Re: [Wikimedia-l] Ethics of launching Wikidata, vs. ethics of WMF plans for Wikidata

[David Goodman]

People keep mentioning VIAF in the context. VIAF is a federated service,
using the content of its various repositories--and is therefore no more
accurate than they are. For example, a major component in VIAF is the
Library of Congress Authority File. That file has always used author or
publisher statements as the evidence for birth dates without further
verification; in recent years, it has been also using information from WP
articles.  (I suppose that's an improvement--we at least occasionally look
beyond what the person says about himself.)

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 7:38 AM, Liam Wyatt  wrote:

> On 26 January 2016 at 11:24, Magnus Manske 
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 7:33 AM Pete Forsyth 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > (Note: I'm creating a new thread which references several old ones; in
> > the
> > > most recent, "Profile of Magnus Manske," the conversation has drifted
> > back
> > > to Wikidata, so that subject line is no longer applicable.)
> > >
> > > Andreas Kolbe has argued in multiple threads that Wikidata is
> > fundamentally
> > > problematic, on the basis that it does not require citations. (Please
> > > correct me if I am mistaken about this core premise.)
> >
> >
> > Every statement on Wikidata /should/ be referenced, unless the statement
> > itself points to a reference (e.g. VIAF, images). However, at the moment,
> > this is not a requirement, as Wikidata is still in a steep growth phase.
> > Over the last few years, many statements were added by bots, which can
> > process e.g. Wikipedia, but would be hard pressed to find the original
> > reference for a statement.
>
>
> To extend Magnus' point...
> This is also the case on Wikipedia. Every Wikipedia sentence /should/ be
> verified to a reliable source, and those without footnotes can be removed.
> But, it is not a /requirement/ that every statement be verified. In short -
> 'verifiable not verified' is the minimum standard for inclusion of a
> sentence in Wikipedia. The ratio of footnotes-to-sentences in Wikipedia
> articles is on average probably much lower than the ratio of
> references-to-statements in Wikidata. It's just that we have more easily
> available /quantitative/ statistics for Wikidata that we do for Wikipedia,
> which makes it easy for Wikidata-critics to point to the number of
> un-referenced statements in Wikidata as a simple measure of quality, even
> though many of them DO meet the "verifiable, even if not yet verified"
> minimum standard that we accept for "stubs" on Wikipedia.
>
> For example: even in a Feature Article Wikipedia biography, I've never seen
> a footnote /specifically/ for the fact that the subject is "a human". That
> reference is implied by other footnotes - citing for the birthdate, or
> occupation for example. By comparison, in Wikidata, some people seem to be
> a feeling that statements like "instance of -> human", "gender-> male" need
> to be given a specific reference before they can be considered reliable.
> This is even when there are other statements in the same Wikidata item that
> reference biography-authority control numbers (e.g. VIAF).
>
> Yes, ideally, every statement could be given a reference in Wikidata, but
> ideally so should every sentence in Wikipedia. In reality we do accept
> "stub" Wikipedia articles that have 5 sentences and 1 Reliable Source
> footnote. Furthermore, we also do also have Wikidata properties that are,
> in effect, "self verifying": like the "VIAF identifier" property - which
> links to that authority control database, or the "image" property - which
> links directly to a file on Commons. So, simply counting the number of
> statements vs. the number of references in those statements on Wikidata and
> concluding that Wikidata is therefore inherently unreliable is both
> simplistic and quite misleading.
>
> -Liam
>
> wittylama.com
> Peace, love & metadata
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
David Goodman

DGG at the enWP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community Engagement office hour

[Anthony Cole]

Thank you, James.

Anthony Cole


On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 10:33 AM, James Alexander 
wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 6:27 PM, Anthony Cole  wrote:
>
> > When one's available, would someone please post a link to the transcript?
> >
> > Anthony Cole
>
>
> Sure, Karen posted it on meta shortly after:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours/Office_hours_2016-02-12
>
>
> James Alexander
> Manager
> Trust & Safety
> Wikimedia Foundation
> (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Anthony Cole]

Anne, we're talking about almost the same thing, but not exactly. I say
"advised" you say "consulted". "Consulted" implies soliciting or expecting
some kind of response or engagement - probably
approval/disapproval/critique/input. "Advised" means they got the memo. I
think "advised" is enough, and if the board wants more engagement, they can
initiate it - presuming the notification is clear and comprehensive, of
course.

Anthony Cole


On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Risker  wrote:

> Well, I'm not sure about that, Anthony.  By "consulted", I would mean
> something to the effect of "We're looking at applying to XX for a grant of
> $YYY to do ZZZ" and asking the Board if they would be likely to agree to
> accept such a grant if the application is successful.  The grant
> application, evaluation and approval process is costly in both time and
> resources, and for both the applicant and the grantmaker.  Being informed
> that a grant has been approved sounds more like a fait accompli situation
> for the Board - they look petty and ungrateful if they say no, even if they
> don't think it was a reasonable grant application.  In this case, we're
> only dealing with $250,000.  What if this was $1 million?  $10 million?
>
> I think it is healthier for everyone if the Board is properly consulted
> before the application is submitted.  (And again, I note that we don't know
> how much was actually requested in this case, only what was granted.)
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On 12 February 2016 at 21:23, Anthony Cole  wrote:
>
> > Anne, regarding:
> >
> > "Since the Board must approve acceptance of any donations over $100,000
> > USD, it seems to be obvious that they should be consulted and possibly
> > should actively approve any grant applications where the dollar value
> > sought is higher than that amount."
> >
> > I'm not sure that the board should be *consulted* ahead of such
> > applications' or should prior-approve all such applications. That seems a
> > bit like micromanagement. But it makes sense to me for the board to be
> > *advised
> > *of such applications and when they're being actively contemplated or
> > prepared.
> >
> > Anthony Cole
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Risker  wrote:
> >
> > > I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way, Gerard. I personally would
> like
> > > to feel more assured that the WMF is looking into the longer future and
> > > actively plannning for the day that donations no longer support a large
> > > staff doing lots of things.
> > >
> > > I am concerned today that the team specifically tasked to work closely
> > with
> > > so many elements of the community has lost 7% of its staff, and 30% of
> > its
> > > leaders, in a single week. This should be a concern in any
> organization.
> > >
> > > With respect to the Knight grant - I know that many times grant
> > > applications are made for considerably more than is given, and I am
> > > interested to know how much the WMF requested in the first place.  I
> > would
> > > also like to know whether or not the Board was formally advised of the
> > > request before it was submitted.  Since the Board must approve
> acceptance
> > > of any donations over $100,000 USD, it seems to be obvious that they
> > should
> > > be consulted and possibly should actively approve any grant
> applications
> > > where the dollar value sought is higher than that amount.  I don't
> > believe
> > > the current policies require advance approval or even advance
> > notification,
> > > though.
> > >
> > > Risker/Anne
> > >
> > > On 12 February 2016 at 03:54, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > I am not complaining. I point out that all this huha does not get us
> > > > anywhere. I am not afraid to give an opinion and I am not afraid to
> be
> > a
> > > > contrarian when I think it makes sense. Yes, things happened that
> were
> > > not
> > > > beautiful. They are not what upset me. What upsets me is that people
> > like
> > > > Siko and Anna are leaving. Because they are part of "my" Wikimedia
> > > > Foundation. What upsets me is that I routinely use Magnus's tool and
> > > > process hundreds of thousands of records and am to understand that
> > > official
> > > > query is stunted and does not allow for this "because it was not in
> the
> > > > design" and it is then pointed out that it takes money to solve
> this...
> > > >
> > > > My point is that baying for blood is not what helps us forward. What
> I
> > do
> > > > know is that when sheer negativity is not coupled with an ability to
> > stop
> > > > and move forward, we will get in a downward spiral. I fault Pine for
> > not
> > > > being able to stop. What I wish for is for people like Anna and Siko
> > and
> > > > money for our environment and not for an endowment.
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >   GerardM
> > > >
> > > > On 12 February 2016 at 09:35, Michel Vuijlsteke 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Gerard,
> > > > >
> > > > > I was waiting for t

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Ethics of launching Wikidata, vs. ethics of WMF plans for Wikidata

[Cristian Consonni]

Hi Andreas,

2016-01-26 13:17 GMT+01:00 Andreas Kolbe :
> In my opinion, Wikidata's CC-0 licence undermines that, because it allows
> re-users to cut the chain between the end user and the data's original
> source.

If I understand, you are concerned about verifiability of information
in Wikidata. What is completely unclear to me is why you are mixing
verifiability and copyright or, in other words, why you think that you
can solve the problem of verifiability with copyright.

TL;DR
Licenses are for copyright, not verifiability. Using a different
license will not solve your verifiability problems.

# Is CC-BY for Wikidata a good idea?

CC-0 or CC-BY (or any license) are based on copyright law. Broadly
speaking (but IANAL), "facts" are not copyrightable because they lack
originality which is one of the conditions required by copyright law.
In this sense, no single statement that you find on Wikidata (e.g.
Barack Obama was born on 4 August 1961) is copyrightable.

For collections of facts (i.e. datasets) the situation is much less
clear and it is not easy to decide if collection of data/facts are
copyrightable at all. The doctrine of the "Sweat of the Brow" [1a][1b]
indeed the originality requirement is relaxed and the fact that "skill
and labour" was put in creating a collection of data is sufficient to
give rise to copyright. This view has been recently rejected in some
court cases by the European Court of Justice (see Football Dataco &
others v. Yahoo UK ! [2a][2b]) ruling that it is not sufficient to say
that putting together a collection of facts required some sort of
effort (even quantifiable in monetary terms) to give rise to
copyright. In Football Dataco v. Yahoo the dataset consisted in sports
event results, but the same applies also to other contexts such as the
digitization of (public domain) photographs or OCR of (public domain)
texts.

As a Wikimedian, I am more than eager to support the idea that scanned
versions of PD photos and texts should remain in the public domain. I
do not want to invoke this kind of principle to be able to claim
copyright on the Wikidata dataset so to be able to apply the CC-BY
license. This is also the position of other projects like Project
Gutenberg [3].

On the other hand, in many jurisdictions the moral rights [4]
associated with any work, e. g. among other the right of having the
paternity of a work attributed, are perpetual and can not be
transferred or waived. In fact the CC-0 legal code says: "A Work made
available under CC0 may be protected by copyright and related or
neighboring rights includ[ing]: moral rights retained by the original
author(s) and/or performer(s); database rights; [...]".

So the problem of which is the justification for having Wikidata
released under CC-BY remains.

# Licenses and verifiability

Besides the problem above, even if we could use CC-BY and make use of
"Sui Generis Database Rights" (see section 4 of CC-BY legal code [5])
I am not sure your verifiability problem would be solved. CC-BY
requires the reuser to provide "[...] attribution, in any reasonable
manner requested by the Licensor".

This means that I could build a page replicating (part of) Wikidata
data, maybe mix them with other sources and the add a link to the
bottom of the saying "Data from Wikidata (c) Wikidata contributors
CC-BY (+link to the item and item history for author names); source A;
source B; ...".

This would completely satisfy the attribution requirement but do
little to solve the verifiability problem because, basically, you can
not use copyright to force anybody to use a particular design of their
website and/or database and maintain the "verifiability chain" for
each statement.

To conclude, the verifiability problem is very important for all the
projects, but I am very skeptic to the idea that  copyright licenses
are the means to solve it

C

[1a] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow
[1b] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Sweat_of_the_Brow
[2a] http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?&num=C-604/10
[2b] 
http://kluwercopyrightblog.com/2012/03/01/football-dataco-skill-and-labour-is-dead/
[3] https://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg:No_Sweat_of_the_Brow_Copyright
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights
[5] https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Jane Darnell]

Thanks for this breakdown of events/intentions/grant request. I can't help
wondering whether this grant will produce anything at all that we can use.
As I recall we talked a lot about how bad search was in general on
Wikipedia projects, and the example used to demonstrate how poor this was,
was a comparison test. Gerard mentioned how badly Wikimedia Commons
responds to the search term "horse" as compared to Google's interpretation
of "horse". I believe the conclusion was that we needed to integrate Google
search into Wikipedia, not try to compete with Google at their game.
Meanwhile, with Wikidata, we are very slowly filling the "depicts" property
with "horse"  for artwork items of horses, but it will take years probably
before all images on Commons with horses in them have found their way to
Wikidata, much less get tagged with a depicts property! Looking at "horse"
in reasonator does indicate some progress, however, note that not all
images served up by Reasonator actually show a horse:
https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?q=Q726&lang=en

Why should we try to beat Google at search? These days, if I am looking for
an image of a horse on Wikimedia Commons, I dump this into Google: "
site.commons.wikimedia.org horse" and then I click on images. This is the
most effective way for me to find images on commons that I know are there
(inlcuding ones I uploaded myself).

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Liam Wyatt  wrote:

> This Grant document for a “Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia” is
> *specifically and overtly stating* that its purpose is to start work
> on an search engine as a rival for Google/Yahoo. That is the end goal
> of the project. Near near the bottom of page 10 it summarises the
> whole project as:
>
> "knowledge Engine by Wikipedia will be the internet's first
> transparent search engine, and the first one originated by the
> Wikimedia Foundation". It will, "democratize the discovery of media,
> news and information – it will make the Internet's most relevant
> information more accessible and openly curated, and it will create an
> open data engine that's completely free of commercial interests.
> Today, commercial search engines dominate search engine use of the
> internet...". A separate summary on page 2 states, "The project will
> pave the way for non-commercial information to be found and utilised
> by internet users".
>
> At the bottom of page 13, the primary risk identified is "interference
> by Google, Yahoo or another big commercial search engine could
> suddenly devote resources to a similar project". As SarahSV pointed
> out above, If the "Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia" is only about
> improving the inter-connectedness of the Wikimedia sister projects by
> improving how internal systems work - which no one is disputing is a
> very useful goal - then google/yahoo releasing a new search engine
> product would not be counted as the project's "biggest challenge".
>
> - "Non commercial" -
>
> The document itself refers to "non commercial" several times, and
> seems to be using the term loosely. Nevertheless, it seems clear to me
> that any reasonable person who is not deeply-immersed in
> copyright-debates about the definition of "free" would understand the
> words "non-commercial" in the context of *this document* to mean that
> the search engine is *operated* non-commercially. Now, I do
> acknowledge that a grant-request is by definition a “sales pitch” and
> you have to write your request using the terminology and focus areas
> of the grant-giver. However, it is my understanding that Lila
> specifically wanted to build this - a competitor to Google - and that
> this is most clearly expressed in the summary on page 10. It describes
> the 6 principles through which the “Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia”
> will "upend the commercial structure [of search engines]". These are
> Public Curation, Transparency, Open Data, Privacy, No Advertising and
> 'Internalisation'. Nothing in this document talks about ways to limit
> the *content* of the search engine to only "non-commercial" stuff (and
> I if it did, then we would be talking about this:
> https://search.creativecommons.org/ ).
>
> - Lack of Strategy -
>
> Now, maybe an open-source search engine would be a good thing for the
> WMF to create! But that would be a major strategic decision. It would
> be, in effect, a new sister project to sit alongside (above?)
> Wikipedia, Commons, Wikidata etc. However, this concept appears
> *nowhere* in the current strategy consultation documents on Meta. As I
> wrote on my blog last week: "Of 18 different approaches identified in
> the...consultation process only one of them seems directly related to
> [search]: 'Explore ways to scale machine-generated, machine-verified
> and machine-assisted content'. It is also literally the last of the 18
> topics listed".
> http://wittylama.com/2016/01/30/strategy-controversy-part-2/
>
> It seems to me extremely damaging for the relationship with the Knight
> Foundation if

[Wikimedia-l] Siko's message, and the importance of shared values

[Pete Forsyth]

All:

As a rule, I don't comment on staff arrivals and departures on this list,
even though I often (as in this case) greatly regret seeing talented people
leave the Wikimedia Foundation.

But Siko Bouterse's departure is different.

Siko, in her parting message, used words that are unmistakably candid. We
haven't yet discussed them, and I think we should. Her message is a strong
departure from the kind of announcement that is typically crafted to
present a clean image, giving both the organization and the individual
space a fresh start for whatever comes next. But Siko's words are clearly
her own, and allow us to peek behind the curtain of the WMF, and
increasingly opaque organization.

Most of all, these words stand out:

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 5:24 PM, Siko Bouterse 
wrote:

> Transparency, integrity, community and free knowledge remain
> deeply important to me, and I believe I will be better placed to represent
> those values in a volunteer capacity at this time.
>

These are words no organization would endorse in a carefully planned joint
message. I have no doubt that Siko speaks to us here with her own words,
without edits from WMF management. This is a rare step; I believe it speaks
to Siko's courage and dedication (qualities I have never doubted in her),
and it offers us a rare and important insight into the WMF's increasingly
opaque internal workings.

I am sure Siko chose all her words carefully, and I encourage anyone who
hasn't to read and consider her message carefully.[1] But for now, I'll
limit my comments to the sentence quoted above -- and specifically, the
second of the four values Siko chose to identify.

Integrity must be a core value for any organization. Any effort of multiple
people to work toward a common goal must protect integrity as a baseline
value. It is so central and obvious, in my view, that we Wikimedians have
managed to neglect adding it to the central expressions of our values we
have produced over the years.[2] Integrity is the air we breathe as we work
together -- easy to forget as we focus on values more tangible, more unique
to our movement. But without a basic belief in the integrity in our
immediate colleagues and the system we work in, working effectively toward
a common goal becomes a futile enterprise.

Speaking for myself, the integrity of my various colleagues throughout the
wiki movement -- from the first people I met at Free Geek[3] (where I
encountered my first wiki) and Wikipedia -- is at the core of the
inspiration and the delight that have driven my career and much of my
personal and volunteer activity in the last 15 years. If I were to lose
faith in the central integrity of an organization, I would not be able to
continue working there. I have left many jobs over the years (including at
WMF), for many reasons, not always my own. I often felt strongly at those
moments that my employer was getting something important wrong. But I can't
think of a single instance where I would have made a considered and public
assertion that my employer and I differed over basic integrity. I have had
big and often public disagreements over the years with WMF executives like
Sue Gardner, Erik Moeller, and Zack Exley, and the committee that hired the
current Executive Director; but though I have often questioned or objected
to their decisions, the integrity of these individuals is clear and
obvious, and even at the most contentious moments I have at times
reasserted my respect for their integrity.

So when somebody with Siko's track record (and, dare I say, integrity)
identifies integrity as a key issue in her decision to leave, we should
take notice. There is a lot going on these days; but this message and
event, I believe, can help us rise above the trees for a moment and survey
the forest. If Siko feels that she can represent her values better as a
volunteer -- without a full time paycheck, without the resources and staff
at the disposal of a senior manager at WMF, without a job title and
business card that command respect and enthusiasm across the entire planet
-- that is a bold and important statement indeed.

We should be paying close intention, and if we find ourselves agreeing that
the basic value of integrity is lacking in the WMF, we should seek and find
ways to decisively solve that problem. This goes, I think, for everyone who
cares about the future of Wikimedia, regardless of whether you are a
volunteer, a donor, a staff member, or a board member.


> Much love,
> Siko
>

And much love to you, Siko. You have done excellent work in a variety of
places -- and I'm sure I'm only aware of a small fraction of it. Thank you
especially for the poise and focus you have shown just now, in providing
useful information to the Wikimedia movement even as you leave your formal
role at WMF. I look forward to finding you, perhaps in better spirits as
your big decision recedes into the past, on the wikis.

Happy editing,
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

[1]
https://lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedians of Republic of Srpska: Annual report 2015

[WМ RepublikaSrpska]

Dear Wikimedians,

On behalf of the Wikimedians of Republic of Srpska User Group I am happy to
inform you that our Annual report 2015 is on Meta.


   - English version
   

(published)
   - Serbian version
   

(published)


For those who do not know, Wikimedians of Republic of Srpska
 are
group of users and editors of Wikimedia projects inside Republic of Srpska
. Community is officially
recognized on 6th October 2015 and this report is covers the period from
Jan. to Dec. 2015.

Please share this e-mail to the necessary mailing lists, I am not sure
where else we have to post it.

Regards,

Bojana Podgorica

*Замислите свет у коме свака особа на планети има слободан приступ
целокупном људском знању. То је оно на чему ми радимо.*
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Another goodbye

[Florence Devouard]

Le 12/02/16 02:24, Siko Bouterse a écrit :

Dear friends and colleagues,

I’ve had the amazing privilege of serving this movement in a staff capacity
for the past 4 ½ years, but I’ve now decided to move on from my role at the
Wikimedia Foundation.

Transparency, integrity, community and free knowledge remain deeply
important to me, and I believe I will be better placed to represent those
values in a volunteer capacity at this time.


Siko... I was sad to read about your departure.

And like Pete, I noted your words.

It is yet another crumb in a trail of worrying elements : the (too) 
numerous departures within staff, the staff survey, the recent board 
members cases, some staff members mentionning threats when expressing 
publicly their opinion, the change of tone in the glassdoor reports, the 
Knight grant, and so on. It is worrysome.


Florence

I am and will always remain a

Wikimedian, so you'll still see me around the projects (User:Seeeko),
hopefully with renewed energy and joy in volunteering.

This movement has become my home in so many unexpected ways, and I’m truly
honored to have learned from so many of you. It was an amazing experience
to have partnered with smart, bold, and dedicated community folks to
experiment with projects like Teahouse, IdeaLab, Inspire, Individual
Engagement Grants, and Reimagining Grants. I’ve seen you create some really
incredible content, ideas, tools, programs, processes, committees and
organizations, all in the service of free knowledge.

I expect my last day to be Thursday, February 25th. I have full confidence
in Maggie Dennis's abilities to lead the Community Engagement Department,
and I trust that my team will remain available to support the community’s
needs for grants and other resources throughout this time of transition.

Much love,
Siko





___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,