Re: [Foundation-l] Expertise and Wikipedia redux

[Gregory Kohs]

Regarding the opinion piece by Jim Barber, mentioned yesterday by David
Gerard:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/opinion-analysis/stand-and-deliver-on-its-last-legs/story-e6frgcko-1225937823844

I find it interesting that some 18 hours after Gerard's notification (and my
posting a comment on The Australian's page), still not a single comment has
been approved for publication.  I wonder why that is?  Is there some
official policy within the "pro-Free Culture" movement that mandates
suppression of critical viewpoints of the movement?

-- 
Gregory Kohs
Contact: 484-NEW-WIKI
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Help Beat Jimmy! (The appeal, that is....)

[Gregory Kohs]

Liam says:

+

Somehow, I doubt if making *you* "very pleased" is a concern that motivates
many people, especially on this list.

+

Be that as it may, Liam, was there any aspect -- any aspect whatsoever -- of
my request that would not be happily addressed by any transparent and open
non-profit organization with a very public role and responsibility?

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Help Beat Jimmy! (The appeal, that is....)

[Gregory Kohs]

Philippe Beaudette recently mentioned the final report from a donors survey
recently completed by Q2 Consulting, LLC.  I'd like to congratulate the
Foundation for getting this independent research project completed.  (I had
participated extensively in the design of the 2009 survey that never came to
pass, prior to Rand Montoya's departure from the Foundation.)

I am wondering if Philippe could share with us the "request for proposal"
that went out to the various vendors who surely bid on this 2010 donors
survey?  Also, if we could see the list of research firms that presented
proposals, and the criteria by which Q2 Consulting was selected, I would be
very pleased.

Kindly,

Greg

-- 
Gregory Kohs
Contact: 484-NEW-WIKI
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] A proposal of partnership between Wikimedia Foundation and Internet Archive

[Gregory Kohs]

emijrp says:

"I want to make a proposal about external links preservation. Many times,

when you check an external link or a link reference, the website is dead or
offline. This websites are important, because they are the sources for the
facts showed in the articles. Internet Archive searches for interesting
websites to save in their hard disks, so, we can send them our external
links sql tables (all projects and languages of course). They improve their
database and we always have a copy of the sources text to check when needed."


I would want to see the Internet Archive behave in a more ethically
accountable manner before any strong alliance is built with them on any
Wikimedia function.  Namely, for the past 3 months, I have been working with
an attorney to appeal to the Internet Archive to remove a page from their
database that contains libelous information that has been expunged on the
"current" page on the original domain.  The Internet Archive has been
entirely unresponsive to these mailed letters of request.  I think the
Wikimedia Foundation shouldn't be lining up to cooperated with organizations
that don't even respond to important matters of defamation and libel.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Call for Volunteers: Wikimedia Research Committee

[Gregory Kohs]

Gerard M. says:

Dear Greg,
This is not about criticism but about research. With respect I have not seen
your research papers, I am not aware of your credentials that would make you
a choice to be considered for being part of a research committee.

Given that the work of the committee includes work on policies that have to
do with access to confidential data, it seems to me only natural that your
status as being banned from several Wikis is an other reason why you are
easily disqualified from participating in a research committee.

At that you have had your "test" several times and as a result you are a
known entity.
Thanks,
 GerardM



Allow me to make you aware of my credentials, Gerard, since you asked
"with respect".

I'm the Director of Market Research for a company valued at $52
billion.  I've been making a living with market research for 18 years
now.

One of my co-authored research papers was published in a scientific
journal supplement:
http://www.ajronline.org/cgi/data/183/3/DC1/1

I've written a white paper about research for public relations:
http://www.icrsurvey.com/docs/MR%20for%20PR.doc

For the more casual reader, I've maintained an occasional blog on
research since 2005:
http://insidemr.blogspot.com/

And, I've conducted numerous informal but systematic research studies
about Wikimedia properties:
http://www.mywikibiz.com/Wikipedia_Vandalism_Study
http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/watcher/
(You'll have to ask around
about that one.)
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Survey_about_Wikipedia  (Currently, a
bit slow-going on the analysis, due to editing parameters imposed on
the Wikiversity community by Jimmy Wales)

I am curious about this "access to confidential data" of which you
speak.  This presupposes that other members of the vast Wikimedia
community do currently have access to this confidential data.  Have
they been vetted in some way that you can be assured that they won't
do something with that data more monstrous than what I would ever do
with such data?  I'm trusted with confidential customer account data
by a $52 billion company.


**
Meanwhile, D. Gerard says:

Trolling blogs probably isn't the best resume item, no. HTH!

**

No, it's probably not, if only I were "trolling".

Hope that helps!

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Call for Volunteers: Wikimedia Research Committee

[Gregory Kohs]

Erik,

Will critics of less-than-best-practices within the Wikimedia Foundation be
considered for invitation to the Wikimedia Research Committee, or is there
some sort of loyalty "litmus test" going to be applied?

I've sent my self-nomination by private e-mail anyway, but I thought a
public clarification of this question would be a helpful learning.

Thanks,

Greg

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Rand Montoya leaving Wikimedia Foundation

[Gregory Kohs]

Erik Moeller states:


Please join me in thanking Rand for all he has done for Wikimedia, and
wishing him the best for his future.



Rand, thanks for your work for the Wikimedia Foundation and its movement.
Best wishes on your future career elsewhere.  Should you ever again initiate
a market research survey, I'll again be happy to provide you insights and
guidance.

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

[Foundation-l] Jimbo's authority (on "global bans")

[Gregory Kohs]

Point of clarification... does Jimmy Wales have the authority to
impose a "global ban" on a user?

http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Community_Review/Wikimedia_Ethics:Ethical_Breaching_Experiments&curid=92825&diff=548143&oldid=548142

Sincerely,

Gregory Kohs

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Living Person Task Force update: Policy writing

[Gregory Kohs]

Paul Keegan notes:

"The Living people task force is churning along."

After looking for about 2 minutes at the linked Recommendations to the
Board of Trustees/Draft 2, I found numerous grammatical and
typographic errors in the statement.  However, I am disinclined to
chip in and help correct these mistakes because Philippe Beaudette has
indefinitely blocked me from that wiki because I offered a strategic
recommendation regarding Jimmy Wales that he disagreed with.

Gregory Kohs

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

[Foundation-l] Building up the reserves

[Gregory Kohs]

The recent 6-month financial report indicates at the end of 2008,
there was $6.67 million sitting in a savings account. At the end of
2009, it's $12.56 million. Do individual contributors and
organizations who are donating to the Wikimedia Foundation realize
that nearly $6 million of last year's funds were simply put into the
bank?  Do you think donors think this is an important mission, to
build up the savings account?

-- 
Gregory Kohs

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

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

[Gregory Kohs]

Wow, this is big news!  Now with Google cooperating with the National
Security Agency, everything seems to be lining up for Wikimedia.

Gregory Kohs

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

Re: [Foundation-l] 2008/2009 Wikimedia Foundation Annual Report

[Gregory Kohs]

Fantastic work!  Kudos to Rand Montoya!

I loved the use of color to help convey the important messages.

-- 
Gregory Kohs

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

[Foundation-l] WikiMobile - use of Wikipedia name in commerce

[Gregory Kohs]

Pardon me if this has been asked before, but I am curious to learn
whether Bonfire Media paid any sort of licensing fee to the Wikimedia
Foundation in order to use the Wikipedia brand name in commerce on its
WikiMobile app?

I do know that Bonfire founder, Alex Poon, donated $1,111 to the
Wikimedia Foundation in 2008, but that can't be construed as a
licensing deal, I'm sure.

http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Wikimedia_Foundation/Grand_Donors

I look forward to any info anyone might be able to provide.

Gregory Kohs

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

[Foundation-l] Advisory Board chairperson

[Gregory Kohs]

Who is the chair of the Advisory Board at this time?

http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?diff=45392&oldid=45263

If the spot is open, I would be willing to consider taking on the role.

-- 
Gregory Kohs

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

[Foundation-l] The next Wikipedia Academy? (2)

[Gregory Kohs]

(Previous post was truncated due to a "From" bug.)

Is anyone working on another Wikipedia Academy, following on the
success of the NIH one in July?

Recalling from the Signpost:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-07-27/Wikipedia_Academy

--- Wedemeyer commented how important it was that the organizers
maintain connections with the participants afterwards, to encourage
the NIH to make a real commitment to Wikipedia. The organizers also
look forward to more such endeavors. Broughton suggested that the
"Foundation should try to do lots and lots of these. We could
justifiably have an Academy at every major university and college in
the world." However, as Wedemeyer emphasized in an interview for this
story, it will, more than likely, be the volunteer organizers who make
this happen rather than the Foundation. As he wrote, "based on the
experience of this Academy, they don't seem ready to run such
workshops themselves at present." ---

Have the connections with participants afterwards been maintained?
And, I'm curious to know why Wedemeyer felt that the Foundation
doesn't "seem ready" to run such workshops.  What is that all about?

Gregory Kohs

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

[Foundation-l] The next Wikipedia Academy?

[Gregory Kohs]

Is anyone working on another Wikipedia Academy, following on the
success of the NIH one in July?

>From the Signpost, I recall:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-07-27/Wikipedia_Academy

--- Wedemeyer commented how important it was that the organizers
maintain connections with the participants afterwards, to encourage
the NIH to make a real commitment to Wikipedia. The organizers also
look forward to more such endeavors. Broughton suggested that the
"Foundation should try to do lots and lots of these. We could
justifiably have an Academy at every major university and college in
the world." However, as Wedemeyer emphasized in an interview for this
story, it will, more than likely, be the volunteer organizers who make
this happen rather than the Foundation. As he wrote, "based on the
experience of this Academy, they don't seem ready to run such
workshops themselves at present." ---

Have the connections with participants afterwards been maintained?
And, I'm curious to know why Wedemeyer felt that the Foundation
doesn't "seem ready" to run such workshops.  What is that all about?

Gregory Kohs

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

[Foundation-l] Open Wiki Blog Planet

[Gregory Kohs]

David Gerard says:

+

2009/12/15 Steven Walling https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l>>:

>* Have you added your new blog to Open Wiki Blog Planet and the Wikimedia
*>* aggregator?
*

The en:wp arbcom have started messing with the Open Wiki Blog Planet,
on the pretext that if the control page is on en:wp then they must own
it. Suggest moving control page to Meta.


- d.

+

David, could you please provide more detail to your characterization that
ArbCom is "messing with" this aggregator?


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

Re: [Foundation-l] advertising craigslist

[Gregory Kohs]

It sounds like some Foundation-l readers are unfamiliar with Craigslist.
Here are some news clippings to better familiarize yourself:

*http://tinyurl.com/craigslist-in-news

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Status of 2009 Fundraiser Survey

[Gregory Kohs]

eia says:


I'm sorry, but at least in your e-mail you mainly make a lot of
statements that I can imagine are worded in such a way that they don't
really ask for a reply, and one rethorical question. So if you want
information, I suggest you try to put your questions down a little
more constructively and maybe consider asking the right people
directly.

eia



Part of your advice ("asking the right people directly") is sound, and
that's why I reached out on November 14 to Rand Montoya via personal
e-mail.  I received no response.  The only constructive response I've
received since August was from Jpilisuk who said, "Entering the survey in 11
languages is taking much longer than anticipated".  My reaction was that 3
or 4 languages would have covered about 98% of the possibly meaningful
respondent base, even if some donors would have to navigate the survey in
their second language.  Don't you think for this survey, it would have been
better to field it in 2009 before the fundraising began, in English, French,
Chinese, and Spanish, than to be stuck translating it into 11 languages
(that weren't even seriously discussed publicly, as I recall) and missing
the 2009 window entirely?  As the project currently stands, the whole thing
is being held up because we're waiting on translations into Arabic, Malay,
Occitan, and Taiwanese.  Plus, we're waiting for proofreading of the
translated versions in Catalan, Czech, Danish, German, Spanish, French,
Italian, Japanese, Dutch, and Polish.

These were executive decisions, I assume.  I strongly disagree with the
emphasis that was placed -- as late as August 2009 -- on conducting a
pre-fundraising campaign survey that would first be translated into 8 to 11
different languages.  I do seek a reply, and my question is not rhetorical.

What I've witnessed is a fairly major research initiative come off the
rails, I've asked when we might get it back on track, and the response has
been pure silence.  Literally, no response at all to repeated requests for
information, in multiple venues (e-mail, Meta, and Foundation-l).  And your
concern is that my request didn't sound constructive enough?

One constructive recommendation I have is this:

When asked a question, try to respond to it, even if the response is "I
don't know; but here's how you might help me at this juncture."

Lately, I have been seeing multiple examples of initiatives launched, but
then fizzled out, even after significant contribution from waves of
volunteers.  Examples?  The Greenspun illustration project.  Flagged
revisions implementation on English Wikipedia.  Release of Episode 45 on
Wikivoices.  And now this 2009 Fundraising Survey.

Future volunteers will look back on these abortive efforts and likely ask
themselves, "Do I really want to commit my time and resources to this new
Project XYZ, if previous projects seem to come undone so regularly?"

You can apologize all you want ("I'm sorry..."), effe, but where I come
from, in my two decades plus experience in business operations, it is better
to respond to questions about projects that are off-track, than to simply
clam up and fail to provide any answer at all.  Especially when the person
asking has already dedicated many hours to help further the success of said
project.  My asking is not just a voice from left field -- I have sweat
equity invested in the 2009 Fundraising Survey.  I want to be assured that
it's not abandoned.

There is a possibility that this post will be rejected by the list
moderators.  That's why I've copied others at the Wikimedia Foundation, so
that if it is rejected, they can see that the censorship of this problem is
quite possibly systemic.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Status of 2009 Fundraiser Survey

[Gregory Kohs]

Still no reply here, nor on the Meta Wikimedia page?  It's Wednesday.
That was Friday.  Perhaps the "official" response is "no comment", or
maybe Rand Montoya is on vacation?

Gregory Kohs

On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Gregory Kohs  wrote:
> I am wondering if someone at the WMF (perhaps specifically Rand
> Montoya) could give us an update on the status of the 2009 Fundraiser
> Survey.  I inquired about this at the appropriate Talk page, but over
> two weeks have passed without any reply:
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fundraising_2009/Survey&diff=1724334&oldid=1585375
>
> Personally, I applied about four or five hours of my time working on
> the sampling design and questionnaire content and construction for
> this effort.  I realize that it is beyond hope that this will have
> fielded before most of this year's fundraising efforts have been
> executed (which is a shame, considering the "hurry up" timeline that
> was in place back in July 2009), but now I wonder -- will this ever be
> fielded?  My impression is that an inordinate amount of time was
> dedicated to translating the survey into at least a handful of world
> languages, which I advised against, being that I knew it was a huge
> challenge to meet translation and proofreading needs before the annual
> fundraiser commenced.
>
> I hope it is realistic to at least field this survey in the Spring of
> 2010, so that its results may be analyzed and contribute to
> modifications (both tactical and strategic) for the 2010 fundraiser.
>
> Gregory Kohs
>

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

[Foundation-l] Status of 2009 Fundraiser Survey

[Gregory Kohs]

I am wondering if someone at the WMF (perhaps specifically Rand
Montoya) could give us an update on the status of the 2009 Fundraiser
Survey.  I inquired about this at the appropriate Talk page, but over
two weeks have passed without any reply:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fundraising_2009/Survey&diff=1724334&oldid=1585375

Personally, I applied about four or five hours of my time working on
the sampling design and questionnaire content and construction for
this effort.  I realize that it is beyond hope that this will have
fielded before most of this year's fundraising efforts have been
executed (which is a shame, considering the "hurry up" timeline that
was in place back in July 2009), but now I wonder -- will this ever be
fielded?  My impression is that an inordinate amount of time was
dedicated to translating the survey into at least a handful of world
languages, which I advised against, being that I knew it was a huge
challenge to meet translation and proofreading needs before the annual
fundraiser commenced.

I hope it is realistic to at least field this survey in the Spring of
2010, so that its results may be analyzed and contribute to
modifications (both tactical and strategic) for the 2010 fundraiser.

Gregory Kohs

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Minors and sexual explicit stuff

[Gregory Kohs]

To Boonen & Moran:

Thank you for confirming your opinion that the Foundation cannot and
should not find within its means to even formulate some
recommendations and guidelines to help steer the activities of
children on Wikimedia projects, because that is something that parents
alone should be doing on a case-by-case basis.

I also thank you for not providing any links to anything that the
Foundation has already outlined regarding appropriate and adequate
measures that are supposedly "in place" on Foundation projects.

Thank you also for saying that Wikipedia is not there to attract
children, so we can take what Jimmy Wales said in October 2005
("Frankly, and let me be blunt, Wikipedia as a readable product is not
for us. It's for them. It's for that girl in Africa...") and tell the
little girl to go cry to her mommy.

Oh, and your consideration of the audience of the Disney website is
not supported in fact:

http://www.quantcast.com/disney.com

Some 82% of the visitors to Disney.com are over the age of 18.  And
56% do not have kids.  But, don't let data get in the way of your
opinion, if it's just easier to shoot down painfully clear arguments
as "strawmen".  (Is "strawman" the new "troll"?)

Gregory Kohs

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

[Foundation-l] Minors and sexual explicit stuff

[Gregory Kohs]

Geni, you (and others) seem to place a lot of stock in "parent
responsibility":

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-November/056095.html

Work with me for a moment here... if a parent takes her 9-year-old boy to
the toy boutique, and the boy asks to stay outside on the sidewalk with the
pantomime clown the store has hired to promote their business, and the mom
says "okay", goes inside, then the boy wanders down the sidewalk a bit to
look at the window display of toy trains, but is then abducted by a
stranger, raped, mutilated, and dumped in the woods, that is the
responsibility of the parent?  The consequences are entirely her fault for
leaving the kid alone with the clown?  Nobody else holds any responsibility
whatsoever in that event?

Are you saying that it's more important that the mime stay in character and
not use either his own common sense or courtesy, or perhaps follow
instructions or guidelines that have been conferred on him by either the
store or his entertainment company employer to say, "Please don't leave your
child unattended with me, ma'am.  Liability, you know?"

What you seem to be saying is that the Wikimedia Foundation should expressly
not apply any effort whatsoever to these sorts of liability and "worst case"
assessments, because in the end, it's the parent's responsibility.  I'm
curious to know -- do you have any children of your own?  If the above
happened to your child, how would you feel if you later discovered that the
mime's employer had actually had a conversation about whether mime's should
offer verbal safety advice to parents who seem a bit lax in tending to their
children, but the management expressly decided that
"WP:MIMESWILLSTAYSILENT", and that it's the parent's responsibility if they
leave their kid unattended with a clown?  Do you think you or your lawyer
might want to have a few words with the management of Clowns Incorporated,
or is the higher principal of "free mime culture" more important than any
considerations of safety, law, and common courtesy?

I wonder about the addled nature of thought here, if people think that the
Foundation cannot and should not find within its means to even formulate
some recommendations and guidelines to help steer the activities of children
on Wikimedia projects, because that is something that parents alone should
be doing on a case-by-case basis.  Your response to Privatemusings could
have been just as easily delivered with a big "F* you, get the f* off our
mailing list".

Geni said that appropriate and adequate measures are in place on Foundation
projects, but he/she provided no links.  Does anyone have a link or two to
provide us, the concerned parents whose kids are starting to use the
Internet on their own?

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Minors and sexual explicit stuff

[Gregory Kohs]

One point that the apologists seem to be missing is that the Wikimedia
Foundation assumes and expects that sometimes minors have administrator
rights on the Wikimedia projects.  This then gives them the responsibility
of deciding what is suitable content or not for the project.  Likewise, the
Foundation seems to assume and expect that there will be some risk of the
child interacting on very serious issues with grown adults whose agenda may
indeed be to exploit the minor.  But, the response is...

Go fork yourself a new wiki, if you don't like it.

And the Foundation powers that be wonder why critics sometimes skip to more
"dramatic" forms of protest, without "going through the proper channels".
Jimmy Wales can probably tell you about this very phenomenon when I didn't
"go through proper channels" to advocate against his company hosting a
"Spanking Art" Wikia site, complete with photos and drawings of young girls
in pigtails being showcased in a highly exploitative and abusive setting.
Wikia wanted more time to try to "work things out" with the creators of that
environment, while I preferred that it be taken down in 48 hours, regardless
of conversations with the creators.

Oh well, I guess I'll just go make myself my own wiki.  I'm working on an
article about "Consumer economy", if anyone is interested in helping out and
earning $15:

http://www.mywikibiz.com/Talk:Consumer_economy

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Minors and sexual explicit stuff

[Gregory Kohs]

Here is a good example of what can happen when we set free those children
who "have gained the trust of their parents to use the internet within
whatever
limits those parents (or, indeed, the minor) believe is appropriate":

http://www.gq.com/news-politics/big-issues/200907/wisconsin-high-school-sex-scandal-online-facebook?currentPage=all

So, if that's too long for you to read and consider the implications,
there's always
this Wikimedia image that has received nearly 2,000 page views this month:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cock_and_Ball_Torture.jpg

Or, there's this one that has captured the attention of over 2,000 visitors
this month:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Estim_penis.jpg

I have trouble understanding how these images help "that girl in Africa"
emerge
from the abject poverty that surrounds her, but I'll trust you guys (we're
all adults here,
right?) that you're helping to fulfill that mission with publication of
images like these,
with little to no concern whether there are minors consuming them.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Dumb survey about Commons

[Gregory Kohs]

As I believe I have noted several times on this list and elsewhere in
the Wikimediasphere, I'm a professional marketing research
practitioner, with over 17 years of experience, currently at a Fortune
100 company, who has designed and executed upwards of 1,500 different
survey questionnaires.  I was not consulted on this project, though I
would have made myself available on a gratis basis.

However, Guillaume Paumier has spent considerable time honing his
skills at dismissing my credibility, and this particular survey came
out botched.  The questionnaire does very little, perhaps nothing, to
really "help us improve the usability of Commons and the upload
process on Wikimedia projects" as its stated goal would indicate.

Go figure.

--
Gregory Kohs

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Alphascript Publishing scam

[Gregory Kohs]

I wonder what Alphascript will think of this:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/6130037589

Americans love a good bargain.  Too bad I don't have the time to
duplicate this effort the 5,000 times to keep up with them.

Greg

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Alphascript Publishing scam

[Gregory Kohs]

I have submitted the following to GNU.org, to Amazon, to Alphascript
Publishing, and the FTC, so maybe they can professionally sort it out.
 I may not have legal footing, but if not, it still stinks:

Amazon.com is allowing the fraudulent marketing of published content
by Alphascript Publishing.

The materials in these books:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8&sort=relevancerank&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=John%20McBrewster

...was not authored "by" John McBrewster.  It was authored and edited
by several editors on Wikipedia.org who claim copyright to the
material and released it under the terms of the GFDL and the CC-by-SA
licenses.  As you can see, Alphascript is making no attempt in its
marketing to inform the buyer that the material is freely licensed,
that it has merely been re-packaged (not "edited"), and that the
listing of these ancillary editors does NOT fulfill the attribution
terms on the free licenses which transport this media.

I have multiple expectations:

(1) That the GNU.org and the FTC will act to the best of their abilities to work
with both Alphascript Publishing and Amazon to inform their course of
action to help assure that proper attribution and sourcing does come
into effect, or simply to advocate removal of these publications from
the marketing database hosted by Amazon until they are made compliant.

(2) That Amazon more effectively address its few publishers who are
brazenly violating American licensing laws, even if they are offshore
companies.

We need go no further than Amazon's own terms of service to read:

Intellectual Property

   * Recopied media. Recopied media infringe upon copyrights and
trademarks and are illegal to sell. Unauthorized copies, dubs, and
duplicates of any copyrighted material are prohibited on Amazon.com.
This includes:
 o Books - Unauthorized copies of books are prohibited.

The content published by Alphascript is authorized if and only if the
terms of the original licenses have been met, and I assuredly believe
they have not been so met.

Gregory Kohs
Cell: 302.463.

CC: FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection
 (Case number: 24307600)

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Alphascript Publishing scam

[Gregory Kohs]

Robert Rohde said:

+
At its core though, the fact that Wikipedia works can be repackaged
and sold is a feature of the free content movement.
+

Via trickery?  Some accomplishment.


Andrew Gray says:

=
this may be a failing of Amazon
=

Amazon...  Where have I heard that name?  Oh, yes!  They invested $10
million in Wikia, Inc., didn't they?  Sorry to see that they don't
help to respect the licenses that Wikipedia and Wikia are both built
upon.

Look, if the license is itself a feeble instrument that almost begs to
be mocked, then I guess the "caveat emptor" applies not only to the
stooges who might buy these books (is there any evidence that anyone
is actually purchasing them?), but also to the content generators who
release their work under licenses they (falsely) think will carry some
oomph in the marketplace.  I do agree with Mr. Gray that Amazon has
made a poor corporate judgment in not demanding more straightforward
attribution of its publishers.  I guess Amazon makes a number of bad
judgments.  Their stock is up less than 9% over 10 years, with no paid
dividends.

Greg

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

[Foundation-l] Alphascript Publishing scam

[Gregory Kohs]

> David Gerard said:
>
> ++
>
> 2009/8/13 David Goodman :
>
>> I would be exceedingly uncomfortable with us organizing a negative
>> campaign against any publisher not actually violating our copyright.
>> .  A factual campaign, providing information is another matter. It
>> would be entirely appropriate for individuals, even in a somewhat
>> coordinated way, to add a review, just pointing out that it is
>> entirely a copy of a Wikipedia article, and available free in  an
>> updated version from our website--and in updated form.
>
>
> "The contents of this book are reprinted from Wikipedia. Thanks to Dr
> --- for making Wikipedia content available commercially in printed
> form, in full observance of copyright requirements. We do this to
> spread knowledge, after all!"
>
>
> - d.
>
> +++
>
> And David Gerard also says:
>
> ===
> 2009/8/14 Renata St :
>
>>> As long as the books give sufficient indication that they are from
>>> Wikipedia, ...
>
>> Inside the book -- yes, plenty of indication about copying. But nothing to
>> warn you before you buy. People are buying these books tricked into thinking
>> it's an original content.
>
>
> Yuh. Point it out in reviews etc.
>
>
> - d.
> ===
>
> To me, this smacks of an utter disregard for the intent and spirit of
> the free license.   It's the same sort of flippant administrative
> attitude that (nearly) allowed Guy "JzG" Chapman to grossly plagiarize
> my original, freely-licensed work, delete mine from the edit history,
> then prance about claiming that the work was his own, written "ab
> initio".  That made me want to vomit, and now I feel like vomiting
> again.
>
> Sorry to resurrect a thread like this, but I only became aware of the
> phenomenon recently.
>
> To give an example of how such a book is marketed on Amazon:
>

> History of Buddhism (Paperback)
>
> by Frederic P. Miller (Editor), Agnes F. Vandome (Editor), John
> McBrewster (Editor)

>
> These people are not Wikipedia editors.  Is it appropriate and/or
> legal under the terms of the GFDL or the CC-by-SA for a
> freely-licensed work to be "claimed" with a preposition such as "by",
> which by any interpretation of the English language in this usage,
> would connote authorship?  Personally, I don't think it is appropriate
> (thus that nauseous feeling I mentioned earlier).  But, I'm not a
> highly-paid lawyer, so maybe I just don't know better.  I've been in
> situations before where I know I am ethically correct, but helpless in
> the light of the law.
>
> It strikes me that this is something that Creative Commons or other
> organizations with Godwin-like attorneys should be aggressively
> pursuing, but we didn't hear from any of them in the original thread,
> did we?  Mike, could you illuminate this conversation with your
> professional opinion?
>
> Greg
>

Sorry, I didn't edit the subject.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] (no subject)

[Gregory Kohs]

David Gerard said:

++

2009/8/13 David Goodman :

> I would be exceedingly uncomfortable with us organizing a negative
> campaign against any publisher not actually violating our copyright.
> .  A factual campaign, providing information is another matter. It
> would be entirely appropriate for individuals, even in a somewhat
> coordinated way, to add a review, just pointing out that it is
> entirely a copy of a Wikipedia article, and available free in  an
> updated version from our website--and in updated form.


"The contents of this book are reprinted from Wikipedia. Thanks to Dr
--- for making Wikipedia content available commercially in printed
form, in full observance of copyright requirements. We do this to
spread knowledge, after all!"


- d.

+++

And David Gerard also says:

===
2009/8/14 Renata St :

>> As long as the books give sufficient indication that they are from
>> Wikipedia, ...

> Inside the book -- yes, plenty of indication about copying. But nothing to
> warn you before you buy. People are buying these books tricked into thinking
> it's an original content.


Yuh. Point it out in reviews etc.


- d.
===

To me, this smacks of an utter disregard for the intent and spirit of
the free license.   It's the same sort of flippant administrative
attitude that (nearly) allowed Guy "JzG" Chapman to grossly plagiarize
my original, freely-licensed work, delete mine from the edit history,
then prance about claiming that the work was his own, written "ab
initio".  That made me want to vomit, and now I feel like vomiting
again.

Sorry to resurrect a thread like this, but I only became aware of the
phenomenon recently.

To give an example of how such a book is marketed on Amazon:

>>>
History of Buddhism (Paperback)

by Frederic P. Miller (Editor), Agnes F. Vandome (Editor), John
McBrewster (Editor)
>>>

These people are not Wikipedia editors.  Is it appropriate and/or
legal under the terms of the GFDL or the CC-by-SA for a
freely-licensed work to be "claimed" with a preposition such as "by",
which by any interpretation of the English language in this usage,
would connote authorship?  Personally, I don't think it is appropriate
(thus that nauseous feeling I mentioned earlier).  But, I'm not a
highly-paid lawyer, so maybe I just don't know better.  I've been in
situations before where I know I am ethically correct, but helpless in
the light of the law.

It strikes me that this is something that Creative Commons or other
organizations with Godwin-like attorneys should be aggressively
pursuing, but we didn't hear from any of them in the original thread,
did we?  Mike, could you illuminate this conversation with your
professional opinion?

Greg

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Charity Navigator rates WMF

[Gregory Kohs]

Samuel says:

+

In my experience, high-school teachers were 90/10 anti Wikipedia 3
years ago, and are slightly in favor of it today.  This sort of thing
would be a fascinating survey to run year after year.

+

I agree.  Market research, even longitudinal tracking research, has
fascinated me since 1991, and despite the skepticism of one delegate
"happy-melon", I would probably be qualified to design and execute such a
study, with the proper funding from the Foundation or another source, of
course.  I sincerely doubt they could find another market research
professional willing and able to design the questionnaire, sample 300
teachers in as representative a fashion as possible, and analyze and report
on the collected data, all for $4,000.  But, they're more than welcome to
try!

Credentials and cheers are here:
http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Gregory_J._Kohs#Credentials

You may also read the jeers, if you wish.  There's a fresh one in there.

Lots of very good and valid points have been made on this thread, and
several of you have changed my opinion somewhat on different matters,
especially about the Wikia office space rental's urgency.  (Still, I wish a
space NOT operated by a Board member had been chosen.)  Yet, I'm of the
casual opinion that "usability" was not a critical issue for Wikipedia,
given that many millions of wiki pages had been successfully created and
polished with the old "difficult to use" interface.  I'd have much rather
seen the Stanton Fund put that money toward an "accountability initiative"
or an "accuracy initiative", but it's their money, isn't it?

I have especially enjoyed those who took to taunting and mocking me.  This
helps to demonstrate that some within our community are afraid to answer
questions and tackle issues head-on.  The pseudonymous attack was really
special, proving a point that I've tried to make for years -- that anonymity
generally lowers the standards of discourse.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Charity Navigator rates WMF

[Gregory Kohs]

Nathan asks:

+

I'm curious what importance you attach to the Charity Navigator
rating, and how you think it is (or should be) relevant to the
operations of the WMF. Care to explain?

+

Thank you for asking, Nathan.  As always, I am eager to provide a prompt and
direct response to questions, though that is not standard practice in some
circles.

I make charitable gifts each year that typically total between $3,000 and
$5,000.  Some of my strict rules for charitable giving include (1) don't
ever give on the basis of only a telephone solicitation or an in-person
intercept, and (2) don't ever give without first looking up the organization
on both GuideStar and Charity Navigator.  If another organization can be
found that serves a similar need, but is doing so more efficiently with its
dollars, then my donation goes to that organization, and other less
stringent donors are free to fling their money at a more inefficient
organization.

For example, to help further the cause of truth and knowledge on the
Internet, this year I made a donation to ProCon.org:

http://www.procon.org/aboutus.asp#Financial

...even though it was not yet listed in Charity Navigator, I could still
make a decision in part because I appreciated that 87% of their expenses
were spent on program services, as opposed to 66% at the Wikimedia
Foundation.

Therefore, for me, GuideStar and Charity Navigator are important tools for
me to help decide where my charitable contributions will be directed in a
given year.

How about you?  How do you attach importance to various ways that
independent organizations might put non-profits to an impartial test?  Do
you care how efficient a charitable organization is?  After all, I
co-founded a non-profit organization, and I serve on the board of another,
so maybe I am polarized too far to the "accountability" end of the spectrum.

You may not be aware of the stories behind the Deputy Sheriffs' Fraternal
Organization or the Wishing Well Foundation, but I would be sick to my
stomach if I found that I had donated money to such an organization, only to
discover that they spend less than 20% of revenues on program services.
With the Wikimedia Foundation having recently spent only 31.6% of revenues
on program services, I dare to say they are closer, on a true percentage
basis on the books, to organizations like the Deputy Sheriffs' Fraternal
Organization or the Wishing Well Foundation than they are to ProCon.org and
the Red Cross.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Charity Navigator rates WMF

[Gregory Kohs]

Brion says:

++

A few thousand dollars in rent for the Usability Initiative's space...

++

It may be equally accurate to say that I have earned "a few thousand
dollars" this year, or in my lifetime, or that comprises the budget of the
State of Indiana.  I was hoping for an accurate figure, not a carefree
estimate, Brion.

A more efficient organization might have waited to launch the Usability
Initiative staff/contractor expansion until AFTER the Foundation moved to
larger space.  I'm just trying to get you guys another star the next time
Charity Navigator rolls around with an impartial review.  So far, I've seen
a lot of puffing about "overhead" and "strategy", but nothing very tactical
about how this organization efficiency rating might be improved... unless,
the point of the official response is to simply downplay the importance of
such a rating, in which case, I would say mission very well accomplished.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Charity Navigator rates WMF

[Gregory Kohs]

Erik,

How much of WMF's expenses went to Wikia, Inc. this year so far?

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

[Foundation-l] Statistical research on Wikipedia (Godwin inspired)

[Gregory Kohs]

Mike Godwin says:

+

You should publish the results of your statistical research of
high-school-teacher attitudes toward Wikipedia.  It will be especially
useful if you have a large sample size and minimal selection bias.

+

Of course, I never said my anecdotal experience represented a statistically
sound research initiative.  However, sample sizes and selection bias are
actually a bit of my professional expertise.  I have already conducted two
quantitative studies of Wikipedia-related data -- one about 100 articles
about the U.S. senators, and another (not so rigorous) assessment of 10 new
articles selected with little to no bias whatsoever.  The WikiEN-l mailing
list moderators refuse to publish a short post informing the community about
that second study.  I'm not sure why not, as they refuse to say.  Great
"open" and "democratic" community you work for here, Mike.

Both of these previous assessments I conducted for free.  No more.  I would
actually enjoy (as I've e-mailed you privately) expanding the scope of my
latter study to include perhaps 200 new articles.  But, that work on my part
will cost the Foundation a $1,000 stipend.  That's a bargain for such a
study.  Or, you can try to find a volunteer who will do it for a barnstar,
but they might botch the sampling design.

If you prefer a statistically sound survey of 300 high school teachers
regarding opinions and usage of Wikipedia, that would be more expensive.  I
could still get the job done for a mere $4,000, though -- about one-quarter
the rate you'd pay with a full-service marketing research firm.  Or, again,
you could go the barnstar route with someone else.

Offers are on the table.  Your move.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Charity Navigator rates WMF

[Gregory Kohs]

George William Herbert says:

+

Greg, your glass is perpetually half empty.  This makes you a not so
useful critic.

+

That may be, George.  But, when the world's full of organizational
efficiency glasses that can hold four stars, if you've only got two stars,
your glass is by definition half empty.

:-)

P.S.  I forgot to include a smiley :-) on my reply to Mike Godwin.  Yet,
some of you really thought I was serious that BLP victims are measurably
boosting Wikipedia.org's Alexa ratings.  Sheesh!  Lighten up, people.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Charity Navigator rates WMF

[Gregory Kohs]

Godwin says:

++

My long-time friends at the Reason Foundation wish very much that they and
their programs could have the same kind of impact in the world that the
Wikimedia Foundation and its programs have.  Compare, for example, the Alexa
rankings of wikipedia.org and reason.com.

Full disclosure: I'm a contributing editor to Reason magazine.


--Mike

++

Your comment about "Reason" carries with it at least two premises:

(1) That the Wikimedia Foundation's "impact" is a favorable one.  (Many
would disagree, at least according to Andrew Keen, the staff of Encyclopedia
Britannica and World Book, and just about every high school teacher I've
ever talked to about Wikipedia.)

(2) That Alexa rankings reflect "impact in the world".  If you've got
300,000 living persons checking their biography every day for defamation,
I'm sure the Alexa rankings are going to notice that.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Charity Navigator rates WMF

[Gregory Kohs]

And yet, for organizational efficiency, the Red Cross earned three stars
from Charity Navigator, rather than only two.

Also, the CEO of Red Cross was compensated with 0.01% of the expenses.  I'm
not sure of Sue Gardner's total compensation these days, but it was last
reported at a half-year rate of $75,000, wasn't it?  A similar ratio as the
Red Cross would put Wikimedia Foundation expenditures at $1.5 billion per
year, based on CEO compensation.

Something doesn't compute.

The responses thus far trumpet the unusual energy and resources derived from
such a disproportionately large volunteer base.  I have to agree!  Indeed,
in 2007, there were about as many volunteers doing just as much work, but
the staff was only about one-fourth what it is today.  What is substantially
different about the Wikimedia Foundation's mission and accomplishments today
than were already in place in 2007?  My only striking conclusion is how much
more money the Foundation is now drawing in on the revenue side, and that
the GFDL license was altered and swapped.  The encyclopedias seem about the
same as they were in 2007, just bigger.  Commons is about the same.
Wikiquote seems pretty close to the way it was in 2007.  Is it possible that
what we're witnessing is fairly plainly geometrically-increasing
fundraising, which is supporting a geometrically-increasing staff, which
then feeds back into the cycle again?

Not that there's anything wrong with that!
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Charity Navigator rates WMF

[Gregory Kohs]

Greetings.

The Charity Navigator site has evaluated and rated the Wikimedia Foundation:

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=11212

Despite an overall three-star rating (out of four), WMF was only rated two
stars for Organization Efficency.  This is described by Charity Navigator as
"Meets or nearly meets industry standards but underperforms most charities
in its Cause".  The Charity Navigator site further states:

"Our data shows that 7 out of 10 charities we've evaluated spend at least
75% of their budget on the programs and services they exist to provide. And
9 out of 10 spend at least 65%. We believe that those spending less than a
third of their budget on program expenses are simply not living up to their
missions. Charities demonstrating such gross inefficiency receive zero
points for their overall organizational efficiency score."

While the WMF seemed to be narrowly meeting these guidelines (according to
the site's "Revenue/Expenses Trend" histogram) in perhaps 2007, it appears
that in 2008, the trend got decidedly worse.  Perhaps I am misinterpreting
the criteria and/or the graphic.  But, the 2-out-of-4 stars rating is
decidedly clear.

For comparison, witness an organization cited by Charity Navigator as
"similar" to the WMF -- the Reason Foundation -- and see how their Expenses
are a much larger portion of revenue for them, and thus obtain a 3-star
rating:
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=7481

I am wondering (and I suppose others may be, too) whether the staff and
board feel that Charity Navigator is a reputable and credible measurement
service, and if so, are you satisfied with receiving two out of four stars
in this area, and if not what do you plan to change to improve the rating
next year?
Gregory Kohs
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Fundraising Promotion and Job Opening

[Gregory Kohs]

Congratulations to Anya, and it sounds like Rand made a nice choice.

Anya, if you wish to continue receiving my assistance on the 2009
Fundraising Survey that I helped design, I hope that Rand will put you in
touch with me during the data analysis phase.  I think a key "break-out" for
analysis will be the $500+ donor segment.  They are a key constituency in
supporting the financial stream, as every single one of them is worth 16 or
more "average" donors.

Kindly,

   Greg

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

[Foundation-l] The $1.7 million question

[Gregory Kohs]

So, let me just get this straight.

Someone here bemoaned the fact that a full history dump of the English
Wikipedia has been sought for 3 years, but is still forthcoming.  That
person mentioned, factually, that $1.7 million of budgeted money for
"technology" was left unspent, with the suggestion that perhaps a portion of
this money could have been directed to a contractor who would have been
charged with crafting a successful full history dump.  This budgetary fact
was disdainfully questioned and the "troll" insult was whipped out with
haste.  The financial fact was then supported with a report from this very
Foundation's Executive Director.  The response then was that one "could care
less" about what Sue Gardner has to say about budget.  Then, the initial
person offered that minimum wage plus $80 daily child care would buy his
solution to a full history dump.

Now, assuming this might mean 8 working weeks of labor for this guy, that
would be ($400 child-care + $280 wage) x 8 weeks = $5,440.

This sum is approximately three-tenths of ONE PERCENT of the budgeted money
that was instead stored in the bank and set aside for some future staffing
and technology needs.

But the person(s) making the factual statements, backing them up with
referenced sources, and offering a potential eight-week solution to a
three-year-old problem, at a cost of 3/10th of 1% of the allocated budget to
problems exactly like this... IS REWARDED WITH THE "TROLL" epithet?

Do I have that correct?  Because if I do, then I am beginning to see why so
many people suggest that there is a serious freakin' PROBLEM with the tone
of discourse on this mailing list.

Let me recommend something.  Pay Anthony Dipierro the sum of $5,500, give
him server access, give him eight weeks, and if he doesn't produce a full
history dump of the English Wikipedia, then perhaps his penance could be a
one-year ban from Wikimedia mailing lists?  That would make a lot of "troll
spotters" here quite happy, I'm sure.  What do you have to lose?  (Other
than three-tenths of one percent of the 2007 technology budget, that is.)

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

[Foundation-l] Moderation needed?

[Gregory Kohs]

Recently, a participant on this list said, "I could really care less about
what Sue has to say about the budget".

Didn't we have some sort of moderation plan, to give time-outs to people
when they step over a line into hostile, disparaging commentary that adds no
value to the Wikimedia Foundation mailing list?  Sue Gardner deserves more
respect than that.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Expert board members - a suggestion

[Gregory Kohs]

Andrew Whitworth opined:

++

On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Gregory Kohs https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l>> wrote:
>* I would consider it equally "trolling" to assume or pretend that an
*>* unfortunate financial situation did not happen, just because you haven't
*>* taken the time or effort to pay attention to when these issues have been
*>* discussed in numerous, varied forums across the Internet.  Here are at least
*>* a dozen for you, Domas:
*>*
*>* 
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22%241.7+million%22+technology+wikimedia+%22sue+gardner%22
*
I wouldn't consider any of those dozen to be credible or reliable
sources. Nobody has a responsibility to monitor the entirety of the
internet to follow various discussion minutia or unfounded rumors, and
it's not trolling to not assume that responsibility for oneself.

--Andrew Whitworth

++

Yes, you certainly wouldn't want to click the first returned result:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Foundation_report_to_the_Board,_May_2008

...Where Sue Gardner (you may not know or trust her credibility or
reliability, but she is the Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation,
which is the subject of this mailing list) herself says:

The biggest departmental underspend was in the technology budget

(-$1,673). We attribute this underspending to general conservatism and
caution on the part of the tech team, a desire to defer equipment purchases
while various donations and sponsorship deals were under negotiation, and
delays in hiring.



Is it just me, or is there a significant amount of cotton stuffed in many
ears around here?

Sorry to sound so rude in reply, but you really do turn some of these
would-be contested lay-ups into backboard-shattering slam dunks.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Expert board members - a suggestion

[Gregory Kohs]

Domas says about Anthony:



How was that budgeted? Which year? Can you point me at that unspent
software development budget number?

...

You are trolling and you're piggy-backing.
We have dedicated resources for that, paid out of donations, yes.



I would consider it equally "trolling" to assume or pretend that an
unfortunate financial situation did not happen, just because you haven't
taken the time or effort to pay attention to when these issues have been
discussed in numerous, varied forums across the Internet.  Here are at least
a dozen for you, Domas:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22%241.7+million%22+technology+wikimedia+%22sue+gardner%22

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

[Foundation-l] Security holes in Mediawiki

[Gregory Kohs]

I was sort of surprised to learn today that Mediawiki software has had 37
security holes identified:

http://akahele.org/2009/09/false-sense-of-security/

Are most of these patched now, or are they still open?  If still open, is
the Foundation making site & user security more of a priority in 2010?

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

[Foundation-l] Becoming unmoderated

[Gregory Kohs]

Austin Hair extended me the courtesy of taking me out of the moderated
posting queue.

In light of my recent blogging gaffe (though amended the same day my error
was confirmed), I look forward to continuing my message of pressing for
ethical and professional non-profit governance, with a tone and style that
are neither insulting nor unduly inflammatory.  I hope that this will
encourage at least a few who have tuned me out in the past to perhaps take
another listen.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] WMF seeking to sub-lease office space?

[Gregory Kohs]

"Geni" wrote:

++
Given how spectacularly incorrect your published accusations were
that's a pretty pathetic defense. Are you going to apologise?

-- 
geni

++

I reported that the Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to sub-let space that it
itself is renting.  I have an e-mail from the property management firm
confirming "the Wikimedia sublease".  Erik Moeller has confirmed that the
Foundation is seeking to sub-let space.

Which "accusations" do you speak of?

Why in the heck would I "apologize" for scooping the story that the
Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to sub-let office space, if only the
speculative intentions were a little off-base (I did not realize that the
WMF does not intend to stay at Stillman Street a while longer, since the
Foundation failed to communicate any significant "We're Moving Soon!"
announcement to the community).  I have issued a clarifying statement in the
blog comments field, and that should be sufficient, unless someone feels
they've been libeled by the Internet Review Corporation.  I've received no
such legal complaint.

When the Watergate story broke, it was felt to be a largely "contained"
story.  Leslie Stahl once commented, *"*CBS sent me. It was a measure of how
unimportant CBS thought the story was in the beginning."  As more
information seeped out, it became clear that it was a story with much wider
implications.  Consider me a Leslie Stahl, circa 1972.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] WMF seeking to sub-lease office space?

[Gregory Kohs]

So, not having known that 3,000 square feet was the sum total of the
current WMF space on Stillman, my original but unpublished hunch was
correct.  I'll quote an e-mail I wrote Sept. 3rd, at 4:39 PM:

"...If I had to formulate a theory, I'd say [Sue Gardner] thinks that
she's hired enough [personnel] that they now have the gravitas to move
into a new, bigger place of their own in San Francisco.  Stillman
Street was initially held up as a 'starter' home in San Francisco, so
this is just the logical next step now that grant money is pouring
in."

A little bird suggested I ask if the Foundation will be filing a Form
990-T once it finds a tenant, as it would be a business activity over
$1,000 unrelated to a non-profit mission and would thus possibly
trigger IRS rules regarding Unrelated Business Income Tax (which are
rather strict).  Among other things, the 990-T is a public form, so it
would force the Foundation to disclose further information on its
operations.

Then again, Wikipedia offers a very curious, opinion-based "original
research" assessment of this factor here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrelated_Business_Income_Tax#UBIT_in_an_IRA

"This is possibly a myth."

The sum of human knowledge, folks.

-- 
Gregory Kohs

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

Re: [Foundation-l] WMF seeking to sub-lease office space?

[Gregory Kohs]

Gerard "Hoi" Meijssen writes:

++
What would be more obvious then looking for other premises when the current
ones are no longer sufficient.. Gee.. hiring new premises .. with sufficient
elbow room for some time ??
I wonder.. Gee Gregory, you already mentioned that ... are they really
looking for something new ? Then again, I am not asked to answer your query
am I ..
Thanks,
  GerardM
++

Sometimes, Gerard, your inability to comprehend even the most basic of
principles, such as how a sub-lease works, is amusing and endearing.

This may help you:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublease

I'm afraid there's no "Simple English Wikipedia" article to assist you further.

It may be in your own best interest to refrain from any further
commentary on this thread and leave discussion to those of us who
understand basic property management fundamentals.

Another possible explanation for what's happening at the WMF HQ is
that the whole operation is preparing to move to new digs, and rather
than break their lease, they're seeking to find a subtenant to avoid
some financial penalty for early exit.  I sort of set that aside,
because I would have expected an "open" and "transparent" organization
such as the WMF to have announced at some point that they were looking
for an entirely different office home.

We'll have clarification when Sue or Jimbo or Michael or Erik or Kat
or some other WMF'er responds.  Probably best that we just wait for
some "official" explanation, rather than continue speculating about
elbow room, which is what seems to be a problem, not a benefit.

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

[Foundation-l] WMF seeking to sub-lease office space?

[Gregory Kohs]

It would appear that the Wikimedia Foundation is actively seeking to sub-let
some of its office space?

http://akahele.org/2009/09/wikimedia-foundation-subletting-space/

That's curious, considering they had "outgrown" space in January 2009, such
that they needed to shuttle Ruth and Frank Stanton's money over to Wikia's
accounts receivable to expand their footprint.  Sue Gardner, Jimmy Wales,
Michael Snow... someone please set us straight!  Comment on the blog that
scooped this story!

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

[Foundation-l] Akahele: Omidyar venturing out

[Gregory Kohs]

Being that it was a topic of rousing discussion here last week, Wikimedians
may be interested in a brief summary of the Omidyar/Wikimedia/Wikia
connection, as authored by me and published by the non-profit, Internet
Review Corporation:

http://akahele.org/2009/08/omidyar-venturing-out/

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Expert board members - a suggestion

[Gregory Kohs]

Thomas Dalton asked:

"Has tech money been spent on other things previously? That is news to me."

For your edification, Thomas, since at least you seem willing to listen, as
opposed to some others here who simply "tut tut" at all the "trolling" and
the "time wasting" any critics might have to offer:

http://philanthropy.com/giveandtake/article/858/wikipedias-fund-raising-success-questioned

Please make sure to read my comment there, which references this document:

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Planned_Spending_Distribution_2007-2008

Which does not "square away" with this document, specifically Page 4:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/4/41/FY_2008_09_Annual_Plan.PDF

...which says, "tech department underspending equalled 1.7m".

Anthony's not exactly being fair, though, when he sort of suggests that the
shortfall in Technology spending went instead to the Executive Director.  As
far as I can tell, it went into the bank, to be spent in the FOLLOWING YEARS
on the Executive Director's need to expand staff to unprecedented levels.

Pay attention, Thomas.  I've discussed this issue in many places.  On the
Wikimedia-controlled places, I'm often censored or blocked, but there are
plenty of other non-WMF venues where facts can be laid out for the curious
to learn the truth:

http://www.mywikibiz.com/Top_10_Reasons_Not_to_Donate_to_Wikipedia

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Expert board members - a suggestion

[Gregory Kohs]

Wait, wait, wait.  I thought we had all formed consensus that the
appointment of Matt Halprin and his $2 million briefcase full of money was
an ideal (or, at least nearly ideal) measure of progress and success for the
Wikimedia Foundation.  I was about to announce a call for a standing
ovation, with a sporadic "Huzzah!" or two to punctuate our support!

Now you've got this wild idea, Thomas, to totally revamp the Board
structure?  What are you, some kind of troll who won't toe the party line?

Actually, I think your idea is a step backwards, Thomas.  Without the full
immersion of at least four "outside" experts directly on the Board, how will
the outside world ever come face-to-face with exactly how amazing is this
Foundation, that it not only can't recognize conflict of interest and
self-dealing snafus -- it actually actively seeks them out?!

Just like they tried to rocket a few school teachers up into space, so that
they can come back and recount to students first-hand what it's like to be
in orbit, we need to have outsiders on the WMF Board, so that after their
one- or two-year ordeal, they can come back to the mainstream of reality and
tell us about how the WMF does its Jedi mind trick.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Omidyar Network Commits $2 Million Grant to Wikimedia Foundation

[Gregory Kohs]

Guillame said:

"

A board member (or volunteer, or anyone who goes around and asks
someone to donate money to a cause) has some leverage if they can
answer: « I donated $2 million because I think this cause is worthy.
How much will you donate? »

"

+++

How unfortunate for Matt Halprin.  As far as I know, it was his employer,
Omidyar Network, that made the big donation, not Halprin himself personally.

It is amazing to me how shallow is the general comprehension level on this
list.

I am still awaiting answers for the very simple questions I asked earlier
today, about Halprin's history of board memberships.  Is anyone working on
them, or will I have to do it myself?

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Raw data of 2009 Board election ballots

[Gregory Kohs]

Greg Maxwell states:

"You could register with my site and tell me you want to vote for
"M,ABFO,CDEGHIJKLN" I then tell you I'll give you $10 if someone votes for
"G,M,ABFO,CJ,LN,DEGHIK"."

+++

Wow, and I thought *I* was the one with the crack-pot, hare-brained,
wild-eyed conspiracy theories.

How's this -- I'll give $100 to anyone who produces incontrovertible
evidence of a successfully-fulfilled vote-buy transaction in any past WMF
board election.  I'm that confident that nobody would have been stupid
enough to waste money that way.  Unless it was a publicity stunt of some
sort, for WP:POINT's sake.  Hmm... that gives me an idea...

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Omidyar Network Commits $2 Million Grant to Wikimedia Foundation

[Gregory Kohs]

Here's a simple series of questions:

(1) On which boards of directors (either for-profit or non-profit) has Matt
Halprin been newly seated, since 2006?

(2) To which of those organizations has the Omidyar Network made a
significant financial contribution or investment?

(3) What is the result of the count of organizations in # 2 divided by the
count of organizations in # 1?

(4) At which percentage in # 3 would we begin to postulate that, since 2006,
Matt Halprin typically serves on boards of directors where his employer's
money is at work (or at stake)?

Am I correct that Halprin draws a measurable income from Omidyar Network, or
that Omidyar Network would be considered his primary means of income?

With my experience having founded the enterprise that led to Wikipedia
altering its "Vanity" guideline to become a more comprehensive "Conflict of
Interest" guideline, one might say I'm somewhat "street wise" on Conflict of
Interest issues.  I'm perfectly able to see how COI would come into play
here, regardless of the inability of others here to see (or even to imagine)
that.

I look forward to the answers to my above questions.  Or, sweep them under
the rug, if that is your inclination.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Omidyar Network Commits $2 Million Grant to Wikimedia Foundation

[Gregory Kohs]

*Jan-Bart de Vreede said:
*
"the next year will be crucial for us as an

organization in determining our long term strategy. But that process
is shaped by YOU. The tremendous strategy project (details at
http://strategy.wikimedia.org
  ) started a month ago is making good first steps. The Board of
Trustees does not own any of the Wikimedia projects, you do.
Participate on the strategy wiki (and encourage others to do so) to
help determine the future direction of our organization, you will
probably have more impace than any single board member ever will..."



I offered a proposal at the Wikimedia Strategy project, with supporting
links to outside, independent documentation.  Within about 40 minutes, the
proposal was removed, and I was indefinitely blocked from that particular
project, including IP address blocking.   This, despite the fact that I
almost single-handedly wrote the sampling design and fine-tuned literally
all of the 2009 Foundation Development Survey for the WMF on the Meta
project.

But, I "own" the Wikimedia projects?  I will have more impact by being
blocked from the Wikimedia Strategy project than any single board member
(including Jimmy Wales?) ever will?

Your pithy inspirational motivations are ringing hollow for me, Mr. de
Vreede.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Omidyar Network Commits $2 Million Grant to Wikimedia Foundation

[Gregory Kohs]

Anthony said:

*>> Wales was right when he said that the
*>>* community* *is irrelevant.
*

James Forrester then made a humorous attempt to deflect the possibility that
this might possibly be true.

James, you may benefit from reading (with an open mind, if possible) the
following essay from attorney Alex Roshuk:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Alex756&oldid=105080989

That might give you a clue as to the tack that Anthony was talking about.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Omidyar Network Commits $2 Million Grant to Wikimedia Foundation

[Gregory Kohs]

Omidyar Network Commits $2 Million Grant to Wikimedia Foundation


+++

Ah, yes... the other shoe drops.  This is similar to the time when Amazon
invested $10 million in Wikia, Inc., but they insisted on installing Jeffrey
Blackburn from Amazon (
http://www.muckety.com/Query?SearchResult=30740&SearchResult=97356&graph=MucketyMap?_r=2D)
onto the Wikia board of directors.  You don't want to throw $10
million at
something without having someone on the "inside" to pull a few strings.

Thus, we see why Halprin now sits on the WMF board.  It's to keep an eye on
the $2 million.  And all "transparently" announced on the very same day!
Bonus that Halprin also probably oversees the part of the $4 million that
Omidyar invested in Wikia, whose co-founder (Jimmy Wales) might be sitting
next to Halprin at the next board meeting, or whose OTHER co-founder (Angela
Beesley) might be found "advising" the WMF board from the position of chair
of the WMF Advisory Board.

If you're having trouble envisioning a Venn diagram of this arrangement, let
me try to help you.  Imagine a few grains of rice (Jimbo and the WMF
board).  Then imagine the color white (Halprin).  Imagine some tasty
flavored sauce (Beesley).  Then visualize a guy lining up the yummy rice on
his fork (Omidyar Network).

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

Re: [Foundation-l] New board members and officers

[Gregory Kohs]

Geni said:

" Omidyar Network? They were involved with a 4 million funding round for
wikia back in 2006 no?

http://web.archive.org/web/20060422054638/http://www.americanventuremagazine.com/news.php?newsid=941

Appointing yet another person with wikia links looks kinda dicey no?

-- 
geni "




Matt Halprin only joined the Omidyar Network in July 2008, long after the
Omidyar money was shuttled off to Wikia, Inc.
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/matt-halprin/4/791/490

So, it's doubtful that Matt Halprin had any close ties personally to having
made the decision to fund Wikia, Inc.; however, he is now a Partner at
Omidyar, charged with a team that "pursues investments in Social Media" (
http://www.omidyar.com/team/matt-halprin )... so, he's almost undoubtedly on
top of the Wikia return on investment, since Wikia is a Top 100 social media
website.  Being that we're all friends here, maybe Halprin could let us know
if Omidyar has yet recouped its capital outlay in Wikia?

Still, I have to agree with Geni -- it does indeed look very fishy to have a
new WMF board member who's a partner at a firm that invested some portion of
$4 million into the $14 million privately-held firm of the "Emeritus Chair"
of the WMF.  In fact, you'd be hard pressed to explain how this is just a
"coincidence", being that there were probably more than a thousand other
equally-qualified stars of social media who could have been selected, who
have not a single tie back to funding Wikia, Inc.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Raw data of 2009 Board election ballots

[Gregory Kohs]

Thomas Dalton:

If you said anything that could be libellous then that could be a
problem. Whoever did the publishing would be liable. That may be why
they want to edit it before publishing - to remove anything
potentially libellous, as a TV company would do.


It would be impossible for anything on the audio recording to be taken as
libel, as there were no written words.  Slanderous?  Possibly.

However, I was particularly careful to choose my words.  I am a believer in
the legal doctrine that "truth" is the best defense against a prosecution
for defamation.  The broadcaster in this case would be largely immune to
prosecution, anyway, as my words were presented as my own, and it would be
extremely difficult to present legally that my words reflected the opinion
of the broadcaster.

Thomas, weak as your argument may be, it does kind of underscore my point.
Slanderous speech "could be a problem" -- but how will we ever know, if no
concrete reason has ever been presented for the deliberate suppression of
the raw audio file, and refusal to turn it over to any of a number of
independent audio technicians who could do the job in 24 hours?

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

Re: [Foundation-l] New board members and officers

[Gregory Kohs]

2009/8/25 geni https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l>>:
>* Omidyar Network? They were involved with a 4 million funding round for
*>* wikia back in 2006 no?
*>*
*>* 
http://web.archive.org/web/20060422054638/http://www.americanventuremagazine.com/news.php?newsid=941
*>*
*>* Appointing yet another person with wikia links looks kinda dicey no?
*
*" Thomas Dalton*
thomas.dalton at gmail.com
*Tue Aug 25 17:48:53 UTC 2009*

I have to agree. I'm sure everyone involved is acting with the best of
intentions and that any conflicts of interest will be dealt with
appropriately, but it doesn't look good. It is really important to
consider the PR impact of decisions like this. "

This sounds rather familiar. Let's see... When was the last time that the
Wikimedia Foundation might have been caught red-handed, putting itself into
a situation that favored Wikia in a financial manner, using tax-advantaged
funds, in a way that was not entirely open to public scrutiny, but was then
poo-poohed as insignificant and trivial by those who trust implicitly that
Wikia and the Wikimedia Foundation are "entirely separate" and that there
couldn't POSSIBLY be any appearances of self-dealing?

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-January/049340.html

Oh, yeah, that's it.

How are you feeling about this, now, Mr. Dalton, given that the evidence
just seems to keep piling up?

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Raw data of 2009 Board election ballots

[Gregory Kohs]

" The data of the Wikivoices interviews were never lost. It was not given to
Gregory on his request. It will be either published publicly or not
published at all. This has been said before and it is now said again.
Thanks,
   GerardM "


Gerard, do you know the reason why the recording would be "not published at
all"?  What is the fear of posting the raw audio file?

What is being hidden?  Which person or persons are in possession of the raw
audio file?

I said a few things that brought the Foundation into a light of disrepute.
Is that the problem?  With no other data or logic to support any theory
here, I have to only assume that the Foundation is involved in this
suppression of the recording.  I do note that nobody OFFICIALLY from the
Foundation board or staff has publicly assured us that no board or staff
member has acted to suppress publication of Episode # 45.

At least when Jimmy Wales was accused by Danny Wool of some questionable
Muscovite receipts, Sue Gardner got on CNET video news to assure us that
"Jimmy has never done anything wrong."  We have no similar assurances
regarding Wikivoices Episode # 45.  All we have are the e-mails which I hold
that support a strong degree of fishy business going on behind the scenes.
This hasn't been said before, but I'll be happy to say it again, if
repetition will help it sink into any particularly thick skulls.

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

[Foundation-l] Raw data of 2009 Board election ballots

[Gregory Kohs]

I wonder what takes so long to upload a small data file?

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Board_elections/2009/Votes&oldid=1606753

Let's see... August 25 minus August 12 equals nearly two weeks of delay (and
subterfuge?)...

It only took three days to post the ballots in 2008:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Board_elections/2008/Votes/en&oldid=1062980

What's different about 2009?  I mean, other than the fact that the
Wikivoices interview tape #45 of the Board candidates was mysteriously
"lost", and that the WMF staff budget is about three times larger now than
it was then.  This must be the professionalism and efficiency we were
expecting from all of the added money being thrown at the Foundation.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] How much of Wikipedia is vandalized? 0.4% of Articles

[Gregory Kohs]

And here is where many of the flaws of the University of Minnesota study
were exposed:

http://chance.dartmouth.edu/chancewiki/index.php/Chance_News_31#The_Unbreakable_Wikipedia.3F

Their methodology of tracking the persistence of words was questionable, to
say the least.

And here was my favorite part:

*"We exclude anonymous editors from some analyses, because IPs are not
stable: multiple edits by the same human might be recorded under different
IPs, and multiple humans can share an IP.*"

So, in a study evaluating the "damaged views" within 34 trillion edits, they
excluded the 9 trillion edits by IP addresses?  If you're not laughing right
now, then you must be new to Wikipedia.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] How much of Wikipedia is vandalized? 0.4% of Articles

[Gregory Kohs]

Phil Nash wrote:

"Many editors undo and revert on the basis of felicity of language and
emphasis, and unless it becomes an issue is an epiphenomenon of "the
encyclopedia that anyone can edit". so I can't see how this is a good
example of anything in particular."

And, with point proven, I rest my case.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] How much of Wikipedia is vandalized? 0.4% of Articles

[Gregory Kohs]

Riddle me this...

Is the edit below vandalism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arch_Coal&diff=255482597&oldid=255480884

Did the edit take a page and make it worse?  Or, did it make the page a
"better available revision" than the version immediately prior to it?

Methinks the Wikipedia community has a long way to go in learning to
differentiate between a "better" encyclopedia and a "worse" encyclopedia
before we take the step to try to define vandalism.  Then, after we've done
all that, there might be some remaining value in trying to quantify
vandalism, as we've defined it.

Until then, for God's sake, Sue Gardner, do not gleefully run off
publicizing that only 0.4% of Wikipedia's articles are vandalized.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] How much of Wikipedia is vandalized? 0.4% of Articles

[Gregory Kohs]

Apologies to Nathan regarding the "Wikipedia Review" description.  The
analysis team was, indeed, recruited via Wikipedia Review; however, almost
all of the participants in the research have now departed or reduced their
participation in Wikipedia Review to such a degree, I don't personally
consider it to have been a "Wikipedia Review" effort at all.  I allowed my
personal opinions to interfere with my recollection of the facts, though,
and that's not kosher.  Again, I hope you'll accept my apology.

I still maintain, however, that any study of the accuracy of or the
vandalized nature of Wikipedia content will be far more reliable and
meaningful if human assessment is the underlying mechanism of analysis,
rather than a "bot" or "script" that will simply tally up things.  I think
that Rohde's design was inherently flawed, and I'm happy that Greg Maxwell
and I both immediately recognized the danger of running off and "reporting
the good news", as Sue Gardner was apparently ready to do immediately.

As I said, I feel that Rohde proceeded with research based on several highly
questionable assumptions, while the "100 Senators" research rather carefully
outlined a research plan that carried very few assumptions, other than that
you trust the analysts to intelligently recognize vandalism or not.  Nathan,
by praising Rohde's work and disparaging my own, you seem to be suggesting
that you would prefer to live inside a giant mountain comprised of sticks
and twigs, rather than in a small, pleasantly furbished 12' x 12' room.  I
just don't understand that line of thinking.  I'd rather have a small bit of
reliable data based on a stable premise, rather than a giant pile of data
based on an unstable premise.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] How much of Wikipedia is vandalized? 0.4% of Articles

[Gregory Kohs]

Nathan said:

"...but certainly its (sic) more informative than a Wikipedia Review
analysis of a relatively small group of articles in a specific topic area."

And you are certainly entitled to a flawed opinion based on incorrect
assumptions, such as ours being a "Wikipedia Review" analysis.  But, nice
try at a red herring argument.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] How much of Wikipedia is vandalized? 0.4% of Articles

[Gregory Kohs]

While the time and effort that went into Robert Rohde's analysis is
certainly extensive, the outcomes are based on so many flawed assumptions
about the nature of vandalism and vandalism reversion, publicize at one's
peril the key "finding" of a 0.4% vandalism rate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_McCain&diff=169808394&oldid=169720853
11 hours
Reverted with no tags.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maria_Cantwell&diff=prev&oldid=160400298
46 days
Reverted with note: "Undid revision 160400298 by 75.133.82.218"
By the way, there was a two-minute vandalism in the interim, so in many
cases, just because an analyst finds a "recent and short" incident, he or
she may be completely missing a longer-term incident.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ted_Stevens&diff=prev&oldid=170850508
There goes your "rvv" theory.  In this case, "rvv" was a flag for even more
preposterous vandalism.

The notion that these are lightly-watched or lightly-edited articles is a
bit difficult to swallow, since they are the biographical articles about
three United States senators.  These articles were analyzed by an
independent team of volunteers, and we found that the 100 senatorial
articles were in deliberate disrepair about 6.8% of the time, which would
vastly differ from Rohde's analysis.  Certainly, one could argue that
articles about political figures may be vandalized more often, but one might
also counter that argument with the assumption that "more eyes" ought to be
watching these articles and repairing them.  More detail here:

http://www.mywikibiz.com/Wikipedia_Vandalism_Study

Admittedly, there were some minor flaws with our study's methodology, too.
These are reviewed on the Discussion page.  But, as with Rohde's assessment,
if anything, we may have underrepresented the problem at 6.8%.

I remain unimpressed with Wikipedia's accuracy rate, and I am bewildered why
"flagged revisions" have not been implemented yet.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Missing audio of WMF Board candidates

[Gregory Kohs]

News flash!  I received a reply from Adam Cuerden, the audio editor charged
with the release of the WikiVoices # 45 session:

"I've asked around, and several people involved have made it clear that
it should only be released by official means, not privately. I'm
afraid that's the end of this discussion, as I cannot go against the
wishes of the other people involved in it to please you.

I'm afraid that ends discussion on this matter, as far as I'm
concerned. I see no moral way to go about what you're asking me to do."

I hope that some Foundation staff or board member will comment on what has
happened here.  Wikimedia Foundation server resources were used to
coordinate a discussion of issues by no less than eight candidates for the
Board of Trustees.  All of the invited candidates and at least one of the
co-hosts (Durova) spent two hours of their time in good faith to produce
this lively Q&A session.  Now, it is being withheld from our community and
the public at large, with no explanation.  People laughed when I suggested
that something fishy was going on when the audio wasn't posted within the
first week of taping.  People also chuckled when I noted that the other
co-host (Promethean) happened to have erased my Board candidacy statement
only a number of days prior to the WikiVoices taping.

What do people THINK of this?

I expect several replies that will poo-pooh and explain away this cover-up
with a few "they obviously did their best, but unfortunately they just
didn't get the job done" excuses.  I will ignore those, because they ignore
reality.  But I look forward to the comments of any who are still able to
think for themselves and might have some actual explanations for what is
going on here.  I suspect that at least one WMF staff or board member is
blocking the release of this audio, and the cover-up mandate is in place.
Call me a conspiracy theorist all you want.  I've shown evidence that the
suppression of the tape is a deliberate decision on the part of a group of
unnamed individuals.  What's your evidence otherwise?

Greg

On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Gregory Kohs  wrote:

> I have asked the User who is supposedly in possession of the raw audio file
> to explain what's happening, and he has bluntly replied that he is no longer
> interested in spending the "two days" that it would take to edit the
> two-hour audio feed.
>
> I then requested that he simply deliver the unedited electronic audio file
> to me, and I will be happy to post it.  That was 20 hours ago.  Still no
> reply.
>
> The previous public replies to my initial post here (that I am "ill
> informed that you are not aware how things are organised", or that my
> "complains (sic) about it are unreasonable and mistargeted", or that it's
> hard to "see what you expect the Foundation or the
> Election Committee to do about" it) are way off the mark.  My point really
> was that if the Wikimedia Foundation truly cared about an open, transparent,
> and responsibly-handled election, the Foundation STAFF (the folks paid money
> to run the organization effectively) would have been hosting this sort of
> dialogue/debate themselves, rather than breathing a sigh of relief that the
> junior-grade volunteers would take yet another responsibility off of their
> plate.  Clearly, there are more important things on their agenda, such
> as the monthly rent checks to Wikia, Inc. that need to be written!  The WMF
> staff can't be bothered with things like Board-level election
> communications.
>
> Greg
>
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Missing audio of WMF Board candidates

[Gregory Kohs]

I have asked the User who is supposedly in possession of the raw audio file
to explain what's happening, and he has bluntly replied that he is no longer
interested in spending the "two days" that it would take to edit the
two-hour audio feed.

I then requested that he simply deliver the unedited electronic audio file
to me, and I will be happy to post it.  That was 20 hours ago.  Still no
reply.

The previous public replies to my initial post here (that I am "ill informed
that you are not aware how things are organised", or that my "complains
(sic) about it are unreasonable and mistargeted", or that it's hard to "see
what you expect the Foundation or the
Election Committee to do about" it) are way off the mark.  My point really
was that if the Wikimedia Foundation truly cared about an open, transparent,
and responsibly-handled election, the Foundation STAFF (the folks paid money
to run the organization effectively) would have been hosting this sort of
dialogue/debate themselves, rather than breathing a sigh of relief that the
junior-grade volunteers would take yet another responsibility off of their
plate.  Clearly, there are more important things on their agenda, such
as the monthly rent checks to Wikia, Inc. that need to be written!  The WMF
staff can't be bothered with things like Board-level election
communications.

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

[Foundation-l] Missing audio of WMF Board candidates

[Gregory Kohs]

At some time into the WMF Board candidates campaigning season, the
Wikivoices project undertook a sort of "candidates debate", where a Skype
conference served as a central meeting point for at least eight of the
candidates to orally respond to questions posed them.  This debate
transpired about two hours of time, and I found it very informative of the
critical issues facing the Wikimedia Foundation.

I was a bit concerned with several things:

(1) That the role of "campaign debate" was filtered into one available time
slot -- if you were not able to participate, you had no voice.

(2) That the English Wikipedia service (and not Meta, or Foundation) was the
"proprietor" of the content.

(3) That the Foundation itself had no representative helping to coordinate
and assure professionalism in the volunteer execution of this effort.

On that last concern, my worry seems to have come true.  On July 26th, we
were promised that an audio file of the Skype cast would be posted soon, as
episode # 45:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikivoices&diff=next&oldid=304340380

On August 5th, I made a worried complaint that the audio still had not been
posted.  Through the close of the election period (August 10th), I
communicated via private e-mails about what had happened.  Now, August 17th,
we are even past congratulating the winners of this election (where 67% of
the available seats are represented by candidates who offer no changes over
the status quo -- huzzah!), and there is STILL NO AUDIO FILE POSTED.

Along with others sharing my view, I find this to be disgraceful.  It is an
insult to the participants in the debate, and it reflects on just how little
the Foundation actually cares about who gets seated on the Board, so long as
they are a community rubber-stamp of the editors who hold sway over the
English Wikipedia project, which is really most of what this represents.  I
apologize for sounding bitter, but the delay seems to have been in one audio
editor abdicating his responsibility and dumping it in the lap of an
unsuspecting back-up, then trying to "edit" the audio so that it was fair to
those who had had communications problems during taping.  I say, at some
point, it would have been far better to simply post the unedited audio, so
that voters still making decisions could have listened for themselves,
before it was too late.  As it stands, the audio is practically worthless
now, and the Foundation should be ashamed that they let this happen under
their noses, without so much as a public apology.

Good luck to the new Board member and the returned two Board members to
their warm seats.  Will you be making use of the familiar rubber stamps, or
will something actually be learned from this recent disgrace?

P.S.  Five days after the election results were announced, we are also still
waiting for the requested data feed of the anonymized votes:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2009/Votes

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

[Foundation-l] Board statement regarding biographies of living people

[Gregory Kohs]

The purpose of my question was to examine the carbon impact on our global
environment by holding this meeting in Berlin, which (by my estimation) is
quite a ways off from the point of "least cumulative distance" that could
have been achieved for at least the mandatory attendees.  All of that
additional jet fuel and hotel consumption (laundered sheets, poor recycling
standards, etc.) is something to consider if the polar ice melts and floods
San Francisco one day, thanks to CO2-accelerated warming.  A shorter-haul
Boeing 737 flight burns about 200 pounds of fuel per passenger.  I can only
imagine that a trans-continental flight, plus a trans-Atlantic leg to
Berlin, is likely burning at least 400 pounds of fuel per passenger.  Return
trip makes that 800 pounds of fuel.  I hope each of the San Francisco-based
attendees feel comfortable that their burning of 800 pounds of jet fuel
(about 114 gallons) in order to attend the conference in Berlin (a
conference that, as far as I can tell, had zero "dial-in" conferencing
options offered) was justified?

I get the impression that there is a corporate culture afoot at the
Wikimedia Foundation that stifles any attempts to optimize meetings and
conferences in ways that might be more economical and environmentally
friendly, with innovations such as Skype and video-teleconferencing.  My
sense is that "interesting" and "exotic" places are chosen instead... San
Francisco, the Netherlands, Berlin, Taipei, Alexandria (Egypt, not
Virginia), Buenos Aires, etc.  I suspect it's part of the corporate culture
to get the "backwater" taste of St. Petersburg (Florida, not Russia) out of
everyone's mouth, to select all of these far-flung, non-English-speaking
locales for a Board that consists mostly of North Americans who speak
English, and who are funded mostly by U.S. dollars.

I know that regarding a recent trade conference that was only 124 miles from
our headquarters, my Fortune 100 employer sent down an edict that only one
of the 3 people from our team of 14 personnel who were interested in going,
could actually attend.  Certainly, this was more of an economic decision
than a "green" decision, but frankly, the two are often hand-in-hand
outcomes.  Is the Wikimedia Foundation very "green" in its governance
practices?  I know that Wikia, Inc. touts its dedication to "Green", but
what about the WMF?

Here's a 100-gallon aquarium:
*http://tinyurl.com/100-gallon-tank*

Imagine it full of jet fuel, then setting a match to it, sucking oxygen out
of the air, and replacing it with carbon-laden molecules.  That's what each
of the North American board members did to enable travel to Berlin to hold
their meeting which seems to have exhausted most of the attendees.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Usability Study Results (Sneak Preview)

[Gregory Kohs]

Will the final report include a note about how "unwelcome" User:NawlinWiki
made the study participants feel when he indefinitely blocked their accounts
for "abusing" Wikipedia?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3AUsability_Tester_3
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Board statement regarding biographies of living people

[Gregory Kohs]

Am I on moderation?

On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Gregory Kohs  wrote:

> Says Michael Snow:
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees urges the global Wikimedia
> community to uphold and strengthen our commitment to high-quality,
> accurate information
>
> ++
>
> So, the "community" is urged to do this work at the request of the Board,
> but the
> Board itself is going to do virtually nothing (other than this collection
> of words
> that urges the community to work harder) to strengthen the commitment to
> high-quality, accurate information.
>
> How many Board members were in attendance in Berlin, and what was the mean
> travel distance of the Board attendees for this excursion?
>
> --
> Gregory Kohs
>
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Board statement regarding biographies of living people

[Gregory Kohs]

Says Michael Snow:

The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees urges the global Wikimedia
community to uphold and strengthen our commitment to high-quality,
accurate information

++

So, the "community" is urged to do this work at the request of the Board,
but the
Board itself is going to do virtually nothing (other than this collection of
words
that urges the community to work harder) to strengthen the commitment to
high-quality, accurate information.

How many Board members were in attendance in Berlin, and what was the mean
travel distance of the Board attendees for this excursion?

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

[Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results

[Gregory Kohs]

*Phil Nash* pn007a2145 at blueyonder.co.uk said:

++
Except of course, that such a survey would arguably not have "preconceived
desires". So much for empiricism!
++

I offered to give some pro bono guidance on overcoming (to a degree)
self-selection bias, even among an anonymity-heightened population.  I
didn't say that I would be involved in the actual design and execution of
the survey.  So much for civility!

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

[Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results

[Gregory Kohs]

*phoebe ayers* phoebe.wiki at gmail.com writes:

++
I'm not sure there's any way to get a non-self-selected survey about anything
on the projects due to anonymity concerns.
++

I'm a 17-year veteran of implementing professional quantitative survey
research.  Self-selection bias is a very complicated study, but there are
some fairly accessible and intuitive techniques one may implement to create
a thoughtful survey of a target population which minimizes self-selection
bias concerns.  This allows the stakeholders to focus on the challenge of
deriving meaning from the response data rather than feeling nausea over the
sampling methodology.

I am willing to give, pro bono, 45 minutes of telephone consulting time to
any Wikimedia Foundation staff member who is attached to this particular
survey project, on the condition that they will be open and attentive to the
possibility that a properly-designed and fairly-executed survey may not
return results that foster their preconceived desires to railroad through a
license migration (which, unfortunately, is my key takeaway from observing
this discussion).

-- 
Gregory Kohs
Cell: 302.463.1354
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Report a problem link

[Gregory Kohs]

*Angela* beesley at gmail.com said:

+

Problem Reports are used quite successfully on Wikia.

+

Yes, I used the convenient Wikia links to report several problems with Green
Wikia articles plagiarizing copyrighted content (verbatim) from other
environmental websites across the Internet.  I then tried to assist Wikia by
deleting or earmarking those pages that were in violation.  Green Wikia's
very own "Angies" then "quite successfully" blocked my Wikia user account
for one year, for "‎Intimidating behaviour/harassment".  I look forward to
helping Wikia find more copyright violations when my block expires later in
September 2009.

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

[Foundation-l] The Ruth and Frank Stanton Fund

[Gregory Kohs]

Thomas Dalton says:
Given that the WMF will have had substantial communications with them
for some time before getting the money, I think it's highly unlikely
WMF would get their name wrong. What gives you the idea that the
Stanton Foundation is a small Michigan non-profit?

++

For these reasons:
http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/PubApps/showVals.php?ft=bmf&ein=383448185
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2008/383/448/2008-383448185-04683dae-F.pdf

I consider a foundation with about $400K in holdings a "small" one.

I'm waiting to hear back from Holtz Rubenstein Reminick (preparers of
the Form 990 for the Ruth and Frank Stanton Fund), but I'll bet they
have no affiliation with any "Stanton Foundation".  I'm predicting
this is a repeated error of the "shorthand" nature, being made by both
the press and even benefactors.  Nothing egregious, but it's just that
because there *is* another real "Stanton Foundation", this is
confusing.  You know, "the sum of human knowledge" type of stuff that
is important to me.

Greg

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

[Foundation-l] The Ruth and Frank Stanton Fund

[Gregory Kohs]

Over here
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Benefactors/De#Major_benefactors_.28.2450.2C000_or_more.29

...the Wikimedia Foundation gives credit to "the Stanton Foundation".
It's my learning that "the Stanton Foundation" is a small non-profit
located in Jackon, Michigan.  However, "The Ruth and Frank Stanton
Fund" is a large foundation (about $28 million in holdings, in 2007)
that has made the high-profile donations in the past that are
associated with the legacy of CBS head, Frank Stanton.

There are other places on the web where it seems that the Ruth and
Frank Stanton Fund has been described as "the Stanton Foundation",
namely surrounding their $3 million donation to a Boston animal
shelter.  Does anybody have a good explanation for what is happening
here?  Is the "Fund" being miscalled as a "Foundation", and it's just
a simple mistake?  Or, has the Ruth and Frank Stanton Fund split off
or reorganized at some point since their 2007 filing of the Form 990,
as the "Stanton Foundation"?

-- 
Gregory Kohs

___
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

[Gregory Kohs]

Geoffrey Plourde said:

"Why should a taco stand use a dry cleaning shop when it can get
another taco shop?"

Gregory Kohs responds:

I might be able to give a better answer if you could tell us whether
it is Taco Stand A or it is Taco Stand B in your analogy that is the
non-profit charity, funded with tax-deductible dollars, whose donors
probably fully expected that their money would NOT be used to pay rent
to the other, decidedly *for-profit* taco stand.

Geoffrey Plourde also said (twice) that he disagrees with my assertion
of nepotism.

Gregory Kohs responds:

I have never said that this situation is nepotism, and in fact I
corrected someone else that it was *not* nepotism.  I am of the
understanding that none of the members of the WMF Board or staff are
related by blood or marriage to any of the owners or staff of Wikia,
Inc.  I did say (either here or elsewhere) that at one time 60% of the
WMF Board were all employed by Wikia, Inc., but that's not a family
thing, as far as I know.

Let me just ask here... are any of the participants on this list
expert in the legal statutes that surround the issue of
"self-dealing"?  For example, has anyone who has commented thus far
actually read:  26 U.S.C.A. § 4941 (1969)?

Self-dealing includes sale or exchange, or leasing, of property
between a private foundation and a disqualified person; and a
disqualified person may be a foundation manager or an owner of more
than 20 percent of either (i) the total combined voting power of a
corporation, or (ii) the profits interest of a partnership.  I don't
know whether Jimmy Wales retains 20% of the voting power or profits
interest of Wikia, Inc., and I am not asking that, but he could
certainly be considered a foundation manager, no?

Please, in your rush to judgment about the character of my "attacks"
here, take some time to actually explore and learn about United States
law.  The Foundation could be in serious trouble here, and you're
spending an awful lot of energy railing against the messenger.

Greg

___
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

[Gregory Kohs]

> "Wikia has been doing intensive work on the usability front and making
> the code available to public, so I look forward to collaborating with
> the Wikia technical and product teams to exchange ideas and learn from
> their work."
>
> There is a certain amount of logic in working with one of the biggest
> non-WMF MediaWiki users on this project.

Bingo.

-- brion



It would appear that nobody is concerned about giving the landlord a
leg up on ITS for-profit competitors by supplying them in particular
with a ready feed of intellectual capital in the form of the friendly
Stanton-funded developers?  Lucky for Wikia, Inc.!  I mean, assume
good faith all you want, but if I were a biotech firm trying to
develop a synthetic blood plasma, boy would I love to have the Red
Cross' top research scientists parked in my meeting rooms every day.
And PAYING me for the privilege, to boot?  That's just gravy.

It sounds to me that the (reasonable) criteria that ranked proximity
to WMF and cognate activities as high as, or higher than, monthly
rental rate rather "wired" this contract to Wikia, Inc. from the
get-go.  Kudos for putting on the dutiful show of obtaining 12
separate bids, but the outside world is seeing this for what it is --
a show of equanimity to gloss over a pre-determined outcome.

As for Master Bimmler's concerns about the "fear" imposed by mention
of the media watching, it's only natural for someone who has recently
and historically been censored for asking pertinent questions, to want
some sort of "back up" to assure him he is not living in a digital
version of a Kafkaesque nightmare. If your team would stop censoring
"WP:BADTHOUGHTS", maybe there wouldn't be such a rush to the media?

Gregory Kohs

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

[Foundation-l] Wikia leasing office space to WMF

[Gregory Kohs]

I was very surprised to read on the Wikimedia blog a post from Naoko Komura,
the WMF program manager heading up the Wikipedia Usability Initiative,
funded by the Stanton Foundation.

Post:
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/01/21/a-note-on-the-wikipedia-usability-initiative/

To quote Komura,

"On the space front, we had outgrown our current space in the South of
Market area of San Francisco, and we were in search of space specifically
for this project. I am happy to announce that Wikia has agreed to sublease
two of their conference rooms to the Wikimedia Foundation for the project
duration (Jan'09-Mar'10). Daniel [Phelps] collected a dozen bids for the
space in SOMA, and Wikia matched the best offer."

I submitted a comment to the blog, but over seven hours later, it is still
not published, and there is a history of my questions to that blog being
ignored or censored.  So, I'm going to ask here, and I'll also advise the
list moderators that this message is being copied to members of the press.

Could we have more detail, please, on the note that "Wikia matched the best
offer"?  Were the other ten higher bidders also given the opportunity to
match the best offer?  Why was Wikia chosen on a "second and adjusted offer"
basis, rather than choosing the good-faith firm that submitted the lowest
offer initially?  Was the first low bidder given the chance to further
discount their rate?  If so, what was their response?  If not, why not?

I have to agree with Steven Walling's comment on the blog.  He said, "I find
the idea of the Foundation working that closely with Wikia, literally and
figuratively, discomforting. We already have enough people confused about
the difference between the two organizations, and to be honest, this feels
like nepotism."

Actually, it's not nepotism.  And, there are no uniform laws regarding
nepotism.  It's potentially worse.  Self-dealing, which is what this really
smacks of, is covered in case law, judicial opinions, and some statutes.

I have been assured in countless places that "Wikia and the Wikimedia
Foundation are complete separate organizations" and that there were "no
business relationships" between the members of a past WMF Board that was 60%
comprised of Wikia employees/owners. Considering the past Wikia/Wikipedia
fiasco of Ryan "Essjay" Jordan, I would have thought the WMF would be
hyper-sensitive to working in concert yet again with their neighbor down the
street.

In summary:

We know Wikia was recently laying off workers in the economic downturn.
Presumably, Wikia now has excess office space per employee.  WMF gets a
grant, presumably funded by tax-deductible dollars.  Expending that grant on
office space is served up to an ostensibly "open" and "fair" competitive
search among 12 candidate landlords.  A lowest bid is received.  However, a
bidder who happens to have strong personnel ties to the Board of WMF and the
Advisory Board of WMF, is given the opportunity to match the lowest bid,
which they do, since they have empty office space doing them no good empty.

Net result:  Tax-advantaged dollars will be transferred to a for-profit
corporation with an "inside track" to the decision-making body of the
non-profit organization.

It strikes me as fishy, to use a gentle word.

-- 
Gregory Kohs
Cell: 302.463.1354
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l