Andreas, I am happy to talk to Signpost on-record about anything that has been happening under my watch to minimize misinterpretations of second-hand reports or further conjectures.
Lila On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 9:57 PM, Andreas Kolbe <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 10:56 PM, Anthony Cole <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Lila should have taken the community along with her as the Knowledge > Engine > > project was evolving. I don't know what was behind her reticence. I > presume > > an element was unwillingness to announce a thing while the thing was > > shifting and changing from one day to the next. > > > > > It was pointed out to me today that there is a court exhibit, no. 666, made > public in 2014 as part of the [[High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation]] > (the same case Arnnon Geshuri was involved in), which reproduces some > correspondence between Sue Gardner, Facebook's Sheryl Sandberg, and various > Google managers.[1] > > > > In short, Sheryl Sandberg (who'd formerly worked for Google) helped Sue > Gardner by introducing her to senior management at Google. To do so, > according to the court exhibit, Sandberg forwarded an email from Sue > Gardner to Jonathan Rosenberg (then Senior Vice President of Products) and > others at Google: > > > > ---o0o--- > > > > From: Sheryl Sandberg > > Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 7:40 PM > > To: Jonathan Rosenberg; Omid Kordestani; David Drummond; Megan Smith > > Subject: Fw: Thanks + a request re Google > > > > Jonathan, Omid, David, Megan - I was introduced to Sue by Roger. As you can > see below, they would love a better and more senior relationship with > Google. Can I email introduce her to one of you? > > > > Please excuse blackberry-caused typos. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Sue Gardner > > To: Sheryl Sandberg > > Sent: Mon Aug 04 10:02:01 2008 > > Subject: Thanks + a request re Google > > > > Hi Sheryl, > > > > It was terrific to finally meet you last week :-) > > > > Here's a recap of the Google issue that I raised: > > > > I started as Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation last summer. > > > > A few months after that, Roger McNamee began introducing me to potential > Wikipedia donors in the valley. Most of that was great and successful, but > in a few cases -including once with a Google board member- I was surprised > to be have people cite 'loyalty to Google' as a reason to not give money to > Wikipedia. > > > > Their objections, which have been echoed to me several times since then, > seem to fall into three categories: > > > > * A belief that Wikia Search is an attempt by Wikipedia to compete with > Google. (Many people don't realize the only thing shared between Wikipedia > and Wikia is our founder, Jimmy Wales. Nor do they realize that Jimmy has > no day-to-day responsibilities at the Wikimedia Foundation.) > > * The view that because Wikipedia is non-commercial, it is anti-advertising > and anti-Google. > > * A belief that Knol is an attempt by Google to compete with Wikipedia. > > > > I personally don't believe any of this: I think Google and Wikipedia can > and should have a complementary and positive relationship. And I gather > Larry and Sergey feel the same: I believe they've told Jimmy that Google > has no ill will towards Wikipedia, and that they'd be willing to make a > > donation to us in order to signal that publicly. > > > > I also believe that any real or perceived tensions in the Google/Wikipedia > relationship may be being exacerbated at some levels inside Google by their > unfulfilled desires to do business with us. Since relocating to the Bay > Area in January, we've had plenty of Google folks reach out to us. But -- > we have a total staff of 21 people, with just one person responsible for > business development, so I am not sure we are even able to politely keep up > with their pitches. IMO, rather than spending our time on multiple > product-specific pitches, it would probably be more productive for > Wikipedia and Google to develop a single umbrella relationship/agreement > (obviously within the limits of Wikipedia's non-commercial context). > > > > So. I think a good next step would be some kind of high-level meeting > between Wikipedia and Google, to talk through these issues and see if a > donation and/or business deal makes sense. > > > > I appreciate your advice on this issue :-) > > > > Thanks, > > Sue > > > > ---o0o--- > > > > Now, some of this isn't earth-shattering news -- it's long been known that > relations between Google and Wikipedia have been friendly. The lobbying > partnership between Google and Wikipedia may well date back to the meetings > that followed that email exchange. > > > > What wasn't known to me was that Sue found people in Silicon Valley > unwilling to donate because of their "loyalty to Google". (This reasoning > raises questions of its own about Google's influence, but we'll leave that > aside.) > > > > Now it has become clear over the past few days that Damon Sicore, to use > Jimmy Wales' words at Lila's Knowledge Engine FAQ,[2] "really was > advocating for taking a run at Google", and gave "strict orders to keep it > top secret". > > > > Sue referred to her wish to have "a single umbrella relationship/agreement" > with Google, in part to help with the donation problems she was > encountering. If such an agreement ever came into being, then being seen to > be planning a campaign against Google behind Google's back, as it were, > might well jeopardise that relationship, and be seen as disloyal. > > > > That would have been a compelling reason for continued secrecy, especially > if these plans to compete against Google were in the end given up, meaning > that any loss of face vis-à-vis Google and its friends would in effect be > for nothing. > > > > Of course this is just supposition. > > > But there are issues here worth reflecting upon. I recall plenty of > volunteers over the years saying it was very good that Google seemed to > treat Wikipedia favourably. Yet I don't recall the community ever being > asked whether they wanted the WMF to seek any kinds of agreements with > for-profit players. > > > > At any rate, whatever the facts of this case, it seems to me that > maintaining transparency becomes very hard if you pursue such agreements. > It becomes very easy to tie yourself into knots. > > > > [1] http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/sandberg.pdf > > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Engine/FAQ > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > -- Lila Tretikov Wikimedia Foundation *“Be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid.”* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
