[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia payroll and related (WAS: Re: Media coverage in Germany: Enterprise / Advocacy)

[Chris Keating]

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022, 00:45 Nathan,  wrote:

> I suspect there weren't that many FT employees of the WMF in 2008, if any?
>

According to Andreas's table there were 72 total employees. How many were
full time? Pass!

But his numbers make little sense, so it's hard to draw conclusions from
them.

>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/TKBR7ZKF74WWTJNQH3Y7JDPL522UV5CA/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] board accountability [was Re: Re: Board statement endorsing community voting on the enforcement guidelines for Universal code of Conduct (UCoC)]

[Luis Villa]

On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 6:11 PM Nathan  wrote:

> I had the same reaction! Lots of old memories.
>
> I wonder, did we ever find out if the Lila-era WMF paid lots of
> ex-employees in exchange for non-disparagement?
>

> Reading through the thread, I find it very confusing how hard people
> worked to make sure information like that never got out.
>

I think it’s less interesting how many/how much was spent on
non-disparagements[1], and more interesting what a general post-mortem of
that period would show.

Some questions asked then are still things that would be useful to ask (at
least about the future, it’s been six years so probably not *that* useful
to ask them about 2015-2016 anymore):

(1) What mechanisms was/is the board using to measure ED performance? for
example, at the time, the board did not do executive team exit interviews;
why not? has that changed? A board shouldn’t micromanage an ED of course,
but it also has a responsibility to make sure it has some idea what is
going on.

(2) What mechanisms was/is the board using to measure organizational
health? For example, in 2015 we did an employee engagement survey only when
morale had already plummeted over a cliff; the board never asked for one.
Should it have? If not, what should it have been doing instead? (The way it
did listen to staff—anonymous backchannels available only to certain
staff—was… honestly not ideal. I understand that the HR team now does
regular engagement surveys; no idea if those are reported to the board’s
Talent and Culture Committee[2]?)

(3) Does the board have any bright line tests for new appointed board
members in terms of what positions and past actions are/aren’t acceptable?
How is appointment, more generally, handled? (The board genuinely does
badly need experienced tech company leadership, because for better or for
worse WMF is a tech company. But what lessons could have been learned from
the failed(?) appointments during Lila’s tenure? Would any of them have
been relevant now?)

(4) What has the board done to address the challenge of the lifetime board
seat, and “founder syndrome” more generally? When I posted here about this
question a year ago[3], many employees and long-time editors immediately
**but privately** thanked me for raising the issue. That is, in my
experience, much more telling about the WMF staff experience than anything
to do with board elections.

It’s almost certainly too late to do a proper post-mortem - it’s been
almost six years! - and it’d certainly be a distraction from Maryana’s new
leadership. But perhaps the next generation of community-elected board
members could pick up the forward-looking versions of these questions.

Luis

[1] Non-disparagement clauses might be interesting to understand within
that context, but simply listing who did/didn’t take one, or how much was
spent, *without the broader context *of legitimate exec team turnover,
burnout, disempowerment, low pay for employees expected to live in SF, etc.,
would be unhelpful to the movement and possibly damaging to those
individuals.

[2] membership not updated in 2+ years?
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_Talent_%26_Culture_Committee
; minutes not updated in 7+ years?
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:HR_Committee

[3]
https://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=wikimedia-l%40lists.wikimedia.org=date:20210423=newest=1
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/5FF6ON5NTKVHXHD4M2XIERAB733TL4KW/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia payroll and related (WAS: Re: Media coverage in Germany: Enterprise / Advocacy)

[Florence Devouard]

WMF started in Florida in 2004 (no staff). First staff was probably in 
2005 (Brion could confirm), with no office.
We had a handful staff in 2006 (around 5-8), with a 2-3 rooms office 
(not all staff was over there). Around May/June 2007, we hired Sue for a 
6 months term contract. After 6 months, she was made permanent (December 
2007). The move to SA was in 2008.


And no, employee expenses were not housed in Bomis. We clearly had 
already separated from Bomis some years before.



Flo

Le 31/01/2022 à 01:44, Nathan a écrit :
I suspect there weren't that many FT employees of the WMF in 2008, if 
any? If I remember, WMF started that year based in Florida and moved 
sometime during the year. Could be that employee expenses were housed 
in Bomis or ledgered as something other than a labor expense.


On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 4:33 PM Chris Keating 
 wrote:




On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 1:25 PM Andreas Kolbe 
wrote:


Cost per employee   28796   39801   51133 73896 84781 86493
 102053  106065  116726  131734  140419  149155


I find it hard to believe that the WMF's average cost per employee
has increased from $28,796 in 2008 to $149,155 in 2019. That does
not seem credible to me. The figure is remarkably low in 2008 and
remarkably high in 2019. Perhaps there is something else happening
in the data?
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org,
guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at

https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/RWBEYWTQYPLRCITKCSZ7VCE2R6HXQTBJ/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list --wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines 
at:https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines  
andhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives 
athttps://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/Q36U4DL6QJ3KJTQEGT4XO5RKDDPYZA4L/
To unsubscribe send an email towikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/OE7RXE4BYAQN2B63CLTLE4ZF25UC2UJT/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Board statement endorsing community voting on the enforcement guidelines for Universal code of Conduct (UCoC)

[Dan Szymborski]

I don't have a problem with WMF staff voting, so long as they meet the
community voting guidelines; as Risker notes, many staff members are part
of the community. But staffers who do *not* otherwise meet the standard for
a community member to vote should not be voting.

Also, the exact wording of how the poll question will be composed is an
absolute imperative to be known and debated openly *before* the question is
asked. As we know from opinion polls and even state ballot initiatives, it
only takes the targeted inclusion or omission of as little as a word or two
to turn a poll into a push poll.

Dan

On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 1:59 PM Luis Villa  wrote:

> Pretty much everything I know is discussed in my posts in a thread from
> six-ish years ago:
>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/thread/EAGK7LYON3VN7LSHX27C54CEOAR63FCY/#UDZZ6UEH6EIJV4LBOYGCR7RZ3NF4CXTM
>
> On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 10:51 AM Philippe Beaudette 
> wrote:
>
>> Honestly I don’t remember the NDA, and I don’t even remember if I signed
>> one. It was a long time ago.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 11:48 AM Andreas Kolbe 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Philippe, Luis,
>>>
>>> Glad to hear that's never been done – though there is always a first
>>> time, and even if there is no compulsion, it's enough for each manager to
>>> remind their direct reports, "Oh, and remember to participate in the UCoC
>>> vote. Really important." Or are you saying that could not happen either?
>>>
>>> At any rate it might be good to see a breakdown of participation
>>> numbers, so the proportion of staff and community votes for/against is
>>> known.
>>>
>>> While you are here, would either of you care to describe what was
>>> covered by non-disclosure agreements in your time?
>>>
>>> Andreas
>>>
>>> Andreas
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 5:20 PM Philippe Beaudette <
>>> phili...@beaudette.me> wrote:
>>>
 What Luis said. In my time at the WMF we may have pulled some
 boneheaded moves (with the best of intent and luxury of after-analysis) but
 we never did that. Nor have I heard of it being done to anyone.

 On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 11:12 AM Luis Villa  wrote:

> There are a *lot *of ex-WMF employees out there, many of whom have
> left the Foundation on very bad terms and talked about it very publicly,
> including me. They tend to be very open about talking about their bad
> experiences *because their loyalty is to the community well above and
> beyond the Foundation*.
>
> To the best of my knowledge, this group of people *who often dislike
> the Foundation and talk about that a lot *have never accused the
> Foundation of pressuring employees to vote a certain way. Maybe, just
> maybe, that’s a sign the Foundation doesn’t do that? [It certainly never
> did while I was there, and I can’t imagine that would have been any
> different under Katherine.]
>
> There are so many very real challenges facing the org and the
> movement. It pains me to see so many bytes wasted on this totally 
> imaginary
> one.
>
> Luis
>
> On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 7:20 AM Andreas Kolbe 
> wrote:
>
>> Anne, Alphos,
>>
>> There is no reason to assume that staff must be "craven and
>> ill-informed" for them to be able to be pressured to vote a certain way. 
>> At
>> the end of the day, they are employees. Employees are routinely asked to 
>> do
>> things – and comply so as to keep their jobs.
>>
>> Are you ware of anything in WMF employment contracts that prevents
>> management from asking staffers to participate in a vote, or to vote a
>> certain way? (If not, maybe this would be something worth thinking 
>> about?)
>>
>> One thing I *do* recall is that WMF staff have to sign
>> non-disclosure agreements. I asked once what these non-disclosure
>> agreements look like – nobody would say. :) It seems there is a
>> non-disclosure agreement about the non-disclosure agreements. If I am
>> wrong, someone please post theirs here!
>>
>> As for WMF not being a "puppeteering archvillain", I remember what
>> the mood at WMF was like around the time of the Knowledge Engine and 
>> James
>> Heilman's removal from the board. People in charge told pork pies. WMF
>> staffers leaked documents to us at the Signpost, anonymously, because 
>> they
>> were scared.
>>
>> Last year, a number of ex-staffers posted at the en:WP village pump
>> about how their dream job at the WMF had turned into a nightmare and how
>> they'd had to quit to keep their sanity.[1] They voiced complaints about 
>> a
>> toxic management culture.
>>
>> María Cruz said on Twitter she experienced "gaslighting, lying,
>> neglect of misconduct reports, threatening behavior in meetings, lack of
>> inclusion, lack of recognition, from mid and upper 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Luis Bitencourt-Emilio Joins Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

[GorillaWarfare]

Hi Luis,

I happened to notice you retweet a tweet today that said "A tech is
neutral. It can’t be good or bad per se."[1] I know this perspective
differs from my own, and I think a fair number of those in the
Wikimedia movement—would you be willing to expound on your thoughts there?

– Molly White (GorillaWarfare)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GorillaWarfare
she/her

[1] https://twitter.com/ni2las/status/1486350744487923717

On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 11:37 AM Antoine Musso  wrote:

> On 14/01/2022 02:01, Luis Bitencourt-Emilio wrote:
> 
> > I was born and grew up in Brazil, under vastly different circumstances
> than today. There was a critical moment in my life when my father placed
> me, at 8 years old, in a BASIC programming course which I would practice on
> our x286 hidden away in a laundry room. My passion for technology started
> then, and has only grown since. I believe in technology as a key path to
> the furthering of humanity, of knowledge, of quality of life, and of our
> collective future. I also believe that this will only happen with the
> guidance and efforts of active and inclusive communities that shepherd said
> technology to positive outcomes.
> 
>
> Hello Luis,
>
> Welcome at the foundation, it is great to see someone joining the board
> having a large technical background.
>
> BASIC and x286 are definitely familiar among staff members around your
> age. If you ever join one of our tech meetings, I am sure you will feel
> at home :]
>
>
>
> 10 REM "-- "
> 20 PRINT "Antoine"
> 30 PRINT "hashar"
> 40 PRINT "Musso"
> 50 PRINT "Wikimedia > Release Engineering"
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/XQW3SVRR32KOTTLEKMRKYAB54QTJLJMX/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/H4TGEZR5H6UDXMCYDM3MM26DQQHQSFKO/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Board statement endorsing community voting on the enforcement guidelines for Universal code of Conduct (UCoC)

[Nathan]

I had the same reaction! Lots of old memories.

I wonder, did we ever find out if the Lila-era WMF paid lots of
ex-employees in exchange for non-disparagement?

Reading through the thread, I find it very confusing how hard people worked
to make sure information like that never got out.

On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 6:41 PM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Luis,
>
> Gosh, that thread brings back memories, especially seeing Slimmy there.
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/4752YOLUUXDYL2U2JH5LE65MRB6IOPOG/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia payroll and related (WAS: Re: Media coverage in Germany: Enterprise / Advocacy)

[Nathan]

I suspect there weren't that many FT employees of the WMF in 2008, if any?
If I remember, WMF started that year based in Florida and moved sometime
during the year. Could be that employee expenses were housed in Bomis or
ledgered as something other than a labor expense.

On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 4:33 PM Chris Keating 
wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 1:25 PM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
>>
>> Cost per employee   28796   39801   511337389684781
>> 86493   102053   106065   116726   131734   140419   149155
>>
>
> I find it hard to believe that the WMF's average cost per employee has
> increased from $28,796 in 2008 to $149,155 in 2019. That does not seem
> credible to me. The figure is remarkably low in 2008 and remarkably high in
> 2019. Perhaps there is something else happening in the data?
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/RWBEYWTQYPLRCITKCSZ7VCE2R6HXQTBJ/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/Q36U4DL6QJ3KJTQEGT4XO5RKDDPYZA4L/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Board statement endorsing community voting on the enforcement guidelines for Universal code of Conduct (UCoC)

[Andreas Kolbe]

Luis,

Gosh, that thread brings back memories, especially seeing Slimmy there.
Miss her. (I was doubly sad when I heard the other day that her husband did
not survive her by long.)

And my apologies – you did then already what I asked you for now, linking
to an earlier non-disclosure agreement used before Lila's time (actually
uploaded by yourself, in 2013).

This basically said that staff must not ever, during or after their
employment, discuss anything declared "confidential" (whether so declared
orally or in writing), on pain of being sued for monetary damages and/or
having an injunction taken out against them. That is my layman's
paraphrase; the original text is here:

https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WMF_Employment_Agreement_Confidentiality_Clauses-2013.pdf

Thanks for the link.

Andreas



On Sunday, January 30, 2022, Luis Villa  wrote:

> Pretty much everything I know is discussed in my posts in a thread from
> six-ish years ago:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@
> lists.wikimedia.org/thread/EAGK7LYON3VN7LSHX27C54CEOAR63FCY/#
> UDZZ6UEH6EIJV4LBOYGCR7RZ3NF4CXTM
>
> On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 10:51 AM Philippe Beaudette 
> wrote:
>
>> Honestly I don’t remember the NDA, and I don’t even remember if I signed
>> one. It was a long time ago.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 11:48 AM Andreas Kolbe 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Philippe, Luis,
>>>
>>> Glad to hear that's never been done – though there is always a first
>>> time, and even if there is no compulsion, it's enough for each manager to
>>> remind their direct reports, "Oh, and remember to participate in the UCoC
>>> vote. Really important." Or are you saying that could not happen either?
>>>
>>> At any rate it might be good to see a breakdown of participation
>>> numbers, so the proportion of staff and community votes for/against is
>>> known.
>>>
>>> While you are here, would either of you care to describe what was
>>> covered by non-disclosure agreements in your time?
>>>
>>> Andreas
>>>
>>> Andreas
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 5:20 PM Philippe Beaudette <
>>> phili...@beaudette.me> wrote:
>>>
 What Luis said. In my time at the WMF we may have pulled some
 boneheaded moves (with the best of intent and luxury of after-analysis) but
 we never did that. Nor have I heard of it being done to anyone.

 On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 11:12 AM Luis Villa  wrote:

> There are a *lot *of ex-WMF employees out there, many of whom have
> left the Foundation on very bad terms and talked about it very publicly,
> including me. They tend to be very open about talking about their bad
> experiences *because their loyalty is to the community well above and
> beyond the Foundation*.
>
> To the best of my knowledge, this group of people *who often dislike
> the Foundation and talk about that a lot *have never accused the
> Foundation of pressuring employees to vote a certain way. Maybe, just
> maybe, that’s a sign the Foundation doesn’t do that? [It certainly never
> did while I was there, and I can’t imagine that would have been any
> different under Katherine.]
>
> There are so many very real challenges facing the org and the
> movement. It pains me to see so many bytes wasted on this totally 
> imaginary
> one.
>
> Luis
>
> On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 7:20 AM Andreas Kolbe 
> wrote:
>
>> Anne, Alphos,
>>
>> There is no reason to assume that staff must be "craven and
>> ill-informed" for them to be able to be pressured to vote a certain way. 
>> At
>> the end of the day, they are employees. Employees are routinely asked to 
>> do
>> things – and comply so as to keep their jobs.
>>
>> Are you ware of anything in WMF employment contracts that prevents
>> management from asking staffers to participate in a vote, or to vote a
>> certain way? (If not, maybe this would be something worth thinking 
>> about?)
>>
>> One thing I *do* recall is that WMF staff have to sign
>> non-disclosure agreements. I asked once what these non-disclosure
>> agreements look like – nobody would say. :) It seems there is a
>> non-disclosure agreement about the non-disclosure agreements. If I am
>> wrong, someone please post theirs here!
>>
>> As for WMF not being a "puppeteering archvillain", I remember what
>> the mood at WMF was like around the time of the Knowledge Engine and 
>> James
>> Heilman's removal from the board. People in charge told pork pies. WMF
>> staffers leaked documents to us at the Signpost, anonymously, because 
>> they
>> were scared.
>>
>> Last year, a number of ex-staffers posted at the en:WP village pump
>> about how their dream job at the WMF had turned into a nightmare and how
>> they'd had to quit to keep their sanity.[1] They voiced complaints about 
>> a
>> toxic management culture.
>>

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Whose Knowledge? User Group annual report 2020-21

[Florence Devouard]

Thank you for the report Mariana. I found it very useful to get a better 
sense of Whose Knowledge in 2021 !
And congrats for the great work done in spite of last year challenges. 
Looking forward to the State of the Internet's languages



Flo


Le 27/01/2022 à 17:28, mari...@whoseknowledge.org a écrit :

Hello everyone!

The annual report of Whose Knowledge? User Group is available in Meta. We are 
glad to share with all of you our journey from September 2020 to September 2021.

Please find the report here: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Whose_Knowledge%3F/Reports/2021

We recognize that 2021 was a year to build up resilience after all that 2020 
brought to us and our communities. Even though we continued to face the effects 
of Covid-19, and of other intersecting pandemics of racism, patriarchy, and the 
climate crisis, we also started to get our strength back and to embrace the 
future with joy and hope:

- Whose Knowledge? celebrated five mighty years of its existence in Sep 2021 
with a special social media campaign.
- WK? incorporated in the State of CA, as a public benefit corporation in June 
2021. We have worked with our esteemed Board in the last few months as well, to 
move WK? in the direction of its mission.
- The #VisibleWikiWomen campaign 2021 brought over 1700 images to Wikimedia 
Commons, illustrating pages in 38 different Wikipedia languages.
- We have successfully designed and developed a fully tailored website that 
will present the State of the Internet's Languages report to our wide audience 
in a user-friendly manner.
- We hosted a multilingual event on Decolonising Structured Data as a 
pre-WikidataCon event and we did a keynote at WikidataCon itself.

You can learn more about our activities, access the materials and resources 
created, and see  photos and presentations in the full report.

In the next few weeks we will be sharing a multilingual, accessible and 
multimedia website for the State of the Internet's Languages, and we will 
launch our next #VisibleWikiWomen campaign. Stay tuned through our website 
(https://whoseknowledge.org/), social media channels (@whoseknowledge on 
Twitter, Instagram and Facebook) and consider subscribing to our newsletter 
(https://whoseknowledge.org/join/), or reach out us in our discussion page on 
Meta (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Whose_Knowledge%3F).

In solidarity,

Mariana and the Whose Knowledge? team
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/NE226H2OHQIHNZ54OGVXV2ANMHYOGTWG/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/TMHTWJOTDRPSPZQJCXQJEEC5EH5QIGGL/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Words from Wikiquotes... The wisdom of 2,432 women made visible via WikiQuote :)

[Florence Devouard]

Le 28/01/2022 à 15:52, Camelia Boban a écrit :

Hi Florence, Isla and others,
Thank you for the announcement.

In the name of my affiliate, WikiDonne User Group, who organized the 
campaign in Italian Wikiquote, I want to thank the itwikiquote 
community which, for the second time, answered with a great 
enthusiasm. For the gadgets we offered, we chose a quote of a great 
women poet: ἰοίην (our Greek friends can say more, but as I know, the 
translation is /that I can go further/) the only word left of a poem 
written by Sappho. Maybe the richest word in hope that can exist.


This event and the previous one, helped on increasing the project 
content, so with 42.389 articles, Italian became the first language in 
Wikiquote.



Woohoo ! I had not realized that :)




I encourage all you to try to edit Wikiquote and learn the other how 
to do it,  you will find a lot of fun. It is also a good option to 
engage new editors and an easier way to start edit the Wikimedia projects.


Totally second that.

Florence

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/KLOHVOORIBSVCXCSHV2MVVFHNDNJFMQY/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia payroll and related (WAS: Re: Media coverage in Germany: Enterprise / Advocacy)

[Chris Keating]

On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 1:25 PM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

>
> Cost per employee   28796   39801   51133738968478186493
>  102053   106065   116726   131734   140419   149155
>

I find it hard to believe that the WMF's average cost per employee has
increased from $28,796 in 2008 to $149,155 in 2019. That does not seem
credible to me. The figure is remarkably low in 2008 and remarkably high in
2019. Perhaps there is something else happening in the data?
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/RWBEYWTQYPLRCITKCSZ7VCE2R6HXQTBJ/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Board statement endorsing community voting on the enforcement guidelines for Universal code of Conduct (UCoC)

[Luis Villa]

Pretty much everything I know is discussed in my posts in a thread from
six-ish years ago:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/thread/EAGK7LYON3VN7LSHX27C54CEOAR63FCY/#UDZZ6UEH6EIJV4LBOYGCR7RZ3NF4CXTM

On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 10:51 AM Philippe Beaudette 
wrote:

> Honestly I don’t remember the NDA, and I don’t even remember if I signed
> one. It was a long time ago.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 11:48 AM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
>> Philippe, Luis,
>>
>> Glad to hear that's never been done – though there is always a first
>> time, and even if there is no compulsion, it's enough for each manager to
>> remind their direct reports, "Oh, and remember to participate in the UCoC
>> vote. Really important." Or are you saying that could not happen either?
>>
>> At any rate it might be good to see a breakdown of participation numbers,
>> so the proportion of staff and community votes for/against is known.
>>
>> While you are here, would either of you care to describe what was covered
>> by non-disclosure agreements in your time?
>>
>> Andreas
>>
>> Andreas
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 5:20 PM Philippe Beaudette 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> What Luis said. In my time at the WMF we may have pulled some boneheaded
>>> moves (with the best of intent and luxury of after-analysis) but we never
>>> did that. Nor have I heard of it being done to anyone.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 11:12 AM Luis Villa  wrote:
>>>
 There are a *lot *of ex-WMF employees out there, many of whom have
 left the Foundation on very bad terms and talked about it very publicly,
 including me. They tend to be very open about talking about their bad
 experiences *because their loyalty is to the community well above and
 beyond the Foundation*.

 To the best of my knowledge, this group of people *who often dislike
 the Foundation and talk about that a lot *have never accused the
 Foundation of pressuring employees to vote a certain way. Maybe, just
 maybe, that’s a sign the Foundation doesn’t do that? [It certainly never
 did while I was there, and I can’t imagine that would have been any
 different under Katherine.]

 There are so many very real challenges facing the org and the movement.
 It pains me to see so many bytes wasted on this totally imaginary one.

 Luis

 On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 7:20 AM Andreas Kolbe 
 wrote:

> Anne, Alphos,
>
> There is no reason to assume that staff must be "craven and
> ill-informed" for them to be able to be pressured to vote a certain way. 
> At
> the end of the day, they are employees. Employees are routinely asked to 
> do
> things – and comply so as to keep their jobs.
>
> Are you ware of anything in WMF employment contracts that prevents
> management from asking staffers to participate in a vote, or to vote a
> certain way? (If not, maybe this would be something worth thinking about?)
>
> One thing I *do* recall is that WMF staff have to sign non-disclosure
> agreements. I asked once what these non-disclosure agreements look like –
> nobody would say. :) It seems there is a non-disclosure agreement about 
> the
> non-disclosure agreements. If I am wrong, someone please post theirs here!
>
> As for WMF not being a "puppeteering archvillain", I remember what the
> mood at WMF was like around the time of the Knowledge Engine and James
> Heilman's removal from the board. People in charge told pork pies. WMF
> staffers leaked documents to us at the Signpost, anonymously, because they
> were scared.
>
> Last year, a number of ex-staffers posted at the en:WP village pump
> about how their dream job at the WMF had turned into a nightmare and how
> they'd had to quit to keep their sanity.[1] They voiced complaints about a
> toxic management culture.
>
> María Cruz said on Twitter she experienced "gaslighting, lying,
> neglect of misconduct reports, threatening behavior in meetings, lack of
> inclusion, lack of recognition, from mid and upper management".[2]
>
> Does this inspire anyone with confidence?
>
> Official WMF communications meanwhile always sound cheery and upbeat.
>
> Shani's post introducing this thread is a case in point. It leaves me
> ill at ease because of the things it elides, the way it tries to erase
> disputes.
>
> Shani (or whoever else drafted these passages for the board) refers *three
> times* to how the Universal Code of Conduct was "collaboratively
> (co-)created" before it was ratified by the Board.
>
> The text then goes on to say that "The Board strongly supports the
> proposal made by the joint letter of Arbitration Committees for community
> voting on the enforcement guidelines".
>
> A reader could be excused for thinking the Board were in happy
> agreement with 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Board statement endorsing community voting on the enforcement guidelines for Universal code of Conduct (UCoC)

[Philippe Beaudette]

Honestly I don’t remember the NDA, and I don’t even remember if I signed
one. It was a long time ago.



On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 11:48 AM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Philippe, Luis,
>
> Glad to hear that's never been done – though there is always a first time,
> and even if there is no compulsion, it's enough for each manager to remind
> their direct reports, "Oh, and remember to participate in the UCoC vote.
> Really important." Or are you saying that could not happen either?
>
> At any rate it might be good to see a breakdown of participation numbers,
> so the proportion of staff and community votes for/against is known.
>
> While you are here, would either of you care to describe what was covered
> by non-disclosure agreements in your time?
>
> Andreas
>
> Andreas
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 5:20 PM Philippe Beaudette 
> wrote:
>
>> What Luis said. In my time at the WMF we may have pulled some boneheaded
>> moves (with the best of intent and luxury of after-analysis) but we never
>> did that. Nor have I heard of it being done to anyone.
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 11:12 AM Luis Villa  wrote:
>>
>>> There are a *lot *of ex-WMF employees out there, many of whom have left
>>> the Foundation on very bad terms and talked about it very publicly,
>>> including me. They tend to be very open about talking about their bad
>>> experiences *because their loyalty is to the community well above and
>>> beyond the Foundation*.
>>>
>>> To the best of my knowledge, this group of people *who often dislike
>>> the Foundation and talk about that a lot *have never accused the
>>> Foundation of pressuring employees to vote a certain way. Maybe, just
>>> maybe, that’s a sign the Foundation doesn’t do that? [It certainly never
>>> did while I was there, and I can’t imagine that would have been any
>>> different under Katherine.]
>>>
>>> There are so many very real challenges facing the org and the movement.
>>> It pains me to see so many bytes wasted on this totally imaginary one.
>>>
>>> Luis
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 7:20 AM Andreas Kolbe 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Anne, Alphos,

 There is no reason to assume that staff must be "craven and
 ill-informed" for them to be able to be pressured to vote a certain way. At
 the end of the day, they are employees. Employees are routinely asked to do
 things – and comply so as to keep their jobs.

 Are you ware of anything in WMF employment contracts that prevents
 management from asking staffers to participate in a vote, or to vote a
 certain way? (If not, maybe this would be something worth thinking about?)

 One thing I *do* recall is that WMF staff have to sign non-disclosure
 agreements. I asked once what these non-disclosure agreements look like –
 nobody would say. :) It seems there is a non-disclosure agreement about the
 non-disclosure agreements. If I am wrong, someone please post theirs here!

 As for WMF not being a "puppeteering archvillain", I remember what the
 mood at WMF was like around the time of the Knowledge Engine and James
 Heilman's removal from the board. People in charge told pork pies. WMF
 staffers leaked documents to us at the Signpost, anonymously, because they
 were scared.

 Last year, a number of ex-staffers posted at the en:WP village pump
 about how their dream job at the WMF had turned into a nightmare and how
 they'd had to quit to keep their sanity.[1] They voiced complaints about a
 toxic management culture.

 María Cruz said on Twitter she experienced "gaslighting, lying, neglect
 of misconduct reports, threatening behavior in meetings, lack of inclusion,
 lack of recognition, from mid and upper management".[2]

 Does this inspire anyone with confidence?

 Official WMF communications meanwhile always sound cheery and upbeat.

 Shani's post introducing this thread is a case in point. It leaves me
 ill at ease because of the things it elides, the way it tries to erase
 disputes.

 Shani (or whoever else drafted these passages for the board) refers *three
 times* to how the Universal Code of Conduct was "collaboratively
 (co-)created" before it was ratified by the Board.

 The text then goes on to say that "The Board strongly supports the
 proposal made by the joint letter of Arbitration Committees for community
 voting on the enforcement guidelines".

 A reader could be excused for thinking the Board were in happy
 agreement with the Arbitration Committees.

 But one of the key points of the Arbitration Committees' letter[3] was
 precisely their concern about the "lack of formal consultation with
 projects before the board approved the UCoC [which] means it risks being
 seen as imposed by the Wikimedia Foundation from above".

 María's term seems apposite here: simply repeating that the Universal
 Code of Conduct was 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Board statement endorsing community voting on the enforcement guidelines for Universal code of Conduct (UCoC)

[Andreas Kolbe]

Philippe, Luis,

Glad to hear that's never been done – though there is always a first time,
and even if there is no compulsion, it's enough for each manager to remind
their direct reports, "Oh, and remember to participate in the UCoC vote.
Really important." Or are you saying that could not happen either?

At any rate it might be good to see a breakdown of participation numbers,
so the proportion of staff and community votes for/against is known.

While you are here, would either of you care to describe what was covered
by non-disclosure agreements in your time?

Andreas

Andreas



On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 5:20 PM Philippe Beaudette 
wrote:

> What Luis said. In my time at the WMF we may have pulled some boneheaded
> moves (with the best of intent and luxury of after-analysis) but we never
> did that. Nor have I heard of it being done to anyone.
>
> On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 11:12 AM Luis Villa  wrote:
>
>> There are a *lot *of ex-WMF employees out there, many of whom have left
>> the Foundation on very bad terms and talked about it very publicly,
>> including me. They tend to be very open about talking about their bad
>> experiences *because their loyalty is to the community well above and
>> beyond the Foundation*.
>>
>> To the best of my knowledge, this group of people *who often dislike the
>> Foundation and talk about that a lot *have never accused the Foundation
>> of pressuring employees to vote a certain way. Maybe, just maybe, that’s a
>> sign the Foundation doesn’t do that? [It certainly never did while I was
>> there, and I can’t imagine that would have been any different under
>> Katherine.]
>>
>> There are so many very real challenges facing the org and the movement.
>> It pains me to see so many bytes wasted on this totally imaginary one.
>>
>> Luis
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 7:20 AM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>>
>>> Anne, Alphos,
>>>
>>> There is no reason to assume that staff must be "craven and
>>> ill-informed" for them to be able to be pressured to vote a certain way. At
>>> the end of the day, they are employees. Employees are routinely asked to do
>>> things – and comply so as to keep their jobs.
>>>
>>> Are you ware of anything in WMF employment contracts that prevents
>>> management from asking staffers to participate in a vote, or to vote a
>>> certain way? (If not, maybe this would be something worth thinking about?)
>>>
>>> One thing I *do* recall is that WMF staff have to sign non-disclosure
>>> agreements. I asked once what these non-disclosure agreements look like –
>>> nobody would say. :) It seems there is a non-disclosure agreement about the
>>> non-disclosure agreements. If I am wrong, someone please post theirs here!
>>>
>>> As for WMF not being a "puppeteering archvillain", I remember what the
>>> mood at WMF was like around the time of the Knowledge Engine and James
>>> Heilman's removal from the board. People in charge told pork pies. WMF
>>> staffers leaked documents to us at the Signpost, anonymously, because they
>>> were scared.
>>>
>>> Last year, a number of ex-staffers posted at the en:WP village pump
>>> about how their dream job at the WMF had turned into a nightmare and how
>>> they'd had to quit to keep their sanity.[1] They voiced complaints about a
>>> toxic management culture.
>>>
>>> María Cruz said on Twitter she experienced "gaslighting, lying, neglect
>>> of misconduct reports, threatening behavior in meetings, lack of inclusion,
>>> lack of recognition, from mid and upper management".[2]
>>>
>>> Does this inspire anyone with confidence?
>>>
>>> Official WMF communications meanwhile always sound cheery and upbeat.
>>>
>>> Shani's post introducing this thread is a case in point. It leaves me
>>> ill at ease because of the things it elides, the way it tries to erase
>>> disputes.
>>>
>>> Shani (or whoever else drafted these passages for the board) refers *three
>>> times* to how the Universal Code of Conduct was "collaboratively
>>> (co-)created" before it was ratified by the Board.
>>>
>>> The text then goes on to say that "The Board strongly supports the
>>> proposal made by the joint letter of Arbitration Committees for community
>>> voting on the enforcement guidelines".
>>>
>>> A reader could be excused for thinking the Board were in happy agreement
>>> with the Arbitration Committees.
>>>
>>> But one of the key points of the Arbitration Committees' letter[3] was
>>> precisely their concern about the "lack of formal consultation with
>>> projects before the board approved the UCoC [which] means it risks being
>>> seen as imposed by the Wikimedia Foundation from above".
>>>
>>> María's term seems apposite here: simply repeating that the Universal
>>> Code of Conduct was "collaboratively created" when elected community
>>> representatives have told the WMF the community felt left out is ...
>>> gaslighting.
>>>
>>> Arguably, that is precisely the kind of "psychological manipulation" the
>>> Universal Code of Conduct seeks to forbid. It is also the kind of

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Board statement endorsing community voting on the enforcement guidelines for Universal code of Conduct (UCoC)

[Philippe Beaudette]

What Luis said. In my time at the WMF we may have pulled some boneheaded
moves (with the best of intent and luxury of after-analysis) but we never
did that. Nor have I heard of it being done to anyone.

On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 11:12 AM Luis Villa  wrote:

> There are a *lot *of ex-WMF employees out there, many of whom have left
> the Foundation on very bad terms and talked about it very publicly,
> including me. They tend to be very open about talking about their bad
> experiences *because their loyalty is to the community well above and
> beyond the Foundation*.
>
> To the best of my knowledge, this group of people *who often dislike the
> Foundation and talk about that a lot *have never accused the Foundation
> of pressuring employees to vote a certain way. Maybe, just maybe, that’s a
> sign the Foundation doesn’t do that? [It certainly never did while I was
> there, and I can’t imagine that would have been any different under
> Katherine.]
>
> There are so many very real challenges facing the org and the movement. It
> pains me to see so many bytes wasted on this totally imaginary one.
>
> Luis
>
> On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 7:20 AM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
>> Anne, Alphos,
>>
>> There is no reason to assume that staff must be "craven and ill-informed"
>> for them to be able to be pressured to vote a certain way. At the end of
>> the day, they are employees. Employees are routinely asked to do things –
>> and comply so as to keep their jobs.
>>
>> Are you ware of anything in WMF employment contracts that prevents
>> management from asking staffers to participate in a vote, or to vote a
>> certain way? (If not, maybe this would be something worth thinking about?)
>>
>> One thing I *do* recall is that WMF staff have to sign non-disclosure
>> agreements. I asked once what these non-disclosure agreements look like –
>> nobody would say. :) It seems there is a non-disclosure agreement about the
>> non-disclosure agreements. If I am wrong, someone please post theirs here!
>>
>> As for WMF not being a "puppeteering archvillain", I remember what the
>> mood at WMF was like around the time of the Knowledge Engine and James
>> Heilman's removal from the board. People in charge told pork pies. WMF
>> staffers leaked documents to us at the Signpost, anonymously, because they
>> were scared.
>>
>> Last year, a number of ex-staffers posted at the en:WP village pump about
>> how their dream job at the WMF had turned into a nightmare and how they'd
>> had to quit to keep their sanity.[1] They voiced complaints about a toxic
>> management culture.
>>
>> María Cruz said on Twitter she experienced "gaslighting, lying, neglect
>> of misconduct reports, threatening behavior in meetings, lack of inclusion,
>> lack of recognition, from mid and upper management".[2]
>>
>> Does this inspire anyone with confidence?
>>
>> Official WMF communications meanwhile always sound cheery and upbeat.
>>
>> Shani's post introducing this thread is a case in point. It leaves me ill
>> at ease because of the things it elides, the way it tries to erase
>> disputes.
>>
>> Shani (or whoever else drafted these passages for the board) refers *three
>> times* to how the Universal Code of Conduct was "collaboratively
>> (co-)created" before it was ratified by the Board.
>>
>> The text then goes on to say that "The Board strongly supports the
>> proposal made by the joint letter of Arbitration Committees for community
>> voting on the enforcement guidelines".
>>
>> A reader could be excused for thinking the Board were in happy agreement
>> with the Arbitration Committees.
>>
>> But one of the key points of the Arbitration Committees' letter[3] was
>> precisely their concern about the "lack of formal consultation with
>> projects before the board approved the UCoC [which] means it risks being
>> seen as imposed by the Wikimedia Foundation from above".
>>
>> María's term seems apposite here: simply repeating that the Universal
>> Code of Conduct was "collaboratively created" when elected community
>> representatives have told the WMF the community felt left out is ...
>> gaslighting.
>>
>> Arguably, that is precisely the kind of "psychological manipulation" the
>> Universal Code of Conduct seeks to forbid. It is also the kind of
>> psychological manipulation beloved of politicians. It is an effort to
>> "manage" public opinion, rather than an honest and respectful communication
>> made in the spirit of a partnership.
>>
>> The Arbitration Committees' letter further mentions Superprotect and
>> Framgate and that there should be a way to make changes  to the Universal
>> Code of Conduct – which the WMF has refused, saying here on this list that
>> it will not entertain any discussion of the text until sometime in 2023.[4]
>>
>> This is "imposing from above", and as long as that isn't acknowledged,
>> there is little reason to trust the WMF.
>>
>> Andreas
>>
>>
>> [1]
>> 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Board statement endorsing community voting on the enforcement guidelines for Universal code of Conduct (UCoC)

[Luis Villa]

There are a *lot *of ex-WMF employees out there, many of whom have left the
Foundation on very bad terms and talked about it very publicly, including
me. They tend to be very open about talking about their bad
experiences *because
their loyalty is to the community well above and beyond the Foundation*.

To the best of my knowledge, this group of people *who often dislike the
Foundation and talk about that a lot *have never accused the Foundation of
pressuring employees to vote a certain way. Maybe, just maybe, that’s a
sign the Foundation doesn’t do that? [It certainly never did while I was
there, and I can’t imagine that would have been any different under
Katherine.]

There are so many very real challenges facing the org and the movement. It
pains me to see so many bytes wasted on this totally imaginary one.

Luis

On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 7:20 AM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Anne, Alphos,
>
> There is no reason to assume that staff must be "craven and ill-informed"
> for them to be able to be pressured to vote a certain way. At the end of
> the day, they are employees. Employees are routinely asked to do things –
> and comply so as to keep their jobs.
>
> Are you ware of anything in WMF employment contracts that prevents
> management from asking staffers to participate in a vote, or to vote a
> certain way? (If not, maybe this would be something worth thinking about?)
>
> One thing I *do* recall is that WMF staff have to sign non-disclosure
> agreements. I asked once what these non-disclosure agreements look like –
> nobody would say. :) It seems there is a non-disclosure agreement about the
> non-disclosure agreements. If I am wrong, someone please post theirs here!
>
> As for WMF not being a "puppeteering archvillain", I remember what the
> mood at WMF was like around the time of the Knowledge Engine and James
> Heilman's removal from the board. People in charge told pork pies. WMF
> staffers leaked documents to us at the Signpost, anonymously, because they
> were scared.
>
> Last year, a number of ex-staffers posted at the en:WP village pump about
> how their dream job at the WMF had turned into a nightmare and how they'd
> had to quit to keep their sanity.[1] They voiced complaints about a toxic
> management culture.
>
> María Cruz said on Twitter she experienced "gaslighting, lying, neglect of
> misconduct reports, threatening behavior in meetings, lack of inclusion,
> lack of recognition, from mid and upper management".[2]
>
> Does this inspire anyone with confidence?
>
> Official WMF communications meanwhile always sound cheery and upbeat.
>
> Shani's post introducing this thread is a case in point. It leaves me ill
> at ease because of the things it elides, the way it tries to erase
> disputes.
>
> Shani (or whoever else drafted these passages for the board) refers *three
> times* to how the Universal Code of Conduct was "collaboratively
> (co-)created" before it was ratified by the Board.
>
> The text then goes on to say that "The Board strongly supports the
> proposal made by the joint letter of Arbitration Committees for community
> voting on the enforcement guidelines".
>
> A reader could be excused for thinking the Board were in happy agreement
> with the Arbitration Committees.
>
> But one of the key points of the Arbitration Committees' letter[3] was
> precisely their concern about the "lack of formal consultation with
> projects before the board approved the UCoC [which] means it risks being
> seen as imposed by the Wikimedia Foundation from above".
>
> María's term seems apposite here: simply repeating that the Universal Code
> of Conduct was "collaboratively created" when elected community
> representatives have told the WMF the community felt left out is ...
> gaslighting.
>
> Arguably, that is precisely the kind of "psychological manipulation" the
> Universal Code of Conduct seeks to forbid. It is also the kind of
> psychological manipulation beloved of politicians. It is an effort to
> "manage" public opinion, rather than an honest and respectful communication
> made in the spirit of a partnership.
>
> The Arbitration Committees' letter further mentions Superprotect and
> Framgate and that there should be a way to make changes  to the Universal
> Code of Conduct – which the WMF has refused, saying here on this list that
> it will not entertain any discussion of the text until sometime in 2023.[4]
>
> This is "imposing from above", and as long as that isn't acknowledged,
> there is little reason to trust the WMF.
>
> Andreas
>
>
> [1]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)=1033011093#I_feel_like_shit
> [2] https://twitter.com/marianarra_/status/1410312378068004866?s=19
> [3]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_from_Arbcoms_to_the_Board_of_Trustees
> [4]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/thread/AAGTJLSWDFKTQDUG7BHNOQ4ZYMIULYIF/?sort=date
>
> On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 11:29 PM Risker  wrote:
>

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Board statement endorsing community voting on the enforcement guidelines for Universal code of Conduct (UCoC)

[Andreas Kolbe]

Anne, Alphos,

There is no reason to assume that staff must be "craven and ill-informed"
for them to be able to be pressured to vote a certain way. At the end of
the day, they are employees. Employees are routinely asked to do things –
and comply so as to keep their jobs.

Are you ware of anything in WMF employment contracts that prevents
management from asking staffers to participate in a vote, or to vote a
certain way? (If not, maybe this would be something worth thinking about?)

One thing I *do* recall is that WMF staff have to sign non-disclosure
agreements. I asked once what these non-disclosure agreements look like –
nobody would say. :) It seems there is a non-disclosure agreement about the
non-disclosure agreements. If I am wrong, someone please post theirs here!

As for WMF not being a "puppeteering archvillain", I remember what the mood
at WMF was like around the time of the Knowledge Engine and James Heilman's
removal from the board. People in charge told pork pies. WMF staffers
leaked documents to us at the Signpost, anonymously, because they were
scared.

Last year, a number of ex-staffers posted at the en:WP village pump about
how their dream job at the WMF had turned into a nightmare and how they'd
had to quit to keep their sanity.[1] They voiced complaints about a toxic
management culture.

María Cruz said on Twitter she experienced "gaslighting, lying, neglect of
misconduct reports, threatening behavior in meetings, lack of inclusion,
lack of recognition, from mid and upper management".[2]

Does this inspire anyone with confidence?

Official WMF communications meanwhile always sound cheery and upbeat.

Shani's post introducing this thread is a case in point. It leaves me ill
at ease because of the things it elides, the way it tries to erase
disputes.

Shani (or whoever else drafted these passages for the board) refers *three
times* to how the Universal Code of Conduct was "collaboratively
(co-)created" before it was ratified by the Board.

The text then goes on to say that "The Board strongly supports the proposal
made by the joint letter of Arbitration Committees for community voting on
the enforcement guidelines".

A reader could be excused for thinking the Board were in happy agreement
with the Arbitration Committees.

But one of the key points of the Arbitration Committees' letter[3] was
precisely their concern about the "lack of formal consultation with
projects before the board approved the UCoC [which] means it risks being
seen as imposed by the Wikimedia Foundation from above".

María's term seems apposite here: simply repeating that the Universal Code
of Conduct was "collaboratively created" when elected community
representatives have told the WMF the community felt left out is ...
gaslighting.

Arguably, that is precisely the kind of "psychological manipulation" the
Universal Code of Conduct seeks to forbid. It is also the kind of
psychological manipulation beloved of politicians. It is an effort to
"manage" public opinion, rather than an honest and respectful communication
made in the spirit of a partnership.

The Arbitration Committees' letter further mentions Superprotect and
Framgate and that there should be a way to make changes  to the Universal
Code of Conduct – which the WMF has refused, saying here on this list that
it will not entertain any discussion of the text until sometime in 2023.[4]

This is "imposing from above", and as long as that isn't acknowledged,
there is little reason to trust the WMF.

Andreas


[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)=1033011093#I_feel_like_shit
[2] https://twitter.com/marianarra_/status/1410312378068004866?s=19
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_from_Arbcoms_to_the_Board_of_Trustees
[4]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/thread/AAGTJLSWDFKTQDUG7BHNOQ4ZYMIULYIF/?sort=date

On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 11:29 PM Risker  wrote:

> Andreas -
>
> Wikimedia staff are as much a part of the community as everyone else is;
> hundreds of them come from community roots, and the Wikimedia community
> remains the single largest recruitment pool for roles within the WMF.  A
> non-negligible percentage of WMF staff devote a very significant portion of
> their non-working hours to volunteer work on our projects.
>
> If you want to look at historic participation in elections, staff of the
> WMF and other affiliates have an exceptionally low participation rate.
> It's unclear why you'd think that would change - even when they have had an
> opportunity to influence Board of Trustees elections (which actually do
> affect them far more than the average community member), they haven't taken
> advantage of that.  I'm a little concerned that you think Wikimedia staff
> are so craven and ill-informed that they could be pressured to vote in that
> way. Since it will no doubt be a secret ballot, there is no way for any
> employer to control the outcome of this election; 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia payroll and related (WAS: Re: Media coverage in Germany: Enterprise / Advocacy)

[Andreas Kolbe]

Anne, Alex, Željko,

Very good, Anne. Adding in the Part V, 1a numbers as additional employees,
we arrive at the table below.[1] Do you agree this is accurate? It means
the average salary cost per employee increased

– by 35% from 2013 to 2016, from *$86,493* in 2013 to *$116,726* in 2016,
– by 28% from 2016 to 2019, from *$116,726* in 2016 to *$149,155* in 2019.

(It's noteworthy that salaries rose comparatively little during Lila
Tretikov's short tenure, summer 2014 – spring 2016.)

We are now in 2022. Assuming salaries have continued to rise at a similar
rate since 2019 (the 22% year-on-year increase in the salary and wages
total reported for 2020 does make that seem likely), salary costs will
average around *$190,000* ($149,155 + 28%) per employee this year.

I'm assuming a current headcount of about 600 staff/contractors (incl.
non-employee contractors) for the WMF, based on a recent post here from a
staffer. Wikimedia Germany alone has over 100 employees of its own, and all
the other affiliates together will probably bring the total to about 800.
More precise figures and any other corrections welcome.

Andreas

 200820092010 2011 2012 2013
   2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Contract employees (V 1a)  46  47  71   52   55   73
   64   70   59   64   73   82

W-3 employees (V 2a)   26  36  72  107  134  158
  192  229  230  229  255  291

Total employees72  83 143  159  189  231
  256  299  289  293  328  373

Total salary costs2073313 3303543 7312120 11749500 16023637 19979908
26125610 31713546 33733998 38598155 46057613 55634913

Cost per employee   28796   39801   51133738968478186493
 102053   106065   116726   131734   140419   149155



[1] Here is the same table in text format (comma-delimited), for reading
into Excel:

,2008,2009,2010,2011,2012,2013,2014,2015,2016,2017,2018,2019



Contract employees (Part V 1a),46,47,71,52,55,73,64,70,59,64,73,82

W-3 employees (Part V 2a),26,36,72,107,134,158,192,229,230,229,255,291

Total employees,72,83,143,159,189,231,256,299,289,293,328,373

Total salary
costs,2073313,3303543,7312120,11749500,16023637,19979908,26125610,31713546,33733998,38598155,46057613,55634913

Cost per
employee,28796,39801,51133,73896,84781,86493,102053,106065,116726,131734,140419,149155



On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 6:25 AM Željko Blaće  wrote:

> Interesting discussion but away from the focal point of what Christian
> shared.
> Hope both can be useful and continue but in separate email threads.
>
> On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 4:04 AM Risker  wrote:
>
>> Andreas -
>>
>> First off, contract employees are employees.  There were 82 of them.
>> (Part V, line 1a on the Form 990)  They do not receive a W-3 form. Only 291
>> employees received the W-3 form.  That brings employee total to 373.
>>
>> Secondly, you fail to compensate for the fact that the 13 "key employees"
>> - officers, the top 5 compensated non-officer staff, and other key staff -
>> received approximately $3.3 million alone.  That reduces the employee pool
>> to 360 and the compensation pool to $52.3 million.
>>
>> That gives an average total compensation of about $145,000 USD.
>> Reportable compensation includes pension plan contributions, medical/dental
>> plans, paid leaves,social security/medicare taxes, insurance, costs
>> reimbursed for maintaining a home office, and many other forms of direct or
>> indirect compensation. The benefits package would run about 25-30% of the
>> base salary, and other compensation will add into that.
>>
>> There's no reason whatsoever to believe that the employee numbers
>> remained static the following year; in fact, in your other statement, your
>> figures would suggest you think the WMF currently has about 650-675 staff.
>>
>>
>> Risker/Anne
>>
>>
>>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/3IGJVWMKISF5D4BSDIQN2HOPLSLZFJ2P/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Media coverage in Germany: Enterprise / Advocacy

[Željko Blaće]

Thank you for engaging with this topic in public and doing the translation
and sharing here (adding open-glam list).

Aside from being a nice Sunday read I think this is a super useful case
study for people working in the cultural sector and advocacy for open. Was
this published elsewhere in English?

I would love for us to have a better platform to comment and discuss
individual aspects of both articles (Discourse as WM Spaces would be good -
no?), but anyway few inline comments below.


On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 7:24 PM Christian Humborg <
christian.humb...@wikimedia.de> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> we had articles in Germany published connecting the activities of
> Wikimedia Enterprise with our licensing advocacy. Please find below the
> article of a filmmaker, published last week in the Frankfurter Allgemeine
> Zeitung, one of the large German newspapers.
>

I see the article did not get a huge amount of comments and in that way it
failed to attract much attention or there were echoes elsewhere?
https://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/medien/wikimedia-plant-die-kommerzialisierung-ihrer-inhalte-17736141-p2.html#lesermeinungen



> Below you find our response, published this week in the Frankfurter
> Allgemeine Zeitung. I hope this is useful for further debates.
>

One needs to register (or even pay?) to get to this article?  I wonder what
was the quality and quantity of responses here?
https://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/wikimedia-ard-und-zdf-freie-lizenzen-fuer-das-gemeinwohl-17753492.html


> Kind regards
> Christian
>
> ***
>
> *Wikimedia perverts the common good*
> 
>
>
> *Wikimedia plans to commercialize its content. At the same time, the
> organization is lobbying hard to get its hands on high-quality free content
> from public broadcasters. This is ruining the filmmakers*.
>
>
> The Wikipedia information platform has so far been financed by donations
> from Silicon Valley tech giants, among others. These include primarily the
> market-dominating Internet giants such as Google, Facebook, Apple et
> cetera, all of which earn money through traffic with content from
> Wikipedia. In specialist circles, these donations are regarded as a
> reciprocal business: Donors and Wikipedia profit from each other.
>

This is crude simplification...
It would have been great for this to be responded to with some counter
arguments or maybe it is still possible by WMF directly?


> Wikimedia is the operating organization behind Wikipedia, but it has long
> been looking for a stable business model to finance itself. In the spring
> of 2021, Wikimedia finally announced that it would build a corporate
> interface that would simplify the automated use of Wikipedia content and
> for which commercial companies would pay. In other words: money is to be
> made with the content on Wikipedia. For example, with services such as the
> voice assistants Siri
>  or Alexa, which
> access content via Wikipedia. The donation business based on reciprocity,
> as described above, would thus be transformed into a proper business
> relationship. The name for it: Wikimedia Enterprise API.
>

I feel this is something WMF should also respond to with clarification, at
least to the author and his society if not in FAZ, than on wikimedia.org.

 For this business to be profitable in the long term, Wikimedia must ensure
> the comprehensive supply of information on Wikipedia, but also enhance it
> for the social networks
>  with
> high-quality images and films. Expanded offerings increase demand. And in
> order to secure the capital-rich clientele in the long term - according to
> the law of Internet capitalism - Wikipedia could also become the dominant
> platform in the education sector for images and films that can be accessed
> as free as possible.
>

This also posed some interesting questions for Wikimedians to discuss with
so many failures in making Wikipedia media rich. Wikipedia copy-cat
websites are in abundance (can it get worse?) and on the other hand there
is next to zero effort (and resources allocated) to have position and
relations formulated towards non-corporate social networks (not even when
it is easy!).


> Contempt for the state and collectivism
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland's intensive lobbying campaign for so-called "free
> licenses", which has been ongoing for several years, should also be
> understood in this context. Public films, especially documentaries, are to
> be offered free of charge on Wikipedia via CC licensing (Creative Commons
> licenses). Many know this campaign under the formula "Public money = Public
> good". A vulgarization of the idea of the common good that devalues the
> legal status of goods whose production takes place through state
>