's 2005 election campaign, and since 2005 he
has acted as a senior strategist and advisor helping many
mission-driven organizations advance their fundraising and
mobilization goals, including the American Civil Liberties Union,
Amnesty International, the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People (NAACP), the International Rescue Committee and
Greenpeace USA.

Zack grew up in Connecticut and has also lived in Kenya, China and the
United Kingdom. He has an BA in Economics from the University of
Massachusetts.

As Chief Community Officer, Zack will be responsible for developing
the Wikimedia Foundation's relationships with key constituencies
including readers, editors and donors.  This will include our work
aimed at recruiting new editors (including the public policy project)
and supporting community health, as well as fundraising. The people
who will report to Zack are Philippe, Cary, Frank, Rand, Rebecca and
Sara, plus their direct reports.

Zack currently lives in Kansas City: he'll be relocating to the Bay
Area in July.

Barry Newstead will be our Chief Global Development Officer.  Some of
you know Barry from Buenos Aires or Berlin, where he attended
Wikimania and the chapters meeting, respectively.  He comes to us from
the strategy consultancy firm The Bridgespan Group, where he has spent
the past year leading the Bridgespan team supporting Wikimedia with
its strategic planning process.  For the past six years, Barry has led
Bridgespan's work in education innovation and social technology, which
mainly consisted of working with CEOs on strategy development,
organizational development and leadership issues.  Prior to joining
Bridgespan, he spent eight years at The Boston Consulting Group, where
he worked with global clients in the financial services, media and
energy sectors on global strategy, organizational restructuring,
change management and post-merger integration.

Barry was born in Cape Town, South Africa, and raised in Toronto,
Canada.  He has an undergraduate degree from the University of Western
Ontario, and a master's degree in public policy from the John F.
Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

In this new role with us, Barry will be our Chief Global Development
Officer (CGDO), the position formerly known as the Chief (Global)
Programs Officer.  As CGDO, Barry will be responsible for our
activities focused specifically on increasing readership and
supporting editor self-organization in the Global South, for our
messaging to the general public and the media, and for our activities
aimed at supporting and developing chapters. The people who will
report to him are Jay and his direct report Moka, plus Kul, plus a
number of new hires dedicated to supporting new activities that have
come out of the strategic plan.  You'll hear more about that in coming
months, once Barry has joined us.

We are really lucky that Barry got engaged in our work, and is willing
to now join us.  His extensive background in organizational
development particularly will be useful to us, as we all collectively
further evolve our thinking about how to structure Wikimedia as an
international movement. He'll also be terrific with the global
develo

Re: [Foundation-l] Subscription to the Wikimedia Announcements list for foundation-l

[Sue Gardner]

On 2 June 2010 19:35, James Alexander  wrote:
> Sending this separately so it isn't in the hiring announcement thread :) Per
> Ignore All Rules (which I guess doesn't really exist here so I'm ignoring
> it's absence to) I went ahead and subscribed foundation-l to
> WikimediaAnnouncements-l . So assuming the list admins are getting a "click
> here to confirm email" that was from me.


Thanks James.  I think there may be something wonky with the announce
list.  I'm pretty sure foundation-l has already been subscribed (or at
least, a subscription has been attempted) -- and although I am a
subscriber, I didn't get the announcement.  So something is probably
awry...

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chief of Office of Wikimedia Serbia

[Sue Gardner]

On 9 June 2010 10:33, Filip Maljkovic  wrote:
> It is my pleasure to introduce our new member and Chief of Office of
> Wikimedia Serbia, Juliana Da Costa José.

Congratulations Juliana, and Wikimedia Serbia!

Is Juliana the woman I met in Berlin a few years ago, who was then a
board member of Wikimedia Deutschland?  (I guess I don't actually
expect anyone to know if I met her in Berlin, but maybe somebody could
confirm if she was on the German board :-)

Thanks,
Sue

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Floating a notion: permanent Wikimania committee?

[Sue Gardner]

Hi folks,

For several years now, people have occasionally floated the notion
that there should be a permanent Wikimania oversight committee –
basically, a group of people responsible for giving some coaching and
guidance and oversight to the local planning team each year.  Over the
years, support has been offered each year by people like Phoebe, James
Forrester, Delphine (Delphine both in her staff role and as a
volunteer) and SJ … but there has never (AFAIK) been a formal
oversight committee.  I think there probably should be.

I've been talking about this idea with a few people over the past
several months.  Based on those conversations, I'd propose a mixed
committee of volunteers and staff, with a small membership – let's
say, five or so people.  Ideally the people would remain on the
committee for several years, and would have experience with past
Wikimanias.  The role of the committee would be to provide coaching
and guidance for the local planning team (“here is how we've done it
in past years, here's what usually works, here are some problems you
should watch out for”) … and also to provide oversight to the local
team, and help them course-correct if they're having problems.
Essentially, the committee would be responsible for helping to ensure,
in partnership with the local team, that every Wikimania is a success.

I want to reiterate that I (and I think we all) see Wikimania as a
volunteer-led event.  The Wikimedia Foundation plays a fairly small
role --- it is its biggest sponsor, and it supports it in various
ways.  But Wikimania is a community event, which I don't think should
change.

I'd like to throw this out for discussion, and also ask people to
self-nominate if they're interested in being on such a committee.  If
everyone interested will be at Gdansk, the best next step may be to
arrange a face-to-face meeting there to figure out how best to do
this.  And I warn Phoebe via this note (although I'm sure she can
anticipate it), I will be aiming to pull her in to help think it
through, since she has been one of the most consistently-active
planners/organizers, at pretty much every Wikimania so far.

I'm interested in everyone's views on this, and I'd be particularly
interested in hearing from the people who've been involved in past
Wikimanias, and also from the Haifa people, to hear if this'd be
useful for them for 2011.

Thanks,
Sue

-- 
Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] "The problem with Wikipedia..."

[Sue Gardner]

"The problem with Wikipedia is that it only works in theory. It could
never work in practice."

I've seen that quote attributed to Jimmy, and also to Miikka Ryokas,
quoted by Noam Cohen in his NY Times story about Virginia Tech. But
neither of them, I think, originated it.

Does anyone have a good attribution for first use of that quote?  (I'm
using it in a presentation and want to attribute if I can.)

Thanks,
Sue




-- 
Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Money, politics and corruption

[Sue Gardner]

I _try_ to create a monthly report, but we do fall behind.  Nobody at the 
Foundation is happy about that, but they are a pain to produce. We'll probably 
try to figure out a better, easier way to do it, this year.

(And hello Oliver, and welcome to foundation-l!)

Just to be clear, I have no idea what Milos is talking about, either with 
regard to the chapters or the Wikimedia Foundation.  I believe one of the board 
members plans to follow up with him offline.

A couple more bits of information:

* We don't currently have good audit procedures confirming that the chapters 
have met their commitments. That's normal, because Wikimedia is still pretty 
young. But what I believe Thomas said is also true: most organizations have 
pretty strong audit procedures, plus procedures for what to do when commitments 
aren't being met. For example, I believe the (U.S.) Corporation For Public 
Broadcasting publishes the results of its (third-party) audits of compliance at 
NPR and PBS stations. For example, it tracks how many minutes of sponsorship 
are broadcast per hour, in order to assess whether stations are complying with 
agreed-upon maximums. If a station exceeds its sponsorship maximums, there are 
repercussions -- although I don't know what they are.

* Anyone who has information about malfeasance or misfeasance inside Wikimedia 
should take a look at our Whistleblower Policy, which lays out process for 
escalation to authorities.  The policy is intended to cover serious and actual 
problems (rather than for example rumour or worries), but it's probably better 
to overreport than underreport.  And it is good to have a confidential avenue. 
I can tell you our Whistleblower Policy has worked well for us in the past: I'm 
glad it exists.

* For those interested in the scholarships, here's a quote from mail Sara sent 
me the other day:

"1) As of tonight, we have 70 Wikimania Scholarship recipients from 39 
countries (6 continents). Each scholarship covers roundtrip travel, 
registration, and accommodations for one recipient.Approximate funding on 
travel, registration, and accommodations for these 70 people is $110,000.* The 
program is funded by the Wikimedia Foundation in 2010. The recipients were 
selected by a committee of volunteers, out of about 2,500 applicantions. They 
were selected primarily on the basis of their participation in the Wikimedia 
projects or other free knowledge and educational initiatives, and also on their 
efforts to help grow community in underrepresented regions.This is compared to 
58 recipients in 2009 whose travel and registration cost ~$93,000, and was 
funded by four funders.*As we are processing last-minute refunded tickets, and 
accommodations and registration still need to be charged back to us, $110K is 
only an approximate number at this time.2) Thanks to the scholarships committee 
and Gdansk team who dedicated so much time and attention to this program.3) 
Thanks to chapters that offered direct support for Wikimedians to attend 
Wikimedia. (I don't know which ones specifically, just that some have supported 
their members).4) Thanks to the Open Society Institute and the Soros 
Foundations, which are sponsoring several Wikimedians from Central Asia, the 
Caucuses, and the Balkans."

Sorry for the formatting on that note from Sara -- it's just a copy-and-paste 
out of my Blackberry. I'm at the airport in Newark: just about home :-)

Thanks,
Sue
-Original Message-
From: oliver keyes 
Sender: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 17:12:53 
To: 
Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List 
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Money, politics and corruption


"Sue doesn't send out a monthly report" - Sue is the Executive Director of the 
fastest growing non-profit foundation in the United States, a foundation which 
has just announced a doubling of its staff, trial direct expansion to two more 
nations and the gradual relocation of server resources. You think she has the 
time for a monthly report?
  
_
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/19780/direct/01/
Do you have a story that started on Hotmail? Tell us now
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Money, politics and corruption

[Sue Gardner]

Yeah, Casey is correct --- basically, what I was saying is that there are other 
avenues than public mailing lists, and that there are people ready and willing 
to pay attention if something is wrong.

Thanks,
Sue
--Original Message--
From: Casey Brown
Sender: Casey Brown
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Cc: Sue Gardner GMail
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Money, politics and corruption
Sent: 14 Jul 2010 18:20

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 6:00 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
 wrote:
> Anyone? Looks like it applies only to employees.
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Whistleblower_Policy
> "entity with whom Wikimedia Foundation Inc has a business relationship"
> includes chapters?
>

I'm sure she was mentioning it in spirit -- basically "you can see
we're interested in whistleblowers and have this protection/policy
already in place for our employees; anyone else should feel free to
report any issues they think exist as well".

-- 
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy etc - merging data

[Sue Gardner]

Sorry -- is there a question outstanding?  I know Nathan posted some questions 
about the annual plan (which I think Veronique'll answer, and if she she 
doesn't I will).  If there was something else, I think it slipped right past me.

Thanks,
Sue

--Original Message--
From: Thomas Dalton
Sender: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
ReplyTo: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy etc - merging data
Sent: 17 Jul 2010 07:05

On 17 July 2010 13:53, Lodewijk  wrote:
> I'd rather not speculate about what happens or the intent before someone
> from the WMF who is responsible for this clarifies the statement. I hope we
> all can hold ourselves from guessing and seeking logic until that moment.

This is foundation-l... your hope is misplaced!

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] 2010-11 Annual Plan Now Posted to Foundation Website

[Sue Gardner]

Hi Florence,

I know Veronique plans to respond to your note, but I have two seconds
right now, so I will add a quick comment below.


On 23 July 2010 11:18, Florence Devouard  wrote:
> 2) You are maybe aware that some chapter members (deeply) regret that
> chapters are not listed as revenu sources in the annual plan and I hope
> that this will be fixed in the future.
> But meanwhile... are the revenus to be collected by the chapters and
> transferred to the Wikimedia Foundation counted in the current annual
> plan ? or were they not listed at all as WMF is not yet sure practical
> solutions will be found to transfer money from chapters to the WMF ?
> Or if the money coming from chapters are listed, is it counted as
> "donations below 10K" or as "donations above 10K" ?


I had no idea that the chapters had a view on their inclusion / lack
of inclusion in the annual plan -- interesting!

Yes, there is some 'plug' in the plan for chapters revenues.  It is a
ballpark figure -- Veronique will tell us how much.  It's based on the
assumption that chapters will continue to fundraise, and that their
ability to raise money will increase over time.  At the same time,
that is balanced against the Foundation's reluctance to count on the
money too much, because it is far from guaranteed.  Basically: we
don't have information about chapters' plans/goals/targets (if they
have them), and it's not uncommon for chapters to have difficulty
transferring money to the Foundation.  So for 2010-11, we have a plug,
in community giving (since the money originates as small donations).
My hope and my expectation is that as time goes on, the chapters'
--and everyone's-- ability to plan and predict will increase, and we
will work out the money-transferring difficulties, which will enable
the Foundation to be able to be confident relying on the chapters'
fundraising as part of our targets.

Sorry this note is kind of choppy: I'm replying fast as I run out the door :-)

Thanks,
Sue

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion Questions forPotentially-Objectionable Content

[Sue Gardner]

Alec, thanks for making that post. I know people have had these discussions for 
a long time (I've read lots of them), but I really appreciate you writing a 
long explanation of what you think.

The "no censorship" people don't tend to want to lay out their full position -- 
because they already have, and because I think they think it's obvious. And a 
lot of it is obvious. But it's better, I think, to have a full, thoughtful 
conversation, even if it's exhausting. Because it _is_ a critical issue, as you 
know.  So I appreciate you doing it.  (David Gerard did something similar on 
his blog the other day: I appreciated that too.)

I also wanted to say -- you know in your post where you speculate about why 
this is happening now, is it because of the fundraising, has someone offered 
board members jobs, etc.  (I know you were mostly non-serious about the jobs.)  
That is a totally legitimate set of questions.  But -- I don't know if you've 
read the 2010-11 plan.  In it, we lay out the new revenue strategy, which 
focuses on "many small donations," and calls for a shift away from a "balanced 
approach," which includes grants and large gifts and earned income.  (We will 
still do some of that, but much less.). That new approach is not an accident: 
it's a deliberate attempt, by me and the board, after lots of thinking, to 
reduce the likelihood that we'll need or want to compromise due to the 
attitudes or desires of funders.  We want the Wikimedia Foundation to be 
oriented towards readers and editors. 

I want Wikipedia --everyone, I think, wants Wikipedia-- to be independent.  
That's not a guarantee that we won't make mistakes.  But we want our mistakes 
to be honest ones, made by us, rather than being unhappy compromises that we 
get forced into by others.  I know that is obvious to you: I'm saying it so you 
know it's obvious to me too :-)

Thanks,
Sue
-Original Message-
From: Alec Conroy 
Sender: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 10:47:00 
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List 
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion Questions for
Potentially-Objectionable Content

I have no idea whether anything in here is productive or just
reiteration of the same old themes.   I doubt it will be coherent or
persuasive, but this discussion is too important not to try to say
something.   Opinions were solicited, so here's such an opinion.

I don't really know if a discussion at this point is wise,
particularly from me and my verbosity.  :).  So skip if skeptical, and
abort if you start finding my words, well, unproductive. :)
-Alec


> What I find not convincing is the slogan "No censorship". I think this
> is a bad argument.

Okay, I think that's my cue.   I'm definitely in "No Censorship" camp,
so let my try to explain why that argument has such pull for some of
us.

-

To begin with, please consider that  NOTCENSORED has been the law of
the land for many years and Wikipedia has prospered under it.   It's
not a new idea.

What's new is this idea that "potential offensiveness" is a threat to
us, and thus,  a valid criterion for making editorial decision.   That
would be a huge deviation from our very successful status quo.

Maybe you think it would be a good change, maybe you think would be a
bad change,  but I think we can all agree it would be a very
CONTROVERSIAL change among Wikimedians.

And when you stop and think about it, of course any such proposal is
_bound_  to be very very controversial among those very individuals
who are already deeply invested in a NPOV/NON-CENSORED project.

After all, we've spent years explaining NPOV / NOTCENSORED to Muslims
over Muhammad images, for example, and to Christians over Piss-Christ.
  We've defended racist imagery, we've defended neo-nazi hate-sites.
We've committed to not-censored, we've worked for NOTCENSORED, we've
offended totally innocent people so wikipedia could be NOTCENSORED,
and it was even theoretically  possible somebody might have died over
NOTCENSORED.

We did this because Wikipedia successfully convinced us that an
uncensored encyclopedia was a wonderful thing. And we've grown very
attached to it and the principles it espoused.

Maybe we do need a "potentially non-offensive" project in addition.
But if there is to be a "Brave New Encyclopedia" that promises freedom
from potential offense, shouldn't it be started as a NEW project with
a NEW userbase and a NEW editing community that's committed to these
NEW principles?

I'm skeptical that that a "potential offfense" can actually work, even
as its own project.  But, no harm in trying.  Meanwhile, our
Wikipedia, the "NPOV/NOTCENSORED" Wikipedia, does work!   And It
continues to work!

Wikipedia ain't broke-- don't fracture the community into bits by
trying to impose a "fix".
--

Some say:  "What's the difference between deleting offensive material
and deleting anything else?   REALLY, isn't ANY deletion, on some
leve

Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion Questions forPotentially-Objectionable Content

[Sue Gardner]

Sorry to top-post.

Google and Flickr actually handle this quite differently though, I think, 
Andreas.  Going from memory -- I think that Google defaults to a "moderate" 
setting, but allows users to easily switch to an unfiltered setting. As long as 
they allow cookies, users don't need to be registered, and there's no other 
impediment to switching that I'm aware of.

Flickr also defaults to moderate, but in order to get unfiltered results you 
need to be registered, and I think you might also have to make some kind of 
statement about how old you are.  So, you can't see unfiltered results on 
Flickr without jumping through some hoops. And, users in a small number of 
countries (going from memory I think they include Singapore, India, Korea and 
Germany) do not have the option to see unfiltered results.

Plus, I believe that certain types of content are disallowed entirely 
throughout Flickr, although I don't know what they are or how that is policed.

So the devil is very much in the details :-)

Thanks,
Sue

-Original Message-
From: Andreas Kolbe 
Sender: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 17:28:33 
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List 
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion Questions for
Potentially-Objectionable Content

Thanks Alec. I wouldn't like to see Wikipedia fork either. 

Excirial's suggestion -- which I understand to mean enabling readers to 
self-censor the type of content that offends them, or that they don't want 
their children to see -- strikes me as the way we can have our cake and eat it.

It's also in line with what people like google, YouTube and flickr are doing. 
If you want to see certain types of content, you are asked to set up an 
account, and/or change your default preference.

In practice, this could mean --

- That I don't see images I don't want to see in Wikipedia articles. 

- That I can click on a grayed image if, in an exceptional case, I do want to 
see it.

- That I can set up my child's Wikipedia account in such a way that my child 
can NOT click to display the image I don't want them to see.

- That I can set up my or my child's Wikipedia account in such a way that 
Wikipedia will not display articles I do not want it to display.

- That IPs are shown a mildly "censored" version, and that seeing the 
uncensored version of Wikipedia requires registering an account and setting the 
preferences up accordingly.

This requires a lot of thought and work behind the scenes to categorise 
content. But it is surely the best approach to make Wikipedia the encyclopedia 
for everyone. 

And that's an encyclopedia that can happily host the goatse image, too, for 
those who want to see it. 

A.

--- On Sat, 24/7/10, Alec Conroy  wrote:

> From: Alec Conroy 
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion Questions for 
> Potentially-Objectionable Content
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" 
> Date: Saturday, 24 July, 2010, 15:47
> I have no idea whether anything in
> here is productive or just
> reiteration of the same old themes.   I
> doubt it will be coherent or
> persuasive, but this discussion is too important not to try
> to say
> something.   Opinions were solicited, so
> here's such an opinion.
> 
> I don't really know if a discussion at this point is wise,
> particularly from me and my verbosity.  :).  So
> skip if skeptical, and
> abort if you start finding my words, well, unproductive.
> :)
> -Alec
> 
> 
> > What I find not convincing is the slogan "No
> censorship". I think this
> > is a bad argument.
> 
> Okay, I think that's my cue.   I'm
> definitely in "No Censorship" camp,
> so let my try to explain why that argument has such pull
> for some of
> us.
> 
> -
> 
> To begin with, please consider that  NOTCENSORED has
> been the law of
> the land for many years and Wikipedia has prospered under
> it.   It's
> not a new idea.
> 
> What's new is this idea that "potential offensiveness" is a
> threat to
> us, and thus,  a valid criterion for making editorial
> decision.   That
> would be a huge deviation from our very successful status
> quo.
> 
> Maybe you think it would be a good change, maybe you think
> would be a
> bad change,  but I think we can all agree it would be
> a very
> CONTROVERSIAL change among Wikimedians.
> 
> And when you stop and think about it, of course any such
> proposal is
>_bound_  to be very very controversial among those
> very individuals
> who are already deeply invested in a NPOV/NON-CENSORED
> project.
> 
> After all, we've spent years explaining NPOV / NOTCENSORED
> to Muslims
> over Muhammad images, for example, and to Christians over
> Piss-Christ.
>   We've defended racist imagery, we've defended
> neo-nazi hate-sites.
> We've committed to not-censored, we've worked for
> NOTCENSORED, we've
> offended totally innocent people so wikipedia could be
> NOTCENSORED,
> and it was even theoretically  possible somebody might
> have died over
> NOTCE

Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion Questions forPotentially-Objectionable Content

[Sue Gardner]

I've been posting quite a bit today, so I think I'll stop for a while. (I'd 
hate to trigger the limits ;-)

But Alec, thanks for _your_ note, and don't worry about expressing skepticism 
(even if it was mostly hyperbole to make a point).  Vigilance is healthy :-)

Thanks,
Sue

-Original Message-
From: Alec Conroy 
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 14:19:01 
To: ; Wikimedia Foundation Mailing 
List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion Questions forPotentially-Objectionable 
Content

Hi Sue--
Thank you so so much for that reply, it was really really appreciated.

> I also wanted to say -- you know in your post where you speculate about why 
> this is
> happening now, is it because of the fundraising, has someone offered board 
> members jobs,
> etc.  (I know you were mostly non-serious about the jobs.)  That is a totally 
> legitimate set of
> questions.

Well, I think you're being way too charitable with me-- I'm not sure
even I consider those questions legitimate.   Thus, I did try to
inject a lot of silliness  (e.g. Extraterrestrials and fundamentalist
financiers) into those sorts of scenarios because I didn't want to
convey any genuine-conspiracy-theory of ulterior motives-- I just
kinda wanted to express a vague sense of exasperation and confusion
and not-knowing-what-to-think-or-who-to-trust.  Because, ya know, when
you care about an movement and things get rough, your mind does go
through all kinds of scenarios to try to make sense of it, and maybe
sharing those crazy thoughts will help you recognize and intercept
them when they occur in others. :)

If my concerns seemed legitimate, then I probably owe you and anyone
else involved a big apology for accidentally making it seem even
remotely legitimate.  A far better description would be "an
illegitimate, unfounded concern that crossed my mind cause I couldn't
make sense of what was going on."

I passed it on because in the hope it might be a little helpful just
to see where some of our thoughts are going.   The downside in even
expressing stuff like that is it sort of involves distrusting a group
of total strangers, most of whose names I don't even know without
looking them up, all because they agreed to do work for my all-time
favorite non-profit.   Raw deal for ya'll.

It doesn't get said enough, but thank you to all who have done such a
wonderful job running things all these years.   I never could have
done your jobs one-tenth as well as you all have.   In particular,
last year's fundraising work was just phenomenal, and I really do
apologize for even suggesting, in passing, and in theory, that that
work might somehow really be tied to anything negative.   I had no
basis for such a statement, I didn't sincerely believe it then, I
still don't.

Thanks again for reply :)
Alec
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Umberto Eco's interview

[Sue Gardner]

On 4 August 2010 01:37, Ilario Valdelli  wrote:
> The Italian project w...@home supported by Italian chapter and the
> Wikinotizie has organized an interview some months ago with Mr.Umberto
> Eco who is a philosopher and literary critic known outside Italy for
> the novel "The Name of the Rose".
>
> A translation can be found here:
> http://it.wikinews.org/wiki/Intervista_a_Umberto_Eco/Traduzione
>
> The reaction of the Italian network has been very positive
> (http://stats.grok.se/it.n/201006/Intervista_a_Umberto_Eco).

It's a lovely interview, Ilario. Congratulations :-)

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Comments about Wikipedia on Reddit

[Sue Gardner]

On 6 August 2010 01:25, Nikola Smolenski  wrote:
> Not sure if this is the right list, however, at
> http://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/cxq4i/who_here_actually_contributes_to_wikipedia/
> a number of people are reporting on their Wikipedia experiences, so I
> believe reading them may offer useful insights.

Yes -- that's a really interesting thread Nikola -- lots about
deletionism and notability. Thanks for posting it.



-- 
Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Fwd: [Internal-l] Pre-Strategy Finalization Goals Survey (Community)

[Sue Gardner]

closely matches your view:

   - Perfection is the enemy of the good. I would rather see us using
   imperfect measures than no measures at all;
   - Imperfect measures are a waste of time and energy. I would rather see
   us wait until we have good measures, rather than using measurements that are
   available today, but not very good;
   -  Don't know / not sure.


Below is a list of measures the Wikimedia Foundation is considering putting
in place.   For each, please rate its importance.
 Not important Somewhat important Important Critical Don't know / not
sure Global unique visitors to all Wikimedia Foundation properties per
month
according to comScore  Total number of active volunteer editors (>=5
edits/month) to all Wikimedia projects  Retention of active
volunteers  Demographics
of active volunteers (i.e., age, gender, nationality)  Reader-submitted
quality assessment results ("rate this article on a scale of one to
five")  Number
of articles/media objects/resources in different languages  Uptime of
all key services  Availability of secure off-site copies of all
Wikimedia project data and underlying software infrastructure  Site
performance in different geographies  Financial stability as measured by
months of cash on hand, size of reserves, number of donations annually
 Number
of community-originating gadgets, tools, and MediaWiki extensions in
production use in Wikimedia projects  Regular availability of up-to-date
snapshots and archives of all public data to researchers

 There are some areas in which the Wikimedia Foundation would like to track
progress, but it isn't easy to figure out what to measure, or how to measure
it. For each item below, please indicate whether it seems to you to be: 1)
IMPORTANT: definitely worth the effort to define and track, or 2) LESS
IMPORTANT: probably not worth the effort to define and track.
 Important Less Important Don't know / not sure  Measure of Reach: Reach of
Wikimedia content among people with no or limited connectivityMeasure of
Quality: Expert article assessmentsMeasure of innovation: Number of
community-originating gadgets, tools, and MediaWiki extensions in production
use in Wikimedia projectsAssessment of research community health:
Thriving environment of research and dialog regarding the social and
technical aspects of Wikimedia content and communities

 Are there other measures that you think are important and should be
tracked, that are not listed here? If so, please write them in.

 Are there any other comments or input you would like to provide with regard
to the goal-setting for the strategy plan? If so, please write it in.

 Any comments on this survey? If so, please write them in.

 Is there anything else you'd like to say? If so, please write it in.

   Powered by Google Docs <http://docs.google.com> Report
Abuse<https://spreadsheets2.google.com/reportabuse?formkey=dHR2NU5OLUlNR3hCcFBrN3JLUU1YQXc6MA&source=https%253A%252F%252Fspreadsheets2.google.com%252Fviewform%253Fformkey%253DdHR2NU5OLUlNR3hCcFBrN3JLUU1YQXc6MA>-
Terms
of Service <http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS> - Additional
Terms<http://www.google.com/google-d-s/terms.html>


___
Internal-l mailing list
interna...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-l




-- 
Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] My public aplogies to Jan-Bart (was Movement roles letter, Feb 2012)

[Sue Gardner]

On 16 February 2012 12:32, David Gerard  wrote:
> On 16 February 2012 11:27, John Du Hart  wrote:
>
>> Is this really something to get upset over? It's not as if he was calling
>> you stupid, he simply misspelled your name (shortened it, really).
>
>
> People's own names are extremely important to them.

Very true. When I was in school learning journalism, that was the only
way to get an automatic fail: getting someone's name wrong. (Now I say
that, I guess you also failed if you plagiarized or fabricated. But
getting someone's name wrong was the most seemingly-trivial way to
fail.)

While we're on the topic, here's a public service announcement. It's
Bishakha Datta, not Bishaka Datta. The single most-frequently
misspelled name on our lists, AFAICT. Also, Erik Moeller or Erik
Möller with umlaut. Never Erik Moller with no umlaut :-)

Thanks,
Sue

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] My public aplogies to Jan-Bart (was Movement roles letter, Feb 2012)

[Sue Gardner]

On 16 February 2012 17:04, Thomas Dalton  wrote:
> On Feb 16, 2012 3:47 PM, "Thomas Morton" 

> Wikimedians often call me Thomas because that's what I have gmail set to
> call me and they know me mostly from emails. While I don't mind at all, it
> sounds (or looks) strange to me every time.

LOL, I was thinking exactly that as I read Tom Morton's note. I
*always* call you Thomas. And although I try, I have difficulty
calling Michael Peel Mike. I do however correctly address James
Forrester, in person, as Jimbo.

And -- in the event the OP is still here, Joan Gomà, how are you
properly addressed in person? I have heard people say things like
"When does Gomà arrive in Paris" and I have also been using that. But
you should presumably be addressed as Joan -- and presumably with the
J sound pronounced as a Y?

Thanks,
Sue

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapter Selected Board Seats - Time for questions

[Sue Gardner]

On 1 March 2012 18:27, Béria Lima  wrote:
> Hello people,
>
> So after receive authorization from all candidates, the list of candidates
> + statements are in meta, and you can find it here: http'://
> meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter-selected_Board_seats/2012/Candidates
>
> Until 14 March is time for questions, so if you have any questions to any
> of the candidates, please put your question in this page:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter-selected_Board_seats/2012/Candidates/Questions(there
> are already some questions and some answers there)

This is great: I am really happy to see this public process. Thank you
to Béria and the other people coordinating this :-)
Sue

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Foundation Mid-Year Presentation to the Board, esp. Visual Editor

[Sue Gardner]

Hi Pine,

I made that part of the deck and yes, you're interpreting it correctly. I
put green checkmarks to indicate where something was (more-or-less) on
track, where progress was about where it was supposed to be midway through
the year. That's the basis on which the Visual Editor got a green check.

I did consider using an orange marker of some kind, but there was no
obvious symbol to indicate "on track" or "half done, as expected halfway
through the year." So I just used a green check, to mark those activities
as more-or-less fine. The point of those slides was really to emphasize
where we are *not* on track, which is of course number-of-active-editors.
We had hoped by this point that we would have arrested the slide and
starting bringing the numbers up, but that has not happened. That's the
message those slides are intended to convey.

I would also say: that deck was used in a three-hour verbal presentation to
the Board. Verbally, in person, we were able to convey more nuance and
detail than is in the deck, and I would say the deck doesn't stand alone
particularly well. We wanted to publish it anyway, because there is quite a
bit of useful information in it. But it's not designed so much as a
standalone report: it was really used as the backdrop for a presentation,
in order to kick off a conversation about next year's plan.

Thanks,
Sue
On Mar 3, 2012 10:09 PM, "En Pine"  wrote:

> Clarification: I see that
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikimedia_Foundation_Mid-Year_Review_February_2012.pdf&page=51says
>  in the text, “First opt-in user-facing production usage by December
> 2011, and first small wiki default deployment by June 2012”. However,
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikimedia_Foundation_Mid-Year_Review_February_2012.pdf&page=46doesn’t
>  include those caveats. As someone who’s accustomed to reading
> highly colorful charts and audit reports with carefully chosen visual
> flags, I find it disturbing to have green checks by an item that’s still a
> work in progress and months away from completion. I would like to suggest
> that a more cautionary visual symbol such as the words “in progress” would
> have been more appropriate.
>
>
> From: En Pine
> Sent: Saturday, 03 March, 2012 21:42
> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: Wikimedia Foundation Mid-Year Presentation to the Board, esp.
> Visual Editor
>
> I appreciated this presentation. It raised many good points about
> successes and challenges. However, I’d like to know why the visual editor
> appears to be checked as a finished item in this presentation, in the
> slides
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikimedia_Foundation_Mid-Year_Review_February_2012.pdf&page=46and
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikimedia_Foundation_Mid-Year_Review_February_2012.pdf&page=51.
> This is inconsistent with the latest information that I’m able to find
> about the visual editor.
> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Visual_editor#Status says that the visual
> editor isn't scheduled for an initial rollout until June. Sorry to be
> critical, but I get the impression that this presentation counted the
> chickens several months before they've hatched.
>
> Pine
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Fwd: Announcement: New editor engagement experiments team!

[Sue Gardner]

Hey folks,

I sent the note below to the staff and board a few hours ago: sharing
now with everyone :-)

Thanks,
Sue

-- Forwarded message --
From: Sue Gardner 
Date: 20 March 2012 19:17
Subject: Announcement: New editor engagement experiments team!
To: Staff All 


Hey folks,

A couple of changes at the Wikimedia Foundation that I want you to know about.

Everybody knows that reversing stagnating/declining participation in
Wikimedia’s projects is our top priority. To make better progress, as
of April 16 we're going to bring together resources from the Community
and Engineering/Product departments into a new cross-functional team
tasked specifically with conducting small, rapid experiments designed
to improve editor retention. We already know some of the fixes that
will solve the editor retention problem, and we're working to put them
in place. The purpose of *this* team will be to identify the fixes we
don't yet know about.

Separately, Zack has to move back to Missouri for family reasons. When
Zack told me about that, we agreed that it’s an extra impetus for this
new team to be launched now. This means that going forward,  Zack’s
department will focus solely on fundraising, and some members of his
department will move permanently into other groups. There have been
lots of conversations about this over the past few weeks, which have
included everyone affected.

So here’s what we’re going to do:

FUNDRAISING:

Zack will manage fundraising remotely. He’ll continue to be part of
the C-level team, but he’ll do it from Missouri. He’ll travel back to
San Francisco frequently, and he’ll probably be here throughout the
fundraising campaign every year and spend other longer chunks of time
here when needed.

We don’t yet know what the title of Zack’s department will be, or what
Zack’s title will be. Neither Zack nor I care very much about titles,
and we are in the happy position of not particularly needing to
impress anyone -- so, we do not need fancy euphemistic titles. It
would be nice to have titles that are clear and direct and
understandable, and also to have ones that reflect the
creative/storytelling/community aspect of the fundraising team’s work.
So, we are leaving this piece open for the time being, and we’ll just
call the department “fundraising” until and unless we think of
something better. Folks with suggestions should talk with Zack. :-)

EDITOR ENGAGEMENT EXPERIMENTATION:

Reflecting the importance of editor engagement in the Wikimedia
Foundation’s strategy, we will have the following teams directly
focused on it:

 **the Visual Editor group (led by Trevor as lead developer, and by
the soon-to-be hired Technical Product Analyst) which is making the
visual editor;
 **the Editor Engagement group (led by Fabrice Florin as Product
Manager and Ian Baker as ScrumMaster) which is working on medium-term
projects improving Wikimedia’s handling of reputation/identity and of
notifications;
 **the new team focused on rapid experimentation, led by Karyn as
Product Manager and a to-be-hired engineering lead/ScrumMaster,
tentatively titled something like Research & Experimentation, Editor
Engagement Innovation Lab or the Rapid Experimentation Team.

Our thinking is basically this: we know the Visual Editor will help
with editor retention. We know that improving notifications,
messaging, identity and other core features of MediaWiki will help
with editor retention. But there are a handful of other smaller
projects --maybe just simple tweaks, maybe ideas that should become
fully-fledged new features-- that will also help. The purpose of the
new experimentation team will be to conduct many quick experiments,
which will identify a handful of small changes that can either be
accomplished by the team itself, or be queued up as part of our
overall product backlog.

Staff moving from the Community Dept to Engineering and Product
Development (AKA Tech) are: Karyn Gladstone, Maryana Pinchuk, Steven
Walling, and Ryan Faulkner. They will form a team tasked with rapid
experimentation to find policy, product or other changes that will
increase editor retention. Karyn will head product thinking and
maintain the experimentation backlog, reporting to Howie. Alolita will
hire and manage the engineers for this team, and will help interface
them with the rest of the engineering organization. The important
thing to know about this team is that they are being tasked with one
of our absolutely most important objectives: to figure out new ways to
increase editor engagement and retention.

Karyn will report to Howie. Maryana, Ryan Faulker, and Steven will
report to Karyn. The group has never had engineering resources
assigned to it, and it’s clear they need engineering resources.
Therefore, Alolita will work in close partnership with Karyn to
recruit an engineering team --mostly developers but also UI/design
people-- to support the new group. If you have ideas for people we
should be recruiting fo

Re: [Foundation-l] Amicus Brief Filed in Golan v. Holder: Fighting for the Public Domain

[Sue Gardner]

On 22 June 2011 18:24, Alec Conroy  wrote:

>
> I tend to think any time we can be seen standing next to the the
> Librarians, we come off looking good.  The most we can associate those
> two-- ALA, WMF; ALA, WMF;  The more we do that, the more outsiders
> will "get" us as a legitimate social institution, rather than see us
> as "just another website" paid for by reader donation.
>

I'm particularly pleased about that part too, Alec, for exactly the
reason you give. They're our natural allies, and having that be
publicly visible helps people understand us better :-)

Thanks,
Sue

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Seat and Donations (SPLIT from: EFF & Bitcoins)

[Sue Gardner]

On 23 June 2011 05:05, Joseph Seddon  wrote:
> I honestly that Matt's appointment was a fantastic thing. He is someone with
> a lot of knowledge and I wouldn't have battered a eyelid if his appointment
> had been made at any other time.


> At the end of the day, things have moved on without incident but lets not
> simply ignore this issue. I think that there is something to be learnt and
> its that care really does need to be taken when repeating a venture like
> this. Bad faith in the world may bite us next time.


I find it so interesting that you would say this Joseph (this and the
rest of your mail). I'm kind of hesitant to reply, because I don't
want to kick up a hornet's nest, but I'll take a shot anyway

It seems to me like you're characterizing Matt-joining-the-board as
problematic, while at the same time saying Matt himself is a good
board member. That seems contradictory to me.

Matt's a good board member. A number of us --I think me, Michael Snow,
Jimmy, Stu-- all had met Matt, back before the board decided to invite
him to join, and all thought he would be good. We thought it was
terrific that the Omidyar Network was willing to offer us both a chunk
of cash, and the time & attention of an experienced person who looked
like he would have a lot to contribute. So the board made a thoughtful
informed decision to invite Matt to join it.

That's all good. There's nothing there to be ashamed of.

It could have played out differently. Let's imagine that the exact
same thing had happened, except let's say that for whatever reason,
the Board had not wanted to invite Matt to join. Maybe he wanted to
put advertising on the projects, or in some other way had an
ideological view that was incompatible with ours. In that case the
Board would have turned him down, and that would have been the end of
it. Again, the Board would have been displaying good judgement, and
everything would have played out fine.

So I guess the part of your mail that I don't understand is when you
say "there is something to be learnt" and "care really does need to be
taken when repeating a venture like this."  It sounds like you're
suggesting something bad happened here, and that's actually not the
case IMO. Because again, if you believe that reasonable people could
agree that upon investigation, back when the decision was made, it
looked fairly likely that Matt would turn out to be a good board
member (which happily turned out to be true), then I don't see a
problem. The Board displayed good judgement, and their decision has
been validated over time as correct. It's the job of the Board to
evaluate complicated circumstances, consider our options, weigh the
pros and cons of each, and ultimately make decisions that it thinks
are in the best interests of the projects. That's what they did here:
it was perfect -- exactly as it should be.

So I don't understand what's to be learned from this?  Care was
exercised and the right outcome achieved: it was a good process and a
good outcome. If you think I'm wrong please tell me why :-)

Thanks,
Sue

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Seat and Donations (SPLIT from: EFF & Bitcoins)

[Sue Gardner]

On 23 June 2011 13:59, Dan Rosenthal  wrote:
>
> On Jun 23, 2011, at 4:09 PM, Sue Gardner wrote:
>
>> It seems to me like you're characterizing Matt-joining-the-board as
>> problematic, while at the same time saying Matt himself is a good
>> board member. That seems contradictory to me.
>
> I'm not sure it is. I think what Joseph is saying is that Matt is a good 
> board member in that he is a qualified candidate, he is obviously suitable to 
> handle > the pressures of the board, he brings knowledge, expertise, contacts 
> etc. In terms of qualifications, he is a very good candidate. However based 
> on> the timing and the perception of quid pro quo, that does not equate 
> to him being a problem-free board member, or even a good choice.  In a grossly
> exaggerated example to show where I think the difference in the two aspects 
> above lies, pretend it wasn't Matt, but it was say, Steve Jobs. Certainly,  > 
> Steve's got a great many qualities that would serve the board well. But his 
> appointment would create an instant perception that the board is no longer >  
> independent and is subject to the influences of outside entities, whether 
> they be private, public, corporate, financial, whatever. When that is 
> combined  > with the timing of the grant, it makes that perception that much 
> stronger.


Right, but the board did not appoint Steve Jobs. If the board had
appointed Steve Jobs, then people might have reasonably said 'hey,
there are problems with this: was the right decision made here?' But
that's not what happened.

I am still confused by the argument here.

* I agree that there are people who shouldn't be put on the board.

* I agree that money is a complicating factor. Money is good: it
enables us to do important work. And yet it can also be a negative
influence, if we allow it to persuade us to do things that we
shouldn't do.

* But in this instance, we did not do anything we shouldn't have, and
we got both a chunk of money and a great new board member. That is a
win all round.




> The lesson to be learned from this, I guess, is that even if you have a good 
> process and a good outcome, sometimes the community doesn't necessarily see 
> it that way, and a greater deal of proactive engagement could be helpful in 
> those cases. Less abstractly, I remember there being some talk on this list 
> about the seat and donations at the time Matt's appointment was first 
> announced, but what I don't remember (please correct me if I'm wrong on this) 
> is the WMF publicly addressing community concerns about the grant timing 
> beyond "no, the seat wasn't bought." As a result, it's now June 2011 and the 
> topic is reoccurring.  Broadly speaking this is something that we need to 
> work on.



Yeah, I dunno. What I see happening here is this: the Board weighed a
bunch of pros and cons, and ended up making exactly the right
decision. Even with the advantage of hindsight, I don't hear anybody
arguing that the wrong decision was made. So I continue, I guess, to
fail to understand what went wrong here. Maybe there are people who
feel like money is inherently corrupting, and that the Board should
bar from consideration anyone who has donated (although I have not
heard that argument, I can imagine in theory that someone could make
it). And maybe there are people who feel like they would like to have
a better understanding of how the board arrived at this decision, in
which case they could presumably just ask the board members to talk
about it :-)

I need to run: I'm going into a conference call :-)

Thanks,
Sue

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Seat and Donations (SPLIT from: EFF & Bitcoins)

[Sue Gardner]

On 24 June 2011 10:22,   wrote:
> There is only one thing I think wrong with the consensus narrative above. The 
> description "Matt added so much value it was worth the risk". More accurately 
> it would read "Matt added so much value it was worth the *cost*".


Thank you, Brigitte -- I think you've nailed it. To recap:

The board had open seats it wanted to fill, and Matt had great
qualifications and was willing to serve. The board then talked through
all the various issues. Was inviting Matt to join the right decision?
Board members researched and met him and weighed the pros and cons and
decided yes. Would inviting Matt to join create perception problems?
Probably not among external stakeholders because donors serving on
boards is fairly normal in non-profit land, but yes among community
members, because the community is (appropriately) a fierce defender of
the independence of the projects. Should the board do what it thinks
is best for the organization and the movement, even if its
decisions/actions are unpopular? The board decided yes. Should the
board try to separate the grant announcement from the Matt
announcement to mitigate community anger? No, because that would be
disingenuous. And, it might actually increase anger rather than
mitigating it.

Those kinds of deliberations are exactly the job of the board, and I
believe board members handled them well, and came to the right set of
decisions.

But as Brigitte says, there was a cost: some community members'
confidence in the board of trustees was eroded. The fact that all
three elected board members were re-elected to their seats after this
suggests that either the erosion was not very serious, or that
community members' approval of the board in general over the past two
years offset their concern about this specific issue. But having said
that, even just the fact that we are talking about it here means the
cost was not zero. So yes, Brigitte, you're right.

Without beating a dead horse, I'd like to say a few additional quick things:

1) I do realize that some people's trust in the board was eroded here.
But in direct contradiction to that, I find myself hoping that upon
reflection, people's trust in the board might actually be strengthened
by it. If I were a community member, I would tend to want to be
vigilant about the board, always assessing their competence and
commitment and values. The fact that the board did a thoughtful
evaluation here and came to a responsible conclusion would reassure
me, rather than the opposite.

2) I want to say that I have been really enjoying this conversation.
Discussions on this list have a tendency to sometimes devolve into
snark and accusations, and this one has been the opposite. Personally,
I really appreciate people's serious, non-flamey engagement on this
issue -- I feel like I've ended up with a much better, more nuanced
understanding of where you're coming from. Thank you :-)

Thanks,
Sue

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Alec Conroy

[Sue Gardner]

Yeah, Alec wrote me just before he left. I hope he doesn't mind me saying
this here: he told me he was scrambling his Wikimedia and GMail passwords,
and that he won't be back. (He did say he's going to continue to donate,
which is great; he just won't be active on-wiki.)

I have mixed feelings about him leaving. I don't know everything he did
on-wiki, but I know enough to respect his contributions, and I also found
his e-mails (both on-list and off) enormously thoughtful and valuable. I am
sad he's left and I'm going to miss him personally: I liked him a lot, and I
benefited from his ideas and opinions. So, I can't help but hope he changes
his mind and comes back.

OTOH though, I want to respect his right to make whatever decision is best
for him -- his hard work for the movement was a gift, not an obligation. If
he chooses to come back, I'd be thrilled. If he doesn't, I will just be
grateful for the contributions he made when he was active :-)

Thanks,
Sue
On Aug 12, 2011 11:10 AM, "Nemo"  wrote:
> Well, he called it "EnWP Burnout", but Wikimedia is not only en.wiki.
> It's quite natural to take a pause after such an activity peak, but I
> expect and hope that he'll soon come back and find other (less
> frustrating) way to contribute in one of the places when you can
> actually make a difference. Too bad there's no chapter he can join (I
> suppose), but there are still many options.
>
> Nemo
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Wikimania: thank you to our hosts :-)

[Sue Gardner]

Hi folks,

I don't know if anyone has made a post-Wikimania thread yet thanking our
hosts --- if so, I'm sorry to duplicate, but I've missed it.

It was such an amazing Wikimania! I want to say thanks to everyone who
helped make it happen --- the site selection jury, the Israeli chapter, the
local planning team, the program committee, the people who worked on
scholarships, all the presenters, and everyone else who contributed. I
_think_ the key people were Deror, Harel, Itzik and Tomer, so thank you to
you four especially (as well as whoever else I have inadvertently missed).

Among the highlights for me:

* Yochai Benkler was seriously awe-inspiring.

* I was thrilled like I am every year to see old friends and to put faces to
names (FloNight, finally!) that I've only previously known on-wiki.

* The WikiChix lunch is always a highlight for me, and I am so happy to see
it grow every year. There was lots of energy and useful information-sharing
this year: it was great :-)

* This year I did less media than in previous years, so I was able to attend
a lot of talks. I still missed plenty that I wished I'd seen, but I saw a
lot of good stuff. In general, it seemed to me that there's a lot of good
thinking happening around editor retention issues -- it is great to see
people, in addition to naming and exploring the challenges, starting to move
towards solutions.

* It was lovely to finally meet Angela and Tim's gorgeous baby :-)

* And this year the closing party was AWESOME. I don't think Wikimedians are
generally renowned for the excellence of our parties, but this one was
super-fun. There was lots of energy on the dance floor, and I laughed out
loud to see Topher, James Owen and Andrew Garrett wearing garlands of
flowers and dancing on speakers. (In retrospect I wonder if I imagined that
part. It's possible I did :-)

All in all, it was beautifully managed and enormously fun: my thanks to the
Haifa organizers, who made it look easy :-)

Thanks,
Sue
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedians team up to make European Cultural Heritage Accessible to the World

[Sue Gardner]

On 5 September 2011 22:54, Lodewijk Gelauff  wrote:
> Wikimedians team up to make European Cultural Heritage Accessible to the
> World
> Volunteers from 16 European Countries Have Uploaded 15,000 Images and
> Counting
> Amsterdam, September 6, 2011--- Wikimedians from 16 European countries
> announced the first-ever Pan-European Wiki Loves Monuments contest, a
> photography contest, running throughout the month of September, focused on
> capturing and sharing images of important monuments and buildings in Europe.
> Since its September 1st launch, more than 1000 images have been uploaded
> from a few of the most active countries: France, Germany, the Netherlands,
> Poland and Spain.
>
> ___
> Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately
> directed to Foundation-L, the public mailing list about the Wikimedia
> Foundation and its projects. For more information about Foundation-L:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

This is wonderful Lodewijk. Seriously great work from everybody: it's
impressive. And it's a good quote from you :-)

(Also, I am testing the reply auto-forward to foundation-l, which has
never yet worked for me the way I understood it wanted to work.
Historically, I've made several unsuccessful attempts to reply to
announce-l, which only you have seen, because you are its moderator.
So worst case scenario, at least you will see this note :-)

Thanks,
Sue


--

Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Sue Gardener, Wikipedia's leading editor - wikileaks

[Sue Gardner]

On 6 September 2011 01:49, Marcin Cieslak  wrote:
>>> Jimmy Wales  wrote:
>> I was mentioned in a leaked US diplomatic cable - with my name spelled
>> wrong!
>>
>> http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2008/11/08SANTIAGO1015.html
>
> What about this:
>
> Reference id: 09TELAVIV982
> Origin: Embassy Tel Aviv
> Time: Mon, 4 May 2009 10:30 UTC
> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
>
> (...)
>
> Ha'aretz reported that Sue Gardner, Wikipedia's leading editor, who



I did recently make some significant improvements to the article about
the Musée de la Chasse et de la Nature. But really: to characterize me
as Wikipedia's leading editor --- that seems a bit much ;-)

Thanks,
Sue

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Draft Terms of Use for Review

[Sue Gardner]

On 8 September 2011 17:28, Milos Rancic  wrote:
> As I am speaking as a steward, I have to say that it's very good news
> for us. Instead of being harassed because not dealing with harassment,
> since the implementation of ToS that would be WMF's job. That's really
> good news for stewards!


The purpose of the new TOS is to support the community, not to take
over its work.

Geoff and members of the Community department have been speaking
recently with community members who are concerned about harassment on
the wikis, about what kinds of actions we might collectively take to
help prevent it. Making it clear that harassment is against the rules
seems like an obvious step, and indeed I've seen research that
suggests an inverse relationship between sites that have a TOS that
prohibits harassment, and incidents of harassment on those sites. [1]

Explicitly and publicly forbidding harassment on the wikis is a pretty
basic and straightforward thing to do.

Thanks,
Sue

[1] I wish I had that study at hand, but I don't. I found it, I think,
through a Google Scholar search related to danah boyd. The researcher
was an expert in online harassment, either at Berkman or maybe MIT.





--
Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Draft Terms of Use forReview

[Sue Gardner]

On 8 September 2011 19:01, Phil Nash  wrote:

> There's a major difference between online harassment, and robust debate,
> although most of us can tell where we draw our own lines.

Oh yikes, Phil, please don't misunderstand me! The conversations we
were having were about one or two people who have been repeatedly
harassing large numbers of Wikimedians for years. I am not talking
about editors who engage in discussions and get a bit rude; I am
talking about people who are probably seriously mentally ill.

This is not a backdoor attempt to enforce kindness. We're just trying
to support and protect editors against really very egregious
behaviour.

Thanks,
Sue




--
Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Personal Image Filter results announced

[Sue Gardner]

On 10 September 2011 01:40, David Gerard  wrote:
> On 10 September 2011 09:34, Yann Forget  wrote:
>> 2011/9/10 Philippe Beaudette :
>
>>> I do not yet have a full feed that meets our needs for analysis beyond
>>> what's already done.
>
>> We should have started by this before organizing a "referendum".
>
>
> I've asked only twice now, here goes for a third time:
>
> What was the process of coming up with the questions? Who did this? As
> much detail as possible please.


I wrote the questions, with Phoebe and SJ, in Boston at the Wikipedia
in Higher Ed conference.

It's not a secret -- I wrote about it here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AImage_filter_referendum%2FResults%2Fen&action=historysubmit&diff=2880100&oldid=2880046

Thanks,
Sue

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] A Wikimedia project has forked

[Sue Gardner]

On 12 September 2011 18:15, geni  wrote:
> On 12 September 2011 23:45, Samuel Klein  wrote:
>> Now: what do we need to do to make Wikinews better and more useful?
>> What are the costs and technical or other work involved?
>
> Very little. Mostly wikinews is misstargeted. Yet another website
> rewriting AP reports is never going to draw crowds. Wikinews needed
> original research and never really had very much of it. It is also
> operating in an extremely crowded market where as wikipedia had the
> field pretty much to itself when it started.


On the English Wikinews [1] at least, it's seemed to me that part of
the issue is that different editors are working on different genres of
news. Some do celebrity coverage, others do investigative work or
collaborative coverage of breaking events, etc. Those are quite
different value propositions that appeal to different types of
readers, and I would think that Wikinews has simply never produced
enough critical mass of any one genre, sufficient to create and
maintain a large readership that wants that genre.

Jimmy said once that part of the reason Wikipedia works so well is
because everybody knows what an encyclopedia article is supposed to
look like. I think that's true, and I think Wikinews has suffered in
comparison, because there are many different types of news, not just
one.

Thanks,
Sue


[1] the only one I personally can read

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

[Sue Gardner]

On 16 September 2011 02:14, Fae  wrote:
> What a strange assumption from Peter. I don't believe for one minute
> that WMF would commission a global referendum and then ignore the
> results. If there has been an official statement along these lines I
> would love to be pointed to it.


Yikes, this is a very fast-moving thread. I haven't read it all yet,
but I wanted to jump in and say that yes, there has not yet been an
official statement responding to the referendum results. There will
be, but there isn't yet.

Currently, the referendum team is still doing some analysis of the
results -- there are some questions we are hoping to get answered
around language breakdown. And I am currently reading lots and lots of
write-in comments.

If I had to guess, I would image there will be a statement within
about two weeks. But that's not a commitment, just an estimate.

Thanks,
Sue





--
Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Possible solution for image filter - magical flying unicorn pony that s***s rainbows

[Sue Gardner]

On 21 September 2011 11:10, Tobias Oelgarte
 wrote:
> Am 21.09.2011 19:36, schrieb Kanzlei:
>> Am 21.09.2011 um 19:04 schrieb Tobias 
>> Oelgarte:
>>
>>> Don't you think that we would have thousands of complaints a day if your
>>> words would be true at all? Just have a look at the article [[hentai]]
>>> and look at the illustration. How many complaints about this image do we
>>> get a day? None, because it is less then one complain in a month, while
>>> the article itself is viewed about 8.000 times a day.[1] That would make
>>> up one complainer in 240.000 (0,0004%). Now we could argue that only
>>> some of them would comment on the issue. Lets assume 1 of 100 or even 1
>>> of 1000. Then it are still only 0,04% or 0,4%. That is the big mass of
>>> users we want to support get more contributers?
>>>
>>> [1] http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/hentai
>> Your assumtion is wrong. The 8.000 daily are neither neutral nor 
>> representative for all users. Put the picture on the main page and You get 
>> representative results. We had that in Germany.
> Yes we put the "vulva" on the main page and it got quite some attention.
> We wanted it this way to test out the reaction of the readers and to
> start a discussion about it. The result was as expected. Complains that
> it is offensive together with Praises to show what neutrality really is.
> After the discussion settled, we opened a Meinungsbild (Poll) to
> question if any article/image would be suitable for the main page
> (Actually it asked to not allow any topic). The result was very clear.
> 13 supported the approach to leave out some content from the main page.
> 233 (95%) were against the approach to hide some subjects from the main
> page.


Can you point me towards that poll?

Thanks,
Sue

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Possible solution for image filter - magical flying unicorn pony that s***s rainbows

[Sue Gardner]

On 21 September 2011 12:37, Bjoern Hoehrmann  wrote:
> * Sue Gardner wrote:
>>> Yes we put the "vulva" on the main page and it got quite some attention.
>>> We wanted it this way to test out the reaction of the readers and to
>>> start a discussion about it. The result was as expected. Complains that
>>> it is offensive together with Praises to show what neutrality really is.
>>> After the discussion settled, we opened a Meinungsbild (Poll) to
>>> question if any article/image would be suitable for the main page
>>> (Actually it asked to not allow any topic). The result was very clear.
>>> 13 supported the approach to leave out some content from the main page.
>>> 233 (95%) were against the approach to hide some subjects from the main
>>> page.
>>
>>Can you point me towards that poll?
>
> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Beschränkung_der_Themen_für_den_Artikel_des_Tages

Thanks, Björn. That's so interesting: I hadn't known about that poll.

Can someone help me understand the implications of it?

Does it mean basically this: deWP put the Vulva article on its front
page, and then held a poll to decide whether to i) stop putting
articles like Vulva on its front page, because they might surprise or
shock some readers, or ii) continue putting articles like Vulva on the
front page, regardless of whether they surprise or shock some readers.
And the voted supported the latter.

If I've got that right, I assume it means that policy on the German
Wikipedia today would support putting Vulva on the main page. Is there
an 'element of least surprise' type policy or convention that would be
considered germane to this, or not?

I'd be grateful too if anyone would point me towards the page that
delineates the process for selecting the Article of the Day. I can
read pages in languages other than English (sort of) using Google
Translate, but I have a tough time actually finding them :-)

Thanks,
Sue



--
Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Possible solution for image filter - magical flying unicorn pony that s***s rainbows

[Sue Gardner]

On 22 September 2011 02:21, Tobias Oelgarte
 wrote:
> You must be an asshole to claim that we have many sock puppets inside
> this votes. It's an open attack against the community.

Please let's try not to demonize and insult each other.

These are hot issues, and I know it's tempting to believe that people
who disagree with us are stupid or evil, but they're not. We are all
here for the same reason -- we want to make the world a better place
by making information freely available for everyone. Everybody here is
smart and thoughtful and committed to that mission, and the
conversations work better when we engage each other with that in mind.

Thanks,
Sue



--

Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Welcoming Jon Davies as our new Chief Executive

[Sue Gardner]

On 27 September 2011 10:30, Chris Keating  wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Wikimedia UK is very pleased to announce that after a very thorough
> recruitment process we have appointed Jon Davies as our first Chief
> Executive, starting next Monday.



Fabulous! Welcome to Jon, and congratulations to the UK Board -- this
is an important day for Wikimedia UK :-)

Thanks,
Sue

--
Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

[Sue Gardner]

On 30 September 2011 03:47, WereSpielChequers
 wrote:
> Re David's point that "The trouble with responding on the blog is that
> responses seem to be being arbitrarily filtered". I can relate to that, it
> isn't just an annoying delay, there are posts which have gone up with
> timestamps long after my post. I don't know whether that was me not knowing
> how to do blog replies or something else. But the solution is in our hands,
> I've now posted my blog response in
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sue_Gardner#Your_blog_post where
> really it should have gone in the first place.


http://suegardner.org/comment-policy/

All the comments people posted thus far have been approved. It just
takes some time, since I sometimes sleep, or have meetings and so
forth. I'll check to see if there's a way to note that for commenters
pre-posting: I'm sure most people don't notice the comments policy.

But thanks, WereSpielChequers --- I saw your note on my talkpage :-)

Thanks,
Sue





--
Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

[Sue Gardner]

On 30 September 2011 09:15, Milos Rancic  wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 16:24, Risker  wrote:
>> Milos, I believe this is exactly the kind of post that Sue was talking about
>> in her blog. It is aggressive, it is alienating, and it is intimidating to
>> others who may have useful and progressive ideas but are repeatedly seeing
>> the opinions of others dismissed because they're women/not women or from the
>> US/not from the US. The implication of your post is "if you're a woman from
>> the US, your opinion is invalid.



I just want to point out quickly that I am not American, and my
position on all these issues is actually a very Canadian one. Ray and
Risker and other Canadians will recognize this.

Canada doesn't really feel itself to have a fixed national identity.
We makes jokes about the fact that that IS our identity -- that we are
continually renegotiating and stretching the boundaries of what it
means to be Canadian. We believe our culture is the aggregation and
accumulation of all the views and experiences and attitudes of our
citizenry. Each wave of immigration --the French and the British, the
Chinese, the Italians, the Indians, the Jamaicans, and so forth-- has
influenced what Canada is, and how it understands itself.

That's what I'm used to, as a Canadian -- it's normal for me to listen
to minorities and find ways to incorporate their perspectives into
mine.

Thanks,
Sue





--
Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia

[Sue Gardner]

The Wikimedia Foundation first heard about this a few hours ago: we don't
have a lot of details yet. Jay is gathering information and working on a
statement now.

It seems obvious though that the proposed law would hurt freedom of
expression in Italy, and therefore it's entirely reasonable for the Italian
Wikipedians to oppose it. The Wikimedia Foundation will support their
position.

The question of whether blocking access to Wikipedia is the best possible
way to draw people's attention to this issue is of course open for debate
and reasonable people can disagree. My understanding is that the decision
was taken via a good community process. Regardless, what's done is done, for
the moment.

Thanks,
Sue
On Oct 4, 2011 1:33 PM, "Risker"  wrote:
> Rather than try to respond to a specific post in this fast moving thread,
my
> belief is that the WMF is likely trying to work directly with members of
the
> Italian Wikipedia community primarily right now rather than keeping up
with
> mailing lists. While I do look forward to seeing some communication on
this
> issue, that community needs to be the focus.
>
> (As an aside, kudos to Milos' rapid response and ability to organize his
own
> local community in support of the concerns of our Italian counterparts.)
>
> Risker
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Sue Gardner]

On 9 October 2011 08:50, Thomas Dalton  wrote:
> On 9 October 2011 16:31, church.of.emacs.ml
>  wrote:
>> On 10/09/2011 04:56 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>> If the WMF picks a fight with the community on something the
>>> community feel very strongly about (which this certainly seems to
>>> be), the WMF will lose horribly and the fall-out for the whole
>>> movement will be very bad indeed.
>>
>> +1.
>>
>> (And I say that, not being opposed to the image filter itself)
>
> Indeed. I'm not in against the filter. In fact, I'm very much in
> favour of it. I am, however, very much against civil war.

Nobody wants civil war.

Please read Ting's note carefully. The Board is asking me to work with
the community to develop a solution that meets the original
requirements as laid out in its resolution. It is asking me to do
something. But it is not asking me to do the specific thing that has
been discussed over the past several months, and which the Germans
voted against.

The Board is hoping there is a solution that will 1) enable readers to
easily hide images they don't want to see, as laid out in the Board's
resolution [1], while 2) being generally acceptable to editors. Maybe
this will not be possible, but it's the goal. The Board definitely
does not want a war with the community, and it does not want people to
fork or leave the projects. The goal is a solution that's acceptable
for everyone.

Thanks,
Sue

[1] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content
--

Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Sue Gardner]

On 9 October 2011 09:31, Thomas Dalton  wrote:
> On 9 October 2011 17:19, Sue Gardner  wrote:
>> Nobody wants civil war.
>
> I'm sure they don't actively want one, but it seems the board do
> consider one an acceptable cost.

It may seem that way, but it's not actually true. The Board's
conversation yesterday was thoughtful and serious: the Board members
take very seriously the concerns expressed by editors, and they don't
want to alienate them. We discussed Achim Raschka for example
specifically: he's a 70K-edit editor on the German Wikipedia with I
think 100+ good and featured articles. The last thing the Board wants
is for people like Achim to leave the projects.


>> Please read Ting's note carefully. The Board is asking me to work with
>> the community to develop a solution that meets the original
>> requirements as laid out in its resolution. It is asking me to do
>> something. But it is not asking me to do the specific thing that has
>> been discussed over the past several months, and which the Germans
>> voted against.
>>
>> The Board is hoping there is a solution that will 1) enable readers to
>> easily hide images they don't want to see, as laid out in the Board's
>> resolution [1], while 2) being generally acceptable to editors. Maybe
>> this will not be possible, but it's the goal. The Board definitely
>> does not want a war with the community, and it does not want people to
>> fork or leave the projects. The goal is a solution that's acceptable
>> for everyone.
>
> But what happens in the event that such a goal cannot be achieved?
> Ting has made it very clear that they intend some kind of image filter
> to be implemented on all projects, regardless of community wishes. I
> hope the community will come around and accept some kind of filter,
> but if they don't then the WMF needs to accept that it has failed, do
> so gracefully, and not try to start a war that in cannot possibly win
> and will cause a great deal of damage.
>
> I think that if the WMF made it clear that they will not implement any
> kind of image filter on a project if there is overwhelming opposition
> to it, the relevant communities would be much more willing to engage
> in constructive dialogue.

Yes, I hear you. The Board didn't specifically discuss yesterday what
to do if there is no acceptable solution. So I don't think they can
make a statement like this: it hasn't been discussed. I hear what
you're saying here, but my hope is that even in the absence of such a
statement, people will be willing to join with the Wikimedia
Foundation to engage seriously on the topic and figure out a solution
that works.

I need to run -- I've got a meeting in the office with Ting, JB and
Kat. But thank you, Thomas, for your comments here -- I think they're
constructive. I would love for people on this list to help others
understand what's happening here. The Wikimedia Foundation does not
want a war: it is hoping for a solution here that is acceptable for
everyone. If the folks here can help editors understand that, that
would be a service to everyone, I think.

Thanks,
Sue





--
Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Sue Gardner]

On 10 October 2011 11:56, Möller, Carsten  wrote:
> Sue wrote:
>> It is asking me to do something.
>> But it is not asking me to do the specific thing that has
>> been discussed over the past several months, and which the Germans
>> voted against.
>
> I may translate:
> As the German community has voted against filters,
> I was ordered to circumvent this vote by making some adjustments to the 
> wording.
>
> That will not work. The vote was very clear agaist all image filters.
> The referendum was a farce, as we clearly see.
>
> Sorry, somebody is playing games with us.


Truly, Carsten, nobody is playing games with you. The Board's
discussion was sincere and thoughtful.

This is how the system is supposed to work. The Board identified a
problem; the staff hacked together a proposed solution, and we asked
the community what it thought. Now, we're responding to the input and
we're going to iterate. This is how it's supposed to work: we mutually
influence each other.

I'm not saying it isn't messy and awkward and flawed in many respects:
it absolutely is. But nobody is playing games with you. The Board is
sincere. It is taking seriously the German community, and the others
who have thoughtfully opposed the filter.

The right thing to do now is to accept the olive branch, and work with
the Wikimedia Foundation to figure out a good solution. You want to
train the Wikimedia Foundation that listening to you is the path to a
successful outcome :-)

Thanks,
Sue



--

Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Grant agreements

[Sue Gardner]

Oh. I can speak to this, at least a little. The Wikimedia Foundation has a
policy of publishing our grant applications when the grantmaking institution
is okay with it. We don't do a lot of grant applications, and of the ones we
do, I am guesstimating that two-thirds of the grantmakers have said it's
fine with them for us to publish, and about a third have asked us not to.
Some grantmaking institutions are very happy to publish, because they
believe the sector as a whole benefits from transparency about how things
work. (IIRC Hewlett is an example of that.)

I do not know where they get published: I'll ask.

But, some of the grant we receive are unsolicited gifts, in which case there
is no application, and nothing to publish. I think for example that our
recent grant from the Indigo Trust in the UK is an example of that.

I assume, MZ, that you're mostly interested in the Stanton grant, and I
don't remember their position on this issue. I do know they're not
publicity-seeking, and they don't welcome grant applications that they
haven't solicited. So they might be an example of a foundation that doesn't
want its agreements publicized: I don't remember.

We can find out :-)

Thanks,
Sue
 On Oct 14, 2011 5:41 PM, "MZMcBride"  wrote:

> Philippe Beaudette wrote:
> > Point of clarification (and this is to help someone else answer, because
> i
> > don't know)... MZ, are you talking about grants such as Stanton, where
> the
> > WMF is the recipient, or grants such as to the chapters, where the WMF is
> > the granting partner?
>
> I was talking about Stanton-type grants. Sorry for the confusion.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Grant agreements

[Sue Gardner]

It's Lisa Gruwell, MZ. Last I heard, she has been waiting to hear back
from a couple of foundations about recent agreements.

Thanks,
Sue



Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate



On 23 October 2011 11:05, MZMcBride  wrote:
> MZMcBride wrote:
>> Sue Gardner wrote:
>>> Oh. I can speak to this, at least a little. The Wikimedia Foundation has a
>>> policy of publishing our grant applications when the grantmaking institution
>>> is okay with it. We don't do a lot of grant applications, and of the ones we
>>> do, I am guesstimating that two-thirds of the grantmakers have said it's
>>> fine with them for us to publish, and about a third have asked us not to.
>>> Some grantmaking institutions are very happy to publish, because they
>>> believe the sector as a whole benefits from transparency about how things
>>> work. (IIRC Hewlett is an example of that.)
>>>
>>> I do not know where they get published: I'll ask.
>>>
>>> But, some of the grant we receive are unsolicited gifts, in which case there
>>> is no application, and nothing to publish. I think for example that our
>>> recent grant from the Indigo Trust in the UK is an example of that.
>>>
>>> I assume, MZ, that you're mostly interested in the Stanton grant, and I
>>> don't remember their position on this issue. I do know they're not
>>> publicity-seeking, and they don't welcome grant applications that they
>>> haven't solicited. So they might be an example of a foundation that doesn't
>>> want its agreements publicized: I don't remember.
>>>
>>> We can find out :-)
>>
>> That would be great. Thanks. :-)
>>
>> It's mostly the large grants that I'm interested in, the ones that have the
>> power to shape a significant portion of Wikimedia's short-term future.
>> Personally, the applications (assuming there are any) are completely
>> unimportant to me. I can't imagine they're much more than "we'd like X money
>> to fulfill Y portions of our mission", though perhaps I'm wrong. But the
>> grant agreements ("we'll give you X money over Y months to do Z") are the
>> piece that has me curious.
>>
>> Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. There's no rush on this, but I'd
>> most certainly appreciate it if you could take a look or ask someone to.
>
> Bumping this, so I don't forget. I think having public grant agreements
> wherever possible is critically important, particularly with large grants
> that have the potential to drastically (or dramatically) shape the future of
> Wikimedia, at least short-term.
>
> Is there a particular staff member that I can talk to about this? There are
> some grant-specific people, aren't there?
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Wikimedia India Program Trust

[Sue Gardner]

On 11 November 2011 17:11, Achal Prabhala  wrote:
> Honestly, news reporters in India are confused about *everything*
> related to Wikipedia and Wikimedia :) Even a cursory analysis of news
> coverage will confirm that they routinely mix up what the movement is,
> what the difference between Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation is,
> what the difference between a chapter member and a staff member is, etc.
> And as someone who has been following this from the outset, I can say
> with some confidence that this has nothing to do with the chapter and
> the Foundation in India, rather, just our own complicated terminology
> and insider-language, and a general laziness on the part of Indian news
> media to learn the details. Basically, we'd still get completely whacky
> press coverage even if there was no chapter and no Foundation entity.

FWIW, this is definitely not confined to India :-)

From a brand perspective, the Wikimedia movement is extremely
confusing to reporters: we have Wikimedia, Wikipedia, the sister
projects, MediaWiki, the Wikimedia Foundation, chapter organizations,
school clubs, and projects and activities of all types. And, media are
continually befuddled about how we work: they are used to professional
spokespeople, so they don't understand why X person in the Wikimedia
movement isn't speaking on behalf of the whole movement.

When I joined the Wikimedia Foundation in 2007, I thought this was a
problem that needed to be fixed. Over time though, I've begun to
realize that it's pretty fundamental to our movement's values. We want
to have a movement in which it's easy to participate; in which there
are few barriers to entry; there is minimal rule-making and
rule-enforcement, where people can flexibly wear different hats and
take on different roles, etc.

So yes: I think we are confusing to journalists, and they often get
the story wrong. That's too bad. But on the whole, I think it's a
small price to pay in exchange for a vibrant, creative, productive
movement, and the cure for it (real clarity, lots of rules) would be
worse than the disease.

Thanks,
Sue


--

Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Wikimedia India Program Trust

[Sue Gardner]

Tinu Cherian, thank you so much for writing this gorgeous, thoughtful
e-mail. I agree with every word you wrote, and I am grateful that you did
it.

One of the things I like best about Wikimedia is that anyone can become a
leader. You become a leader by acting like one: by being compassionate and
good, by reminding us of why we're all here, and calling upon us all to be
our best, wisest, most generous selves. That's what you've done here, and I
think it's really lovely.

While I was reading your e-mail, it reminded me of a famous mail that Brion
sent to this same list, back on Christmas Eve of 2006. It was before I
joined the projects, but lots of people told me about it, and eventually I
looked it up in our archives. It's here:
http://web.archiveorange.com/archive/v/FH5EqJVBMHtX4RawfKZY -- we used to
call it the eggnog e-mail. It was essentially doing the same thing that you
did in your mail just now: asking us all, despite our disagreements, to
remember that what we're doing here in the Wikimedia projects is awesome,
and that we should remember that we love each other.

You've written the new eggnog e-mail. Thank you!

Sue



On Nov 15, 2011 10:02 AM, "CherianTinu Abraham" 
wrote:

> I am not going the respond inline, as it may confuse many a readers like
> me. I will also try to answer below various questions/comments from
> multiple mails/ people. Some of my comments may be general and not directed
> to anyone in particular.
>
> I didn't mean to offend anyone, whether he is a chapter member or not. I
> reserve my right to free opinion just like anyone does. I didn't either
> intend to undermine the great works of anyone. I am aware that "whipping
> foundation label" is very cool these days, but I am not for it. I may have
> disagreements of some of the "foundation way" or "chapter way" , but I
> express my concerns on issues only.
>
> The reason that I had mentioned that the formation of trust was announced
> in earlier co-ordination meetings was that whosoever had concerns earlier
> could have raised it even then. The fact that Sunil Abraham was made as one
> of the trustees was indeed not mentioned in the meetings, all i meant was I
> think he is well eligible for his contributions as a trustee for the WIPT.
> Does every chapter share every minute things of its proceedings with the
> foundation or the community?
>
> I am not here to say whether hiring Hisham or any foundation staff is right
> to wrong. AFAIK, the foundation encouraged/s community members to apply for
> various positions and I could point to you a lots of examples where active
> community members have been hired. Everywhere possible, whenever eligible
> and qualified candidates from the community are available, they have been
> hired, AFAIK. If I choose to work on a volunteer basis on part time, it is
> my own wish... And if I want work on full time for the movement, without
> worrying about my daily bread, it is also my wish. The choice is strictly
> personal. So is it cool if some people joins the foundation and not when
> some other people ? We, Wikipedians, claim to be open & welcoming and vow
> to not bite the new comers, but in reality we form cabals and resists
> anyone new who comes to the movement, ...hah, ... they are all outsiders !
>
> "Oh I can whip everyone personally, but don't you dare to touch me"
> attitude is also not productive. I am tired of seeing foundation-l used for
> personal grudges and attacks. I am tired seeing sock puppet accounts been
> made to just launch personal attacks on individuals on the mailing
> lists/forums. It is not just one time, but many a times.
>
> So finally it all boils down to funding and money, right ? Who gets the
> bigger share and who gets the smaller share? Is that all we care about ? Is
> that why we are all in the movement? I would have been much personally much
> richer, if I  ( like many others) had put my energy, time and concentration
> elsewhere than putting on a movement that is very close to my/our hearts.
> Our family and friends would have much appreciated if we had spend time
> more with them, instead. But that is my/our choice and I am happy about it.
> We are just doing it because we are just passionate about it.
>
> Regards
> Tinu Cherian
>
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Fwd: Thank you from the Wikimedia Foundation

[Sue Gardner]

The campaign for this year is officially launched! Congratulations to
everyone working on it, and fingers crossed for its success.

Thanks,
Sue
-- Forwarded message --
From: "Sue Gardner" 
Date: Nov 15, 2011 2:30 PM
Subject: Thank you from the Wikimedia Foundation
To: "Susan Gardner" 

Dear Susan,

You are amazing, thank you so much for donating to the Wikimedia Foundation!

This is how we pay our bills -- it's people like you, giving five dollars,
twenty dollars, a hundred dollars. My favourite donation last year was five
pounds from a little girl in England, who had persuaded her parents to let
her donate her allowance. It's people like you, joining with that girl, who
make it possible for Wikipedia to continue providing free, easy access to
unbiased information, for everyone around the world. For everyone who helps
pay for it, and for those who can't afford to help. Thank you so much.

I know it's easy to ignore our appeals, and I'm glad that you didn't. From
me, and from the tens of thousands of volunteers who write Wikipedia: thank
you for helping us make the world a better place. We will use your money
carefully, and I thank you for your trust in us.

Thanks,

*Sue Gardner*
Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director

For your records: Your donation on 2011-11-15 was USD 1000.00.

This letter may serve as a record of your donation. No goods or services
were provided, in whole or in part, for this contribution. The Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc. is a non-profit charitable corporation with 501(c)(3) tax
exempt status in the United States. Our address is 149 New Montgomery, 3rd
Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94105. U.S. tax-exempt number: 20-0049703

*Opt out option:*

We'd like to keep you as a donor informed of our community activities and
fundraisers. If you prefer however not to receive such emails from us,
please click below and we'll take you off the list:
Opt 
out<https://civicrm.wikimedia.org/thank_you/unsubscribe?c=1217193&h=e21ee93ee103ce6157485533f6047e7d9eb50b6a>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Fundraising update

[Sue Gardner]

There was a brief outage due to that page, Nathan, a few days ago.
(Because of Brandon Harris's AMA on Reddit.)

The intent is to get the page back up, but I don't know when. I'd
guess it might take a week or so, but that's just a guess.

Thanks,
Sue

--
Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate



On 30 November 2011 18:05, Nathan  wrote:
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:FundraiserStatistics
>
> What's happening that this is disabled?
>
> ~Nathan
>
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 8:36 PM, Megan Hernandez
>  wrote:
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> I just posted an update on the current editor appeal we're running.  Take a
>> look: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2011
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Megan
>>
>> --
>>
>> Megan Hernandez
>>
>> Head of Annual Fundraiser
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>> ___
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Fundraising update

[Sue Gardner]

On 1 December 2011 15:33, Juergen Fenn  wrote:
> Sue, if you are currently not able to give live statistics for technical 
> reasons, perhaps you could announce the current statistics on a static web 
> page for the meanwhile?

Hi Juergen,

I think there's a backup Google spreadsheet. The spreadsheet data
belongs to four different groups -- WM France, WM Deutschland and WM
UK, as well as the Wikimedia Foundation. If the French, Germans and
British are okay publishing the URL, the Wikimedia Foundation
obviously is totally fine with it :-)

Thanks,
Sue





Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Canadian consultation on Trans Pacific

[Sue Gardner]

On 7 January 2012 07:47, James Heilman  wrote:
> Hey John. Not sure we why at WMC should be interested? Can you explain
> further...
>
> James Heilman
> Wikimedia Canada

I'm not John, but it's because of the copyright provisions.

If Canada signs onto the Trans Pacific Partnership, it would need to
redo its copyright legislation to conform with it, which would likely
extend Canadian copyright another 20 years, plus putting in place new
measures around enforcement and new infringement penalties.

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6225/125/

Thanks,
Sue

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Politico: "Wikimedia foundation hires lobbyists on sopa, pipa"

[Sue Gardner]

On 22 January 2012 08:30, Kim Bruning  wrote:
> Wikimedia foundation hires lobbyists on sopa, pipa
>        http://www.politico.com/morningtech/0112/morningtech377.html
>
> Interesting. Any details?

I thought we had already discussed this here, but maybe it was only
discussed on the SOPA pages on-wiki? Upshot: the Wikimedia Foundation
engaged a DC firm, Dow Lohnes Government Strategies, to help us better
understand SOPA/PIPA. They are the folks who've been advising us over
the past month or so, helping us figure out how big a threat SOPA/PIPA
are, where they came from, what stage they were at, how likely they
were to pass, what kind of response the blackout was getting, and so
forth.

When Geoff or anybody from the Foundation was opining on-list or
on-wiki about SOPA/PIPA, it was with the benefit of the expertise of
the DC firm.

It remains to be determined how or whether we will continue using that
firm (or any other similar firm). We don't have any intention of doing
anything secretive or underhanded.

There is probably more information on enWP's SOPA-related pages.

Thanks,
Sue

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] WMF Board of Trustees meeting agenda

[Sue Gardner]

Just adding to what Phoebe said (and sorry to top-post): my recommendations
are not finalized and have not been submitted formally to the Board. I
don't intend to submit them as-is: they will be shaped by the discussion
that's been happening thus far, by my own evolving views, and by input from
the Board at its meeting. What I am looking for out of the Board meeting is
to get nearer to a consensus WRT what direction we want to take.

Thanks,
Sue
On Jan 30, 2012 8:02 AM, "phoebe ayers"  wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 3:18 PM, En Pine  wrote:
> >
> > Phoebe,
> >
> > On this agenda, could you give more detail about the topic "Paid editing
> discussion"? There is a current discussion on EN at the Village Pump
> regarding, among other things, PR personnel who edit on Wikipedia in ways
> that might violate NPOV and COI policy. It would be good to know if the
> Board is taking up this specific subject. Alternatively, if "paid editing
> discussion" instead is about editors which will be paid by WMF to edit, I
> think the community would want to know that this is will be discussed.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Pine
>
> Pine: the former, I believe; I haven't heard anything about the latter :)
>
> Beria: the calendar is posted here --
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_and_Funds_Dissemination
> As I understand it we are going to try to get quite indepth into the
> recommendations at this meeting, and see if there is consensus to
> date, but not take a final vote.
>
> -- phoebe
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikia leasing office space to WMF

[Sue Gardner]

2009/1/23 Thomas Dalton :
> 2009/1/24 Anthony :
>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Delphine Ménard wrote:

My reply isn't specific to what Thomas wrote; this is a general
comment on this thread.  I've been reading it with a lot of interest,
and there are a couple of things I'd like to add to what's already
been said.

First, I want to be clear – it was my decision to sublet the space
from Wikia. I believe it's the right thing for Wikimedia :-)

It's the right decision from a practical standpoint, for the reasons
outlined earlier by Erik and others. And beyond that, I also believe
it is appropriate and reasonable for the Wikimedia Foundation and
Wikia to have a normal working relationship – one that is neither
overly entangled, nor exaggeratedly distant.  Wikia does not do
exactly what we do, but it does similar work.  It makes sense for us
to have a collegial, friendly relationship with Wikia, exactly as we
do with dozens of other organizations who do work that is similar to
ours, or aligned with it.

I would also say that I am happy we're talking about this, and I hope
the people asking questions are finding the answers reasonably
reassuring :-)

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] FW: [Wikinews-l] Increasedincivility at wikinews [en]

[Sue Gardner]

(I'm on my Blackberry which makes it hard to comment inline - please bear with 
me.)

Marc Riddell wrote:
> on 2/5/09 10:45 AM, Andrew Whitworth at wknight8...@gmail.com wrote:
>   
>> The foundation is not likely to be able to do anything, even if it is
>> willing (which I doubt). It makes some sense to treat them as the
>> authority figure of last resort, but that isn't reality.
>> 
> A sad state of affairs.
>   

Yes, it is.  Nevertheless it is a fundamental paradox in this kind of 
project.  We grow up with an old authoritarian paradigm where people are 
taught to take orders, and even expect to be told what to do and how to 
do it.  In the new paradigm of sharing we expect people to take 
responsibility for what they say and do, and to use common sense in 
their approach to problems.

(<<

Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 14:21:36 
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] FW: [Wikinews-l] Increased
 incivility at  wikinews [en] 


Marc Riddell wrote:
> on 2/5/09 10:45 AM, Andrew Whitworth at wknight8...@gmail.com wrote:
>   
>> The foundation is not likely to be able to do anything, even if it is
>> willing (which I doubt). It makes some sense to treat them as the
>> authority figure of last resort, but that isn't reality.
>> 
> A sad state of affairs.
>   

Yes, it is.  Nevertheless it is a fundamental paradox in this kind of 
project.  We grow up with an old authoritarian paradigm where people are 
taught to take orders, and even expect to be told what to do and how to 
do it.  In the new paradigm of sharing we expect people to take 
responsibility for what they say and do, and to use common sense in 
their approach to problems.  A co-operative or consensual model is 
difficult when worth has been defined in term of the rights (or rites) 
of winning and losing.

There are people out there willing to see themselves badly injured in a 
traffic accident as long as they believe that doing so was consistent 
with their "correct" interpretation of the traffic laws.
>> If a project so large in size and scope as English Wikipedia is having
>> these problems with hostility and incivility, you're maybe seeing a
>> manifestation of problems in human nature itself. See [[w:Dubar's
>> Number]] for more information about large groups like this. If you
>> can't fix the problem from within English Wikipedia, then the problems
>> are likely to be unfixable.
>>
>> 
> Andrew, it is not the size of the group that is the issue, but how that
> group is managed. And there is a huge cultural difference between "control"
> and "management". It all rests with the skillful leadership of that group.
> It is my professional business to know such things.


As I understand it you do very good work with some very problematical 
individuals, but those individuals have a very strong incentive for 
co-operation. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Andrew's observation.  
Size does matter.  In education, smaller classes and smaller schools 
tend to have better results than big learning factories.  The question 
remains: how can that observation be used to greater advantage?

Ec

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Report to the Board of Trustees: India

[Sue Gardner]

Hi folks,

I am sadly behind on the reports to the board – I am late sending them
to the board, and therefore also to you.  My apologies, and my thanks
to those of you who are asking me about them off-list: it's nice to
know they are valued and missed.

I hope to get caught up later this week.  Meanwhile, here is a special
report that I wrote for the board documenting a visit Jimmy and I made
to India in December. Later today I'll send you a second special
report, documenting the World Economic Forum at Davos last month.

For confidentiality reasons, I've redacted specifics about major
donors and major donor prospects. (As you know, we don't reveal
individually identifying information about donors/prospects.)
Everything else is intact from the original.

Thanks,
Sue

Report to the Board: India Trip
Prepared by: Sue Gardner, Executive Director
Prepared for: Wikimedia Board of Trustees
Date: December 30, 2008

Background & Context

>From December 9-15, Jimmy and I visited India.  The purpose of the
trip was to create some excitement and interest about Wikipedia inside
India among editors and potential editors,  media, and potential
donors.  We were there to accept a gift from the Kerala government of
a Malayalam encyclopedia, which Kerala was releasing under a free
license, as well as to carry out a variety of outreach and media
activities.

Please note that as always, Jimmy paid for his own travel: the
Foundation only paid for mine. Also: we owe a huge thanks to advisory
board member Achal Prabhala.  Achal's advice, arrangements and
introductions made the trip worthwhile: it wouldn't have been nearly
as successful without his help :-)

Summary

In general, I would characterize the trip as productive and useful.
The staff continues to rapidly evolve our thinking about media, public
outreach, volunteer self-organization and major donor fundraising:
this trip helped advance our thinking on all those fronts.  There are
no major conclusions or big directional changes in this report: it's
just a quick summary of what happened.

Itinerary

* December 10 and 11: Trivandrum. Jimmy and I attended the Free
Software Free Society conference. Jimmy was a keynote speaker; I met
Richard Stallman for the first time; the conference arranged a press
conference.

* December 12: Chennai.  Press conference and individual interviews.
We attended a Wikipedia Academy staged by local blogger Kiruba, and
met briefly with representatives from the Knowledge Foundation, a
likeminded organization.

* December 13: Bangalore.  Lunch with representatives of the Centre
for Internet and Society < http://cis-india.org/ >, a new Bangalore
NGO funded by Indian billionaire Anurag Dikshit, which has been
described as the Indian equivalent to the Berkman Center.  We are
hoping to partner with CIS informally on a variety of initiatives.  We
also got a basic briefing on the work of the Akshara Foundation,
Pratham Books, Argyham and e-Gov.  Jimmy spoke at the Bangalore
International Centre.

* December 14: Bangalore.  We facilitated a meeting between CIS and a
number of Bangalore-area Wikipedians, at which the CIS offered
Wikipedians meeting space in Bangalore as well as advice on how to
navigate the Indian regulatory context when setting up a chapter.
Also CIS staged a free culture lunch in our honour with local
Wikipedians and other free culture advocates. In the evening, we spoke
at a dinner.

Observations and Analysis
(in no particular order)

1.Despite the fact that we had done very little preparation and had no
major announcements to make, there was plenty of media interest.
During the trip, there were about two dozen media stories generated,
including (I believe) all/most major Indian national and regional
outlets (see list later in this report).  It's pretty obvious, but
worth saying, that there's lots of general media interest in
Wikipedia, and India is no exception to that.

2.The coverage was across-the-board positive, but also full of (mostly
small, inconsequential) errors.  Jimmy, Jay & I have discussed this:
upshot is, we believe that although we could choose in future to
manage the message much more tightly on trips like this, it would
probably not be worth the effort – especially given that the stories,
albeit full of mistakes, are generally positive.

3.Multi-event international trips are administratively expensive: they
are a lot of work.

4.During the trip, Jimmy and I noticed that we were often not working
from the same basic information base.  I've asked Jay to start making
all the basic info available on one of the wikis  -including our
standard powerpoint- so you should please feel free to
reuse/adopt/adapt whatever you like.  I'll share the URL, or Jay will,
once  he knows it.  Also, Jay is now regularly disseminating global
comScore usage stats to the staff: I will ask him to CC the board as
well.  FYI, we have standardized on comScore "monthl

[Foundation-l] Report to the Board of Trustees: Davos

[Sue Gardner]

Report to the Board: Davos
Prepared by: Sue Gardner, Executive Director
Prepared for: Wikimedia Board of Trustees
Date: February 3, 2009

Background & Context

Every year, Jimmy is invited to Davos in his individual capacity as a
Young Global Leader, and the Wikimedia Foundation receives one
invitation to participate in the category of Technology Pioneer.  Last
year, Florence represented us: this year, Michael delegated
participation to me so that I could explore Davos from a fundraising
perspective.  As always, Jimmy paid his own costs, and the Foundation
paid mine.

The main goals of the trip were to 1) present a funding proposal to a
potential funder we've been speaking with, 2) increase awareness of
Wikipedia as a charity among attendees (e.g., media, prospective
donors, NGOs, etc.), and 3) actively move forward relationships with a
few key major donor prospects.  I was also able to meet briefly with
some of the board members of the Swiss chapter, in Zurich.

Summary

>From January 27 to February 1, Jimmy and I attended the World Economic
Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

In general, I would say the trip was fairly useful.  From a
fundraising perspective, Davos is not good for direct solicitation,
but it does help with prospect cultivation, stewardship and
relationship-building. It also helps us build general awareness of
Wikimedia as a serious-minded non-profit organization.  And because
the WEF waives the entry fee for us, attendance is quite cheap: the
major cost to Wikimedia is my time.

In general, I am comfortable with us continuing to attend Davos,
particularly in years during which we're actively cultivating one or
more attendees.   Additionally, I think we should try to get invited
to other conferences that will give us access to potential funders and
help establish us as a serious international non-profit.

Experiences and Observations

Davos is a great way to connect with a large number of people in a
short period of time. I had dozens of good conversations with past and
current funders as well as prospects and friends.   There was lots of
general good will and appreciation for our work.

During Davos, I attended a dozen seminars and talks on topics ranging
from the future of media, to leveraging mass innovation, to sustaining
the nonprofit sector in a downturn, to digital Asia.  I was a panelist
in the session "Youth Culture: A Heat Map."  I attended a variety of
dinners and parties, including a UN Millennium Development Goals
dinner for women hosted by Wendi Murdoch and Indra Nooyi, which had as
speakers Melinda Gates and Sarah Brown.

In general, I found Davos wasn't great for direct solicitation: every
room is noisy and crowded, and it's hard to have an uninterrupted
conversation.  Over the course of the conference, I experimented by
directly soliciting six random people – tablemates at dinner, etc.
The responses were neutral-to-warm, but I didn't get anything
encouraging enough to warrant follow-up.

There were some very interesting philanthropy/NGO-related panels and
interviews, with some particularly interesting comments from people
like Bill Gates and Bill Clinton. The effects of the economic downturn
on the non-profit sector was very much on people's minds, obviously,
and there was useful discussion about it.

I met with Soumitra Dutta from INSEAD, faculty director of
e...@insead, INSEAD's "center of excellence in teaching and research
in the digital economy," and co-author with Matthew Fraser of Throwing
Sheep in the Boardroom: How Online Social Networking Will Transform
Your Life, Work and World.  He's interested in Wikipedia and
Wikimedia, I believe particularly from an organizational behaviour
standpoint, and we're exploring whether a partnership of some kind
would make sense (e.g., a case study or research project).

Interestingly, a number of people complained to me about their
articles being overly negative.  Obviously Jimmy gets this all the
time, but I was surprised how often it was the first thing a person
would say to me. All my conversations about Wikipedia were warm and
friendly and positive, with the exception of people's pain/anger about
BLP issues.

A side note, but on the way back from Davos I was happy to be able to
meet in Zurich with three people from the board of the Swiss chapter:
Michael Bimmler, Rupert Thurner and Robin Schwab. We had a useful
conversation about (among other things) chapters development and
scope, strategy development, and the new Wikimedia Foundation chapters
funding requests process. It was particularly great to finally meet
face-to-face with Michael :-)

Analysis

Fundraising: Davos seems fairly useful for 1) relationship maintenance
with current donors, and 2) relationship building with prospective
donors - particularly with regards to donors and prospects who live
outside the United States.  I believe Davos is good at helping us
develop closer relationships with pe

Re: [Foundation-l] Report to the Board of Trustees: Davos

[Sue Gardner]

2009/2/17 Thomas Dalton :
> Yes, yes, that's all very interesting, but how was the skiing? ;)

Davos was actually hilariously gruelling: it started with breakfasts
at 7.30 and ran past midnight every day.  Any spare time I had, I
spent commiserating with other newbies, and trading survival tips :-)

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people

[Sue Gardner]

Hi folks,

I've been increasingly concerned lately about Wikimedia's coverage of living
people, both within biographies of living people (BLPs) on Wikipedia, and in
coverage of living people in non-BLP text.  I've asked the board to put this
issue on the agenda for the April meeting in Berlin, and I'm hoping there to
figure out some concrete next steps to support quality in this area.  In
advance of that, I want to ask for input from you.

First, I'm going to lay out the scope of the problem as I see it. (If you're
already up to speed, you might want to skip that bit.)  Then I'll lay out a
little of my thinking on how we could aim to improve.  I would very much
appreciate any feedback from you -ideally here on this list- before the
April meeting :- )

(Please note that for convenience I'm going to use the phrase "BLP" as
shorthand for the whole issue of coverage of living people throughout all
Wikimedia projects. BLP's probably constitute the majority of that coverage,
but not all of it.)

Scope of the problem:

I am sure that BLP subjects have been complaining about their portrayals
since Wikipedia's very early days.  And I am sure that BLPs have always
suffered from the same problems and errors that occur in all articles:
malicious vandalism, biased editing, lack of citations, and so on. However,
I am particularly worried about BLPs, for two reasons:

1. BLPs are, by definition, about living people.  A mistake in an article
about the War of 1812 is too bad. A mistake in an article about a living
person could cause that person real-world harm. We don't want to do that.

2.  I believe the risk of hurting people is greater than it used to be,
because Wikipedia is growing increasingly unignorable. People are using the
internet to check out job applicants, colleagues, dates - and we are the
first search result for many names.

As Wikipedia generally becomes bigger and smarter and more in-depth, its
credibility increases - and so the gap between what we aim to do and what we
actually achieve on many BLPs, becomes ever more visible and disappointing.
This hurts our mission:

* We want to be taken seriously. Having a large number of influential,
accomplished people (the people who are typically subjects of BLPs)
distrusting or disliking us, damages our credibility.

* We aspire to be neutral and accurate. We know that not all BLP
complainants share that goal - some simply want their BLP whitewashed. The
existence of unfounded complaints, though, doesn't undercut the seriousness
of the real problem: many BLPs are inaccurate, unfair and paint a distorted
picture of their subject. They are not up to Wikipedia's standards.

* And -as I said earlier- these are real people's lives. Neutrally-written,
sourced information that is unflattering to the subject of an article is
appropriate to an encyclopedia, but lies, nonsense, insinuations and
unbalanced portrayals are not.

So what can we do? Here are the things I am thinking about. I would love
your input:

* Do we think the current complaints resolution systems are working?  Is it
easy enough for article subjects to report problems?  Are we courteous and
serious in our handling of complaints?  Do the people handling complaints
need training/support/resources to help them resolve the problem (if there
is one)?  Are there intractable problems, and if so, what can we do to solve
them?  Some Wikimedia chapters have pioneered more systematic training of
volunteers to handle OTRS responses; should we try to scale up those or
similar practices?

* Are there technical tools we could implement, that would support greater
quality in BLPs?  For example – easy problem reporting systems,
particular configurations of Flagged Revs, etc.

* Wikimedians have developed lots of tools for preventing/fixing vandalism
and errors of fact. Where less progress has been made, I think, is on the
question of disproportionate criticism. It seems to me that the solution may
include the development of systems designed to expose particularly biased
articles to a greater number of people who can help fix them. But this is a
pretty tough problem and I would welcome people's suggestions for resolving
it

* The editors I've spoken with about BLPs are pretty serious about them –
they are generally conservative, restrained, privacy-conscious, etc. But I
wonder if that general attitude is widely-shared. If Wikipedia believes (as
is said in -for example- the English BLP policy) that it has a
responsibility to take great care with BLPs, should there be a
Wikipedia-wide BLP policy, or a projects-wide statement of some kind?

BLPs and our general effect on living people have been a tough problem for a
long time, and I think we need now to bring together the appropriate people
and resources, and hash through how to best make some progress on the
problem. I'd like to start that discussion here, now. I'd appreciate any
feedback from you all, before April.  Please note I am deliberately not
asking questions about w

Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people

[Sue Gardner]

There is lots I want to reply to here; this mail is just a start...

2009/3/2 Thomas Dalton 

>From what I can tell, a lot of subjects of BLPs that have problems
> with their articles don't complain at all. The accounts I've heard
> (or, at least, my interpretation thereof) of Wikimedians being
> approached at events by people with bad articles have all been along
> the lines of "my article is rubbish, how do I get it fixed?" not "my
> article is rubbish and I've been trying to get it fixed but nobody is
> listening to me". That suggests that those subjects that don't happen
> to meet a Wikipedian never actually complain. There are two possible
> explanations for that that I can see: 1) They don't really care all
> that much and the complaints we get are just opportunistic moaning or
> 2) they have no idea where to even start with complaining. While there
> may be some cases of (1), I'm sure (2) is a significant factor.
>
> I've just looked at a BLP and nowhere can I see an guidance on how to
> complain. I suggest a "Report a problem with this article" link to
> added to the sidebar of all articles as a mailto link to the
> appropriate OTRS address.


I agree with this - I think "report a problem" would be a very helpful
starting point.

FWIW I'll tell you that when people complain to me, they often say they
tried to find a proper avenue for complaints, but couldn't. I realize there
is a school of thought that "people who can't find the correct avenue for
complaints don't deserve to have their complaints heard," but that's not my
view.

I assume that people are looking for a specific biography complaints
channel, and probably also looking for assurances that it is
secure/confidential. (Bearing in mind that inaccuracies or distortions in
their BLP would feel highly sensitive to most people.)

So - we can create a channel for BLP complaints, and we can label it
appropriately so people have accurate expectations of confidentiality. But
in order for it to be successful, I believe we would need a cadre of
highly-trained and well-supported volunteers who have pledged to investigate
seriously, communicate tactfully, and maintain appropriate confidentiality.
Do we think we can we do that, and if so, what would it take?

...


> * The editors I've spoken with about BLPs are pretty serious about them –
> > they are generally conservative, restrained, privacy-conscious, etc. But
> I
> > wonder if that general attitude is widely-shared. If Wikipedia believes
> (as
> > is said in -for example- the English BLP policy) that it has a
> > responsibility to take great care with BLPs, should there be a
> > Wikipedia-wide BLP policy, or a projects-wide statement of some kind?
>
> There isn't really any such thing as "Wikipedia-wide", that's why
> wikipedia-l is pretty much dead. Decisions of the entire Wikimedia
> community are pretty difficult to achieve. They have to be done by
> vote, nothing else is practical, and discussion to put together a
> proposal to vote on is tricky because only people that speak English
> can really be involved. I think, if we want any kind of statement like
> that, it has to come from the WMF.
>


To me, this starts shading into the "civility" issue that has been discussed
here before.  Do we agree that we want the Wikimedia projects to be
serious-minded, conscientious, approachable and friendly?  (I do.)  If many
-but not all- of us agree, how can we best work towards a consensus, then
reinforce and support it?
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people

[Sue Gardner]

2009/3/2 philippe 

>
>
> On Mar 2, 2009, at 2:38 PM, Joe Szilagyi wrote:
>
> > If OTRS is understaffed, then there's an easy fix to that too. Make a
> > separate queue that this specifically will go to, have less stringent
> > requirements in place for that, and have the form be explicit that
> > it's ONLY for articles/issues about living people.
> >
> > - Joe
>
>
> Half-agree - we don't want LESS stringent requirements, we want MORE
> stringent requirements for a BLP queue.  These are the articles that
> can do real, manifest, actionable harm to real people.  We want our
> most highly trusted and most experienced editors working on BLPs, imho.
>
> Philippe
>

I agree with this. I also believe there is a higher requirement for tact and
kindness when dealing with BLPs, relative to other types of articles.  To me
this is a fundamental ethical issue and also a practical one - there is no
point inviting people to engage with us, if we are planning to then slap
them in the face. Particularly if they are already feeling wounded due to
(what they perceive as) a problematic BLP.

This is similar to the issue of public outreach - as Frank Schulenburg has
said many times, there's no point actively recruiting new editors, if we
intend to then be rude to them. I personally believe that friendliness and
civility are important for the Wikimedia projects, both as ends in and of
themselves, and as important drivers of successful collaboration.

Also and separately . I just got a note off-list from someone pointing
out that we are spending a lot of time here talking about how to fix
problematic BLPs, rather than how to support quality before-the-fact (ie.,
preventative measures). I think it's a reasonable point. I asked whether
raising the notability bar would improve the overall quality of BLPs. Do we
have other ideas for preventative measures?
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people

[Sue Gardner]

2009/3/2 P. Birken 

>
> My experiences are mostly on de-WP. Problems with BLP are coming in
> frequently now, roughly once a week even people with lawyers.We have a
> highly motivated Support-Team that is able to handle the cases coming
> in via OTRS at an acceptable speed and with good success. The support
> team works tight with WM-DE and our lawyers. People strive to become
> better, there have been several RL-meetings of the team, which have
> now become recurrent events, financially supported by WM-DE and also
> by our lawyers. Reason for this is that these meetings have been
> useful to the volunteers attending and that, as I said, the team is
> highly motivated. So: yes, strive to have this for every Wikipedia.
>
>
.. [lots of useful comments] .


>
> What is so special about Wikipedia as far as the BLPs go is the Wiki.
> It means that anybody can do anything and that means that the
> principle of a lot of people checking an article is important to
> success. Flagged Revs makes at least a four-eye-principle mandatory
> for edits of not yet trusted editors. That's good, but it doesn't mean
> that the people actually know what they are writing/flagging about.
> What I'm saying is: Notability is an important criteria for BLP to
> make sure that there are actually people around who can check what is
> written. When in doubt about notability, delete BLPs. Do not make low
> notability criterias for living persons.


Thank you Philipp - I only quoted two bits, but this entire e-mail was
useful for me.

In general - I have always understood that the German Wikipedia is
conservative, and leans towards building a smaller, higher-quality
encyclopedia, compared with the English version which is bigger and more
variable in quality.  It's my understanding that the policies and practices
of the German Wikipedia are less permissive than in English, in pretty much
every way.

So, two questions strike me:

1)  If we're imagining a continuum with smaller/higher-quality/restrictive
at one end, and larger/variable-in-quality/permissive at the other  I am
curious to know where the other language versions situate themselves.  I am
assuming that (with some exceptions) they cluster closer to the English
model than the German, but I am just guessing.  Do they?

2) When it comes to the German Wikipedia and other language versions which
put an unusually high priority on quality . I am curious to know what
quality-supportive measures (be they technical, social/cultural, or
policy-level) those Wikipedia have in place.  Philipp says a high threshold
for notability is one in the German Wikipedia. Are there others?

Thanks,
Sue
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people

[Sue Gardner]

2009/3/2 philippe 

>
>
> On Mar 2, 2009, at 5:48 PM, private musings wrote:
>
> > basically there's a sensible three stage plan to follow to help drive
> > quality and minimise 'BLP' harm;
> >
> > 1) Semi-protext all 'BLP' material
> > 2) Allow an 'opt-out' for some subjects (eg. non public figures, or
> > those
> > not covered in 'dead tree sources' for example) - note this is more
> > inclusive than a simple higher threshold for notability
> > 3) 'Default to delete' in discussions about BLP material - if we can't
> > positively say that it improves the project, it's sensible and
> > responsible
> > to remove the material in my view.
>
>
> As a general rule, I think pm has given us a common-sense place to
> begin discussions about how to cleanup existing BLPs.  There will
> always be situations that don't fit within this, but as a starting
> point for guidelines, I support these.


It seems obvious to me from the conversation on this thread that part of the
reason the German Wikipedia seems better able to manage its BLPs (assuming
that is true - but it seems true) is because there is a smaller number of
them. Presumably a smaller number of BLPs = fewer to maintain and
problem-solve = a higher quality level overall. (And possibly also, OTRS
volunteers who are less stressed out, resulting in a higher level of
patience and kindness when complaints do get made.)

Assuming that's true, allowing BLP subjects to opt-out seems like it would
have a direct positive increase on the quality of remaining BLPs, in
addition to eliminating some BLPs entirely.  Clearly, there would still be a
notability threshold above which people would never be allowed to opt out -
there will always be articles about people such as Hillary Clinton and J.K.
Rowling and Penelope Cruz. But a decision to significantly raise that
threshold, as well as default to deletion upon request, seems like it would
have a positive effect on quality.

Can I ask: does anyone reading this thread 1) think raising the notability
threshold is a bad idea, 2) believe defaulting to deletion upon request is a
bad idea, or 3) disagree with the notion that other Wikipedias should shift
closer to the German Wikipedia's generally-less-permissive policies and
practices, particularly WRT BLPs?
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people

[Sue Gardner]

2009/3/3 Michael Snow 

> But someone making a request is a sign that the article really needs a
> hard look, and quite possibly should be removed for not meeting our
> standards. So the reversed presumption of "default to delete, unless
> consensus to keep" is a good idea for living subjects. I would add that
> when this is in question, arguments that make excuses for the current
> state of the article are not valid reasons to keep it.
>
>
I am just clarifying - "default to delete unless consensus to keep" would be
a change from current state, right?

I ask because I got a call the other day from someone asking to have the BLP
about her deleted. The article centred around a single incident in her
life.  I handed it off to a longtime English Wikipedian (doesn't matter
who), who told me the subject was notable and therefore the article would be
kept.

That experience was consistent with my general understanding - that it has
been extremely difficult for even marginally notable people to get the BLP
about them deleted.

So -again, just to clarify- if Wikipedia adopted a practice of defaulting to
delete unless there's consensus to keep, that would be change from how BLPs
are handled today - yes?
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people

[Sue Gardner]

2009/3/4 Dominic 

> Sue Gardner wrote:
> > I am just clarifying - "default to delete unless consensus to keep" would
> be
> > a change from current state, right?
>
> In terms of policy, "default to delete" is the current state for BLPs.
> To be more exact, the important bit is: "If there is no rough consensus
> and the page is not a BLP describing a relatively unknown person, the
> page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or
> redirecting as appropriate." However, that is at least somewhat new
> (several months old, I think), and I am not certain how universally
> administrators apply it at this point. The relevant policy is at
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DP#Deletion_discussion>
>
>
I'm confused. Doesn't the current (English) policy say "if there's no
consensus ... the page is kept."  So, default to _keep_, rather than default
to delete...?

It's only the English policy, so I realize it's not necessarily
representative/reflective of any of the other language versions,
regardless.  But in general, my understanding is that "default to keep" is
more-or-less standard practice Wikipedia-wide (as much as all language
versions can be said to have a standard practice), and the English policy
seems to support that.

Recapping this piece of the thread: It seems to me that "default to delete"
is not widely considered satisfactory, if it is interpreted to mean an
automatic or near-automatic deletion upon request.  Human judgment needs to
be applied.

  Erik had proposed that articles which meet these three criteria be deleted
upon request: 1) they are not balanced and complete, 2) the subject is only
marginally notable, and 3) the subject wants the article deleted. This would
shift the bar towards a more deletionist stance for BLPs, but would preserve
articles which are either complete and balanced, _or_ which are about people
who are clearly self-evidently notable.

Assuming there is some consensus about what clearly self-evidently notable
means, or that some consensus could be created . does that proposal make
sense to people here?
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people

[Sue Gardner]

2009/3/4 Nathan 

> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Nathan  wrote:
>
> > As far as granting significant weight to the wishes of a subject? Subject
> > request has consistently been rejected as a basis for deleting an
> article,
> > and many comments in the deletion discussions I've read have even
> rejected
> > lending weight to these requests in any way.
>


I understand & appreciate the desire to proceed solely on the basis of 'what
makes a good encyclopedia,' without incorporating any considerations outside
that. Seriously, that makes a lot of sense to me.

But having said that, there doesn't seem to be a really clear consensus on
'what makes a good encyclopedia' when it comes to BLPs - witness for
example, all the discussions about what constitutes notability.  Since no
clear consensus has emerged, and nobody seems to be arguing that retaining
biographies of marginally-notable living people is an obvious and important
good thing to do ... then why _not_ shift the bias towards deleting the
marginally notable upon request?

I don't think that would lead to hagiographies Wikipedia-wide. You could
just as easily argue it would improve quality by eliminating some mediocre
articles that nobody cares about much .. while also, as a lucky side effect,
reducing unhappiness among the subjects of those articles.  Perhaps our
stance could shift to _thanking_ subjects of bad BLPs for helping to police
quality :-)


I'm sorry - the quote is default to *keep* if the article is not a
> marginally notable BLP - which, through negatives, means default to delete
> for marginally notable BLPs.


I get it now, thank you :-)
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Biographies of Living People: a quick interim update

[Sue Gardner]

Hi folks,

This is just a quick interim update on the BLP issue I raised here last week.

First, thanks to everyone who has contributed to the discussion thus
far.  We all know that foundation-l isn't necessarily reflective of
general Wikimedia opinion, and that many experiences and skills are
unrepresented here – but nonetheless, I have read every word, and have
found it really, really useful. Thank you for helping.

Here's my quick rough summary of what we've discussed:

First, there seems to be a general view that BLPs are a problem that
is worth addressing. I won't recap all the reasons for that, because
it seems there is ---happpily--- already consensus.

Second, there is also a fear ---represented here probably most
strongly by David Gerard, but I believe lots of other people think the
same thing--- that if we tackle BLPs clumsily, we could make things
worse not better, or at least might introduce new problems.   For
example, we might make the error of privileging kindness over
neutrality, resulting in a general whitewashing of BLPs.  Or we could
accidentally encourage a massive wave of deletionism, resulting in
much smaller and less useful Wikipedias.

There is also general concern about policy creep and instruction
creep, which is important. We know that the sheer volume of Wikipedia
policies is confusing and intimidating for new people who want to
engage with us – so in general, given that we aspire to attract new
contributors and generally make it easier for people to interact with
us, it is probably better to generally aim to refine and streamline
existing policies, rather than adding to their number.

With that as preamble, here are the areas that I think we've surfaced
as needing further attention:

1)  There is a big unresolved question around whether, if
marginally-notable people ask to have their articles deleted, that
request should be granted.  My sense -both from the discussion here
and other discussions elsewhere- is that many Wikipedians are very
strongly protective of their general right to retain even very
marginal BLPs.  Presumably this is because notability is hard to
define, and they are worried about stupid across-the-board
interpretations that will result in massive deletionism.  However,
other people strongly feel that the current quantity of BLPs about
less-notable people diminish the overall quality of the encyclopedia,
reduce our credibility, and run the risk of hurting real people.
There seems to be little consensus here.   Roughly: some people seem
to strongly feel the bar for notability should be set higher, and
deletion requests generally granted: others seem to strongly feel the
current state is preferable.  I would welcome discussion about how to
achieve better consensus on this issue.

2)  There is broad general agreement that we should continue to create
and implement mechanisms and tools designed to catch and correct
vandalism and poor-quality edits, both before and after-the-fact.
There is a lot of work being done in this area - for example, projects
continue to request and receive implementations of Flagged Revs.  I
wonder if there is more we could/should be doing in this area.

3)  Currently, we know that people with BLP problems have trouble
getting in touch with us: the contact information is buried or
confusing.  I believe there is broad general agreement that we should
make it easier for people to request help with BLPs, and to report
problems in general.  And I am glad that some work on that is
beginning to happen (e.g., a  “report a problem” tool, a “rate this
article” tool, a BLP FAQ for article subjects).   It's obvious we need
to be cautious – we can't afford to open the floodgates to complaints
if we will all then immediately drown in them.  And we need to ensure
the new tools are user-friendly  - that they will actually help the
people they're intended for.  But in general, I believe there is
agreement that we need to do a better job of enabling BLP article
subjects to communicate with us.

And 4) I believe there is general support for the notion of  training
Wikipedians to handle BLP issues well.  I personally strongly believe
that handling BLPs requires a set of specific skills and abilities –
for example, an excellent understanding of core Wikipedia policies;
experience with policies such as notability that are particularly
important in BLP issues; diplomacy, kindness and patience.  I am very
interested in exploring further how the Foundation could support such
training, and how it could be scaled up so everyone could access it.
(I've been kicking around notions such as face-to-face training camps;
training at Wikimania and the all-chapters meetings; the provision of
support materials to chapters; monthly “train the trainer” webcast
sessions, etc.)

So .. that is my rough, quick recap of where I think we're at.

In terms of next steps – as I said, I'll be speaking about this issue
with the board in early April.  This is just an interim note: Please

Re: [Foundation-l] Biographies of Living People: a quick interim update

[Sue Gardner]

2009/3/8 Nathan :
> On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Sue Gardner  wrote:
>
>>
>> 1)  There is a big unresolved question around whether, if
>> marginally-notable people ask to have their articles deleted, that
>> request should be granted.  My sense -both from the discussion here
>> and other discussions elsewhere- is that many Wikipedians are very
>> strongly protective of their general right to retain even very
>> marginal BLPs.  Presumably this is because notability is hard to
>> define, and they are worried about stupid across-the-board
>> interpretations that will result in massive deletionism.  However,
>> other people strongly feel that the current quantity of BLPs about
>> less-notable people diminish the overall quality of the encyclopedia,
>> reduce our credibility, and run the risk of hurting real people.
>> There seems to be little consensus here.   Roughly: some people seem
>> to strongly feel the bar for notability should be set higher, and
>> deletion requests generally granted: others seem to strongly feel the
>> current state is preferable.  I would welcome discussion about how to
>> achieve better consensus on this issue.
>>
>>
> I would quibble with this statement a little bit. There is a difference in
> my mind between raising the notability bar and granting weight to subject
> requests for deletion. There seems to be a growing agreement that marginally
> notable subjects make for bad biographies and greater risk; there is very
> little appetite for beginning deletion discussions or deleting articles upon
> subject request.
>
> So these two issues need to be separated, because indeed they are quite
> separate.

Totally agreed, yes - thanks Nathan. In future I will separate these
two points.

 One asks whether the subject of an article (be it a person,
> corporation, or any other entity with living representatives) should be
> afforded some control over encyclopedia content, even as little as the
> ability to request a deletion nomination; most Wikipedians would be against
> this, I believe.

Hm. That's interesting.

As a basic principle, that makes sense to me - that article subjects
shouldn't have control over the content of the encyclopedia.  But
-perhaps this is a little bit of hair-splitting- OTOH I don't think we
should take deletion requests any _less_ seriously than complaints
from disinterested observers. In other words - someone saying "the
article about me is awful and shouldn't be in an encyclopedia" should
be taken equally as seriously as someone saying "that article about X
is awful and doesn't deserve to be in an encyclopedia." In both
instances, the article needs be assessed on its own merits.

I say this because sometimes I think people may be tempted to refuse
deletion requests _because_ they come from the article subject. If
that indeed happens, I believe it's a mistake.

> The other issue, of marginal notability and the risk it poses to Wikipedia,
> is much more relevant for this discussion.

Yes. I would love to see it discussed more here :-)

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Heads-up! Reports to the Board

[Sue Gardner]

Hi folks,

The last Report to the Board that I published here was the October
one, published December 13.  I owe you November, December, January and
February.

First, I'd like to sincerely apologize for the delay. There's no
justification for it, just a number of factors coincided to make me
unusually busy, and the reports to the board fell by the wayside. I
appreciate your patience, and I _also_ appreciate the people who
hassled me offlist to get back on track.  Really I do :-)

I'll publish November here in a few minutes, and the remainder over
the coming few days. I want to stage them out a bit, so that you have
time to read them and discuss :-)

Thanks,
Sue

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l