Re: [Foundation-l] Expertise and Wikipedia redux
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....)
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....)
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
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
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/http://toolserver.org/%7Emzmcbride/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
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
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)
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_Experimentscurid=92825diff=548143oldid=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
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
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
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
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
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
Who is the chair of the Advisory Board at this time? http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?diff=45392oldid=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)
(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?
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
Re: [Foundation-l] advertising craigslist
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
[Foundation-l] Open Wiki Blog Planet
David Gerard says: + 2009/12/15 Steven Walling steven.walling at gmail.com 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] Status of 2009 Fundraiser Survey
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
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 thekoh...@gmail.com 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/Surveydiff=1724334oldid=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
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/Surveydiff=1724334oldid=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] Minors and sexual explicit stuff
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
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
Re: [Foundation-l] Minors and sexual explicit stuff
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] Minors and sexual explicit stuff
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] Dumb survey about Commons
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
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
David Gerard said: ++ 2009/8/13 David Goodman dgoodmanny at gmail.com: 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 renatawiki at gmail.com: 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
[Foundation-l] Charity Navigator rates WMF
Greetings. The Charity Navigator site has evaluated and rated the Wikimedia Foundation: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summaryorgid=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.summaryorgid=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
[Foundation-l] Statistical research on Wikipedia (Godwin inspired)
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] Fundraising Promotion and Job Opening
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] Security holes in Mediawiki
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
Re: [Foundation-l] Expert board members - a suggestion
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=ensafe=offq=%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
Re: [Foundation-l] Expert board members - a suggestion
Andrew Whitworth opined: ++ On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Gregory Kohs thekohser at gmail.com 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=ensafe=offq=%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
[Foundation-l] Moderation needed?
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
[Foundation-l] The $1.7 million question
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] Becoming unmoderated
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?
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
[Foundation-l] WMF seeking to sub-lease office space?
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
Re: [Foundation-l] WMF seeking to sub-lease office space?
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
Re: [Foundation-l] WMF seeking to sub-lease office space?
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
[Foundation-l] Akahele: Omidyar venturing out
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
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] Omidyar Network Commits $2 Million Grant to Wikimedia Foundation
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] Raw data of 2009 Board election ballots
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
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] Expert board members - a suggestion
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
[Foundation-l] Raw data of 2009 Board election ballots
I wonder what takes so long to upload a small data file? http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Board_elections/2009/Votesoldid=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/enoldid=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] Raw data of 2009 Board election ballots
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
Re: [Foundation-l] Raw data of 2009 Board election ballots
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
2009/8/25 geni geniice at gmail.com 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] Omidyar Network Commits $2 Million Grant to Wikimedia Foundation
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=30740SearchResult=97356graph=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] Omidyar Network Commits $2 Million Grant to Wikimedia Foundation
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:Alex756oldid=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
*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] How much of Wikipedia is vandalized? 0.4% of Articles
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_McCaindiff=169808394oldid=169720853 11 hours Reverted with no tags. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maria_Cantwelldiff=prevoldid=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_Stevensdiff=prevoldid=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] How much of Wikipedia is vandalized? 0.4% of Articles
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
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
Riddle me this... Is the edit below vandalism? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arch_Coaldiff=255482597oldid=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
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
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] Missing audio of WMF Board candidates
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 QA 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 thekoh...@gmail.com 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
[Foundation-l] Missing audio of WMF Board candidates
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:Wikivoicesdiff=nextoldid=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
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)
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:Logpage=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
Am I on moderation? On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Gregory Kohs thekoh...@gmail.com 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
[Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
*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] The Ruth and Frank Stanton Fund
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
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
[Foundation-l] Wikia leasing office space to WMF
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
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikia leasing office space to WMF
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
