[Wikimedia-l] Re: [Wikimedia Announcements] 2022 Picture of the Year Results

[Dan Andreescu]

Oh my goodness those are stunning

On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 11:56 PM Kunal Mehta  wrote:

> Dear Wikimedians,
>
> The 2022 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to
> announce the results:
>
> In both rounds, people voted for their favorite pictures.
>
>- In the first round, there were 1102 candidate images.
>- In the second round, people voted for the 56 finalists (the R1 top
>30 overall and top 2 in each category).
>
> In the second round eligible users could vote for up to 3 finalists – each
> of these 3 votes counted equal. There were 2,386 eligible voters in R1, and
> 2,860 in round R2.
>
> Congratulations to the winners of the contest and thanks for creating
> these beautiful pictures and sharing them as freely licensed content:
>
>1. 335 people voted for the winner, File:Phalacrocorax carbo, Egretta
>garzetta and Mareca strepera in Taudha Lake.jpg
>
> 
>by Prasan Shrestha
>
>2. In second place, 299 people voted for File:Etipoia Banna tribe
>kids.jpg
>
>by WAVRIK 
>3. In third place, 292 people voted for File:Pillars of Creation
>(NIRCam Image).jpg
>
> 
>taken by the James Webb Space Telescope (NASA, ESA, CSA, STScI); image
>processing by Joseph DePasquale (STScI), Anton M. Koekemoer (STScI), Alyssa
>Pagan (STScI)
>
> View those pictures and remaining results on-wiki
> .
> Thanks as well to all the voters that participated the process.
> - The Commons Picture of the Year committee
> 
>
> ___
> Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately
> directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia
> community. For more information about Wikimedia-l:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ___
> WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list --
> wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> wikimediaannounce-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/Y54OZUJEYTBHUTJAPSGAPWQDXMUJ6XW2/
> 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/2I63EWHMIGFIW5YUOQNT3XJE2V4LDMLR/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Facebook test features Wikipedia

[Dan Andreescu]

Couple of scenarios come to mind:

If this succeeds, and is launched more widely, we might have a lot of
preparation to do, and this might not be obvious to Facebook or even to
us.  Facebook has a huge audience and is currently extremely fertile ground
for fake news.  Diverting some of that audience to fact-checking, and
perhaps fake news arguing, on Wikipedia, has the potential to rapidly grow
our editing population.  This is probably a good thing in the long term
but, if it happens, it could be a big challenge in the short term.
Everything from our safety and support teams to our infrastructure
architecture are not set up to scale with rapid editing growth.  I think
some preparatory brainstorming here could be useful.  Just for context, our
editing population is on the order of hundreds of thousands of people on
any given month.  Facebook's news reading population is in the hundreds of
*millions*.  If even 0.1% of them start chatting on our talk pages we would
double our editing traffic.  Think of the way this affects bots, the job
queue, anti-harassment efforts, etc.

On the other hand, if this "fails" from Facebook's point of view, and it's
rolled back, I would hope we stay engaged with them to learn from the
effort.  And I'm sure the communications department is already thinking of
this, but we should prepare for the potential "Facebook finds Wikipedia too
volatile to check facts" or whatever the press decides to do to bait clicks
that day.

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:20 PM, Strainu  wrote:

> [snip]

It's pretty cool indeed, but might put pressure on smaller communities
> whenever extended to other languages.
>
> Strainu
> >
> > --
> > Andy Mabbett
> > @pigsonthewing
> > http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

[Dan Andreescu]

I want to express respect for this discussion and re-iterate two favorite
points:

Erik says:

"I haven't done an extensive survey, but I suspect all the major
Wikipedia languages largely agree in their presentation on climate
change. If so, that is itself a notable fact, given the amount of
politicization of the topic. Many readers/donors may be curious how
such agreement comes about in the absence of top-down editorial
control. Speaking about the remarkable process by which Wikipedia
tackles contentious topics may be a less potentially divisive way for
WMF to speak about what's happening in the real world."

And Risker points out that scientific consensus changes and offers some
great examples (too long to paste, timestamp on the message is Fri, Mar 3,
2017 at 1:41 AM).

We are part of a small group of people that's figured out how to document
human consciousness and awareness, as dynamic as it is.  I think it's a lot
to ask to capture this fairly in the annual report, but it seems we're
giving it an honest try.  I'm really honestly in awe of this collaborative
effort.  And I had similar initial reactions to the annual report as others
on this thread.

On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Rogol Domedonfors 
wrote:

> Anna,
>
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 7:46 AM, you wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > And I'm struggling with a process problem (not one of substance) that I
> > don't know how to solve. I truly don't. And it's kind of killing me.
> >
> > We (people who work and volunteer at the WMF) need a way to get feedback.
> > We need a way to be accountable and responsive.  We all want that. And I
> > actually believe that we are all working in good faith toward that.
>
>
> It would help us all to help you if you could indicate what resources you
> expect to be able to devote to this way of being accountable and responsive
> that you are working towards, so that we can match the scale and scope of
> our suggestion to what you will make available.  When you write of it being
> a matter of process not substance, does that mean that you have no new
> resources to allocate to this new way of working tover and above what you
> have already?
>
> "Rogol"
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] We appear have been partially blocked in France (probably accidentally)

[Dan Andreescu]

btw, I checked out the traffic from France over the past 30 days and I
don't see an obvious drop, so this doesn't seem to have caused a real drop.

On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 10:32 PM, John Mark Vandenberg 
wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 3:54 AM, geni  wrote:
> > Apparently on the orders of the french government orange added us to
> > their blocked terrorist sites list. This did apparently have the fun
> > effect of  DOS the government page people were redirected to, Source
> > (among others):
> >
> > http://www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2016/10/17/une-erreur-
> bloque-l-acces-a-google-pour-les-clients-d-orange_5014900_4408996.html
>
> They also added Google to the list..?
>
> http://www.itnews.com.au/news/frances-block-of-google-for-
> terrorism-melts-govt-server-439591
>
> Workaround: use the Google free DNS.
>
> That is one way to force everyone to learn how to work around service
> providers blocking access to terrorist websites.
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
> ___
> 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] [Wmfall] Wikimedia Foundation executive transition update

[Dan Andreescu]

Thank you, Katherine, and congratulations.  You have my full and
enthusiastic support : )

On Friday, March 11, 2016, Nurunnaby Chowdhury (Hasive) <
nhas...@wikimedia.org.bd> wrote:

> Great! Congratulations Katherine!
> Really a positive move from the Board.
>
> -Hasive
> WMBD
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Bodhisattwa Mandal <
> bodhisattwa.rg...@gmail.com > wrote:
>
> > Congrats Katherine,
> >
> > As a community member from the other side of the world, you have my
> > complete trust and support. A very positive move from the Board, no doubt
> > about it.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > Bodhisattwa
> > On Mar 11, 2016 10:05 AM, "Risker" >
> wrote:
> >
> > > Thank  you, Patricio and the rest of the board, for this first step in
> > > rebuilding.
> > >
> > > I have had the pleasure of working with Katherine in my capacity as a
> > > "regular" volunteer and as a member of the FDC, and have found her to
> be
> > > highly professional and very focused on the mission of the WMF.  She
> has
> > > demonstrated her ability to attract and lead an excellent team in her
> > role
> > > as Chief Communications Officer, and has the support of staff and her
> > > (former) C-level organizational leaders as the WMF takes its next steps
> > to
> > > recovery.  In my opinion, this is what is needed at this time.
> > >
> > > Katherine, thank you for agreeing to take on this responsibility.  I
> look
> > > forward to working with you and the rest of the team in the months to
> > come.
> > >
> > > Risker/Anne
> > >
> > > On 10 March 2016 at 22:52, Todd Allen  > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Katherine,
> > > >
> > > > Welcome, and best of luck in your new role. I'm very pleased indeed
> to
> > > hear
> > > > that it will be you to fill it.
> > > >
> > > > Todd
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 7:59 PM, Katherine Maher <
> kma...@wikimedia.org 
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thank you, Patricio.
> > > > >
> > > > > I want to thank the Board for this opportunity, and for their
> > > confidence
> > > > in
> > > > > the Foundation. I also want to thank community members and staff
> for
> > > > > continuing to be such committed advocates for our future -- your
> > > passion
> > > > > and belief in our movement and purpose have been tremendous things
> to
> > > > > behold.
> > > > >
> > > > > As a movement, we’ve had some challenges lately. We’ve started on a
> > > > process
> > > > > of change, but as Lydia Pintscher (User:Lydia Pintscher (WMDE))
> > > recently
> > > > > reminded us,[1] “Change happens at the speed of trust.” We will
> need
> > to
> > > > > work together over these coming months to build that trust, and
> open
> > > > > critical lines of communication and accountability. I get the sense
> > > from
> > > > > many people that that’s exactly what they’d like to do: absorb the
> > > > lessons
> > > > > we’ve learned, re-engage with each other, and get back to advancing
> > our
> > > > > global movement.
> > > > >
> > > > > At the Foundation, we have an opportunity to center around our
> > values,
> > > > and
> > > > > practice open and collaborative communication. During the interim
> > > > period, I
> > > > > want to get things working well and improve transparency and
> > > > communication,
> > > > > both internally and with the communities. We will work to create a
> > > > > supportive, fair environment where people can get things done,
> engage
> > > > with
> > > > > their colleagues and community members, and understand how their
> work
> > > has
> > > > > an impact on our mission. This includes delivering on important
> > > deadlines
> > > > > for the Annual Plan and strategy,[2] filling key roles, and making
> > > > progress
> > > > > on issues raised in our recent engagement survey.
> > > > >
> > > > > We are committed to delivering the first version of the 2016-2017
> > > Annual
> > > > > Plan no later than April 1st for community and FDC review, and are
> on
> > > > track
> > > > > to meet this deadline. The WMF 2016-2018 strategy development is
> also
> > > > > underway, with a draft version open for comments until March 18.[3]
> > > Over
> > > > > the coming weeks, we’ll be moving forward with our Chief Technology
> > > > Officer
> > > > > (CTO) search, and working with the Talent and Culture team to
> > reinvest
> > > in
> > > > > our culture. As new other emerge, we’ll work together to prioritize
> > > them.
> > > > >
> > > > > To accomplish all of this, we are going to need your help. I want
> to
> > > hear
> > > > > from you about what you would like to achieve in this interim
> period.
> > > > This
> > > > > includes how we can collaborate together to prepare the
> organization
> > > and
> > > > > movement to welcome our next Executive Director. The Foundation is
> > > > prepared
> > > > > to actively support the Board in the search, and we will work
> closely
> > > > with
> > > > > them to share 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

[Dan Andreescu]

I loved the healthcare idea, sounded like such a positive thing.  Until I
thought about implementation details.  Inevitably, there would have to be
some connection to how active the editor was, otherwise we would have to
get healthcare for millions of users.  So then, even worse, if someone fell
under the active threshold, I assume health care would be taken away...  So
then we'd probably have to deal with awful situations like "Wikipedia cuts
health benefits for editor unable to edit due to health problems".

I don't like poking my head into these dark hypotheticals, but I wanted to
share that the situation is more complicated than at least I thought.

On Friday, February 26, 2016, Florence Devouard  wrote:

> Le 27/02/16 00:37, SarahSV a écrit :
>
>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Pete Forsyth 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> However, if the core interest (as Sarah suggests) is to create paid
>>> opportunities for those who excel at Wikipedia writing and editing, those
>>> opportunities exist, and are increasingly available. The money doesn't
>>> need
>>> to flow through the WMF. In my opinion, it's much better if it doesn't;
>>> the
>>> WMF has enough political challenges to deal with, without getting
>>> involved
>>> in paid editing.
>>>
>>>
>>> ​Hi Pete,
>>>
>>
>> I didn't intend to start a detailed discussion about paid editing in this
>> thread. I mentioned it only as one of the ways in which the Foundation
>> could help unpaid editors.
>>
>> To address a few issues: the point of suggesting the Foundation as a
>> neutral broker is to remove the paid editor's COI. The editor would have
>> no
>> relationship with the people wanting the article, and would not be chosen
>> by them. The brief from the Foundation would be to produce a well-written,
>> reasonably comprehensive, neutral article about X, based on the best
>> sources available. (Someone referred to this as advertising. It would be
>> exactly the opposite.)
>>
>> It needn't be the Foundation that organizes this. A third party might
>> work,
>> but the danger of a private company doing it is that they would rely on it
>> for profit, and therefore would be sensitive to pressure from companies.
>> The idea of the Foundation as broker is that it would always place the
>> core
>> policies above the desires of the client. Foundation involvement struck me
>> as the only way for an editor to be paid for an article without having a
>> COI.
>>
>> I believe someone else suggested in this thread that it could be run the
>> way the Education Program is, as a related but separate body. That would
>> be
>> something you would be perfectly placed to lead, Pete, given your
>> experience as consultant, editor, and former Foundation employee.
>>
>> Sarah
>> ___
>> 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,
>> 
>>
>>
> Removing a COI is not the only issue at stake Sarah.
>
> Would WMF get involved into such a process, it would also possibly change
> its legal reponsibility. Right now, WMF does not get involved in the
> editorial process, which allows to claim WMF is only hosting the content.
> If WMF is somewhat involved in an editorial process which results in
> paying the authors, then WMF might lose the "host" status.
>
> Flo
>
>
> ___
> 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] Lawrence Lessig for ... WMF

[Dan Andreescu]

I met him, he's amazingly focused and radical, I appreciate his brand of 
intellect very much. But I think suggesting candidates for the ED position at 
this time is jumping two steps ahead of where we are.

We just screwed up. We were all dragged through months of an awkward collapse 
of our leadership and organizational structure. Before we start piling the 
rubble of this collapse back up into the same exact shape with a different 
keystone, let's take a breath and think.

First we should make sure we understand what, more or less, failed. It was not 
just Lila. Second, we should talk about what options we have and what criteria 
we should use to evaluate those options.

We can be patient. We have reaffirmed our respect for each other and we trust 
each other enough to share ideas, emotions, and proposals. This is our 
foundation, and it hasn't collapsed.

  Original Message  
From: Yuri Astrakhan
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 16:47
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Reply To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Lawrence Lessig for ... WMF

I would like to continue the discussion of who, in an ideal case, would be
a good fit for the ED position. This person has to fit culturally, share
movement's values, and be a trusted figure in the time of rebuilding.

Lawrence Lessig seems to have a very strong support in the community, and
even attempted to run (unsuccessfully) a large organization called United
States.

Thoughts?
___
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] Katy Love to direct WMF Resources team

[Dan Andreescu]

Congratulations Katy!  So great :)

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 6:19 PM, Itzik - Wikimedia Israel <
it...@wikimedia.org.il> wrote:

> As behalf of the FDC, we demand Katy will continue to hold the FDC role in
> additional to the new rule :))
>
> Good luck Katy! indeed the right and greatest person to take this important
> role!
>
>
>
> *Regards,Itzik Edri*
> Chairperson, Wikimedia Israel
> +972-(0)-54-5878078 | http://www.wikimedia.org.il
> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment!
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 1:02 AM, Maggie Dennis 
> wrote:
>
> > Hello, all.
> >
> > I am delighted to announce that Katy Love has agreed to step into the
> role
> > of Director of Resources in the Community Engagement department, picking
> up
> > the baton so ably carried by Siko Bouterse before her. Katy has been with
> > the Wikimedia Foundation since January 2013, beginning as the first
> program
> > officer to work with the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC). I’m
> grateful
> > to her for moving into this role and am looking forward to collaborating
> > with her closely in WMF’s Community Engagement department.
> >
> > We will be hiring her replacement to oversee the FDC/full annual plan
> > grants program in the weeks ahead.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Maggie
> >
> > P.S. Their page! https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Resources
> >
> > --
> > Maggie Dennis
> > Interim Sr. Director of Community Engagement
> > Director, Support and Safety
> > Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> > ___
> > 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,
> 
>
___
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] The right time is now!

[Dan Andreescu]

Milos's subject line is a good tl;dr; though : )

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Mardetanha <mardetanha.w...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> first revolutionary action would be to force millosh to write shorter and
> more concise emails
>
> Mardetanha
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 2:14 AM, Dan Andreescu <dandree...@wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
>
> > I agree, Milos, this is one hell of a moment.  I will treat this moment
> > with the utmost respect.
> >
> > I also love that we have made this connection, on this list, on Facebook,
> > on the wikis, with some great community members.  You're right, we should
> > cherish this.
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 5:34 PM, Milos Rancic <mill...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I stopped responding to other emails because the significance of this
> > > moment is so large, that we have now we didn't have since the
> > > beginnings of Wikipedia.
> > >
> > > We've got the chance to rebuild the movement.
> > >
> > > I don't want to talk about the past, I don't want to write about what
> > > I think about particular ongoing events, I don't want to think about
> > > anything else and I urge on all of you to do the same.
> > >
> > > Just one small part of the movement -- those personally involved --
> > > see this moment emotionally and could feel the significance of the
> > > moment. The most of the movement, including myself, didn't participate
> > > emotionally and I understand why they could have troubles to get the
> > > perspective.
> > >
> > > As mentioned before, for the first time in the decade, we have Board
> > > members discussing the issues with us honestly. But that's just one
> > > part of the story.
> > >
> > > The other part, even more significant, is exactly that emotional,
> > > cathartic process lived during the past year by that small part of the
> > > movement, WMF staff.
> > >
> > > As I said above, I don't want to talk about my particular position
> > > regarding those events, as they are irrelevant. The relevant part is
> > > their experience, their cohesion, their contemplation of various
> > > issues related to themselves, their colleagues and the movement; their
> > > will to succeed and, eventually, their success.
> > >
> > > That changes a lot! We've finally got visible another stakeholder
> > > inside of our movement, stakeholder capable to do things nobody else
> > > inside of the movement can. That also gives them much more
> > > responsibility than they had earlier. It's not anymore just about
> > > their dream jobs, but also about the fate of our movement.
> > >
> > > You proved to be capable. Last couple of weeks I read many insightful
> > > emails from you, WMF employees -- some of them I didn't know at all. I
> > > heard thoughts I've never heard before on this list. They've been born
> > > in pain and you mustn't lose them.
> > >
> > > Now you have the opportunity to lead *the* change. You are not anymore
> > > just the most organized part of the movement, you've just articulated
> > > yourself as capable to make the change you want to.
> > >
> > > You have the means, the organizational infrastructure, not the Board,
> > > which is working properly just under pressure, not C-level management,
> > > which is struggling to find the way between dysfunctional Board and
> > > reality. It's about you, engineers, analysts, managers, designers,
> > > scientists, researchers, advocates, liaisons etc. You've already
> > > changed your culture, it's now your turn to help others to change the
> > > movement culture!
> > >
> > > You win your own revolution. It's now time for you to help the rest of
> > > us in your and our common revolution.
> > >
> > > I imagine one democratic Wikimedia movement, based on solidarity,
> > > common values and common culture. I imagine all of us have the same
> > > goals and help each other to achieve them. I imagine us as the seed
> > > for the future United Federations of Planets (and, yes, when I come to
> > > San Francisco, I want you to show me Starfleet Command!).
> > >
> > > So, please, go back to your revolutionary cells, create your vision of
> > > our movement while listening the input of the rest of us, present it
> > > to us on Meta, lead the discussion, lead the revolution! You've shown
> > > that you are capable to do that.
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The right time is now!

[Dan Andreescu]

I agree, Milos, this is one hell of a moment.  I will treat this moment
with the utmost respect.

I also love that we have made this connection, on this list, on Facebook,
on the wikis, with some great community members.  You're right, we should
cherish this.

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 5:34 PM, Milos Rancic  wrote:

> I stopped responding to other emails because the significance of this
> moment is so large, that we have now we didn't have since the
> beginnings of Wikipedia.
>
> We've got the chance to rebuild the movement.
>
> I don't want to talk about the past, I don't want to write about what
> I think about particular ongoing events, I don't want to think about
> anything else and I urge on all of you to do the same.
>
> Just one small part of the movement -- those personally involved --
> see this moment emotionally and could feel the significance of the
> moment. The most of the movement, including myself, didn't participate
> emotionally and I understand why they could have troubles to get the
> perspective.
>
> As mentioned before, for the first time in the decade, we have Board
> members discussing the issues with us honestly. But that's just one
> part of the story.
>
> The other part, even more significant, is exactly that emotional,
> cathartic process lived during the past year by that small part of the
> movement, WMF staff.
>
> As I said above, I don't want to talk about my particular position
> regarding those events, as they are irrelevant. The relevant part is
> their experience, their cohesion, their contemplation of various
> issues related to themselves, their colleagues and the movement; their
> will to succeed and, eventually, their success.
>
> That changes a lot! We've finally got visible another stakeholder
> inside of our movement, stakeholder capable to do things nobody else
> inside of the movement can. That also gives them much more
> responsibility than they had earlier. It's not anymore just about
> their dream jobs, but also about the fate of our movement.
>
> You proved to be capable. Last couple of weeks I read many insightful
> emails from you, WMF employees -- some of them I didn't know at all. I
> heard thoughts I've never heard before on this list. They've been born
> in pain and you mustn't lose them.
>
> Now you have the opportunity to lead *the* change. You are not anymore
> just the most organized part of the movement, you've just articulated
> yourself as capable to make the change you want to.
>
> You have the means, the organizational infrastructure, not the Board,
> which is working properly just under pressure, not C-level management,
> which is struggling to find the way between dysfunctional Board and
> reality. It's about you, engineers, analysts, managers, designers,
> scientists, researchers, advocates, liaisons etc. You've already
> changed your culture, it's now your turn to help others to change the
> movement culture!
>
> You win your own revolution. It's now time for you to help the rest of
> us in your and our common revolution.
>
> I imagine one democratic Wikimedia movement, based on solidarity,
> common values and common culture. I imagine all of us have the same
> goals and help each other to achieve them. I imagine us as the seed
> for the future United Federations of Planets (and, yes, when I come to
> San Francisco, I want you to show me Starfleet Command!).
>
> So, please, go back to your revolutionary cells, create your vision of
> our movement while listening the input of the rest of us, present it
> to us on Meta, lead the discussion, lead the revolution! You've shown
> that you are capable to do that.
>
> The right time to do that is now! Please, don't miss this
> once-in-lifetime opportunity!
>
> --
> Milos
>
> ___
> 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] Transition plans for WMF leadership - Board Reform

[Dan Andreescu]

Denny, with all due respect, I think you have things backwards.

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Pledge_of_personal_commitment

"committed to Wikimedia Foundation’s goal to establish and maintain the
highest level of public confidence in its accountability"

Your interpretation seems to be "committed to Wikimedia Foundation".  But
you need to read that whole sentence.  The *goal* of the Foundation, to
maintain the highest level of public confidence, is the important part.
This goal can be threatened by members of the Foundation, and defended by
members of the movement at large.  Which is what's happening right now, and
which is why your interpretation is met with such disagreement.

"In every instance in which I represent the Wikimedia Foundation, I will
conduct my activities in a manner to best promote the interests of
Wikimedia Foundation."

Again, the *interests* of the Foundation, not the Foundation itself.
Which, again, are threatened by this crisis.

I hope this has just been a temporary lapse in understanding that you are
suffering from due to difficult times and elevated emotions.  But it's
clear that we need the board to protect the movement, which of course is
the *interest* and *goal* of the Foundation.

I am a relatively insignificant staff member, sure.  But still, I want to
say to the community at large that most of my friends and people I've
talked to are fully committed to the movement, and not to some abstract
useless loyalty to a Foundation that does not operate in the movement's
best interest.  But that does not mean that the crisis we face now is a
simple cut and dry problem.  The movement includes many voices that are not
heard on this list, and we have to think hard about how to account for all
those voices, and do the best thing for free and open knowledge.

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Andrea Zanni 
wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Brion Vibber 
> wrote:
>
> > What I will disagree on is with the notion that the board has to take the
> > org's side against the movement by definition. It is my understanding
> that
> > the board has the role of oversight of the org -- that is, it's the
> board's
> > job to ensure that the Foundation is effectively accomplishing the goals
> it
> > was created to perform.
> >
>
> As much as I agree with Brion,
> probably Denny's message is telling us a lot.
> I haven't read carefully the WMF Board Pledge of personal commitment, but
> this is not the first time this issue is discussed: see for example
> Cristian mail, two months ago, tackling the very specific thing. [1]
>
> Maybe the Board "feels" a lot of pressure about this, and this is a problem
> on itself.
> We all know that "toxicity" of an environment doesn't need laws or written
> rules, but people being people, social pressure, etc.
> If Board members feels without power, bound to the WMF and not the
> Movement, that's a real problem we need to look into.
>
> Aubrey
>
> [1]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-December/080600.html
> ___
> 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] What it means to be a high-tech organization

[Dan Andreescu]

I'm very new to this concept of paid editing.  But from what I understood
paid editing is allowed, as long as the editors disclose who they are paid
by on their talk page or in edit summaries.  I understood this to be
roughly the idea of the Wikipedian in Residence title.  I didn't look this
up on purpose, because I wanted to point out this might be a common
existing understanding.  Am I mistaken?  What is the policy?

As I was thinking about this, if it's true, I figured the hardest part for
the community would be finding out which edit was sponsored and which was
not.  If the disclosure was just on the user's page, someone looking at
edit histories would have to click through a lot to find possible
affiliations.  I'd say we could easily create an "audit" mode to the edit
history that would decorate each revision based on any affiliation
templates from the user pages.

But, there I go inventing a feature for a problem I don't even know exists
: )  I'll just go look it up now.

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 9:19 PM, Risker  wrote:

> On 24 February 2016 at 21:16, Risker  wrote:
>
> > Well, Sarah, after all of these years I didn't think you'd come up with
> > anything that would surprise me. I was wrong,  And I'll say that if I was
> > going to favour paying anyone, it would be paying qualified translators
> to
> > support smaller projects, and Wikisourcers, and people who may have the
> > interest and ability to edit but instead have to work 60 and 70 hour
> weeks
> > on susbsistence wages simply to feed their children.  I would have an
> > extremely difficult time justifying paying people in large, well-to-do
> > countries to edit Wikipedia. I also strongly suspect it would kill the
> > donation stream almost entirely once it became known that Wikipedia was
> no
> > longer written by volunteers, but instead was written by paid editors.
> >
>
>
> (Sorry for the inadvertent early send)
>
> Risker
>
>
>
>
> > 24 February 2016 at 21:09, SarahSV  wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 4:20 PM, phoebe ayers 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > And here I thought you were going to suggest giving each editor a pool
> >> > of $$ to assign to their favorite skunkworks projects.
> >> >
> >> > If we divide the current WMF budget ($58M) by the current number of
> >> > monthly active editors (71K), then take 60% off the top for keeping
> >> > the lights on, infrastructure, etc. -- this is a fairly typical
> >> > overhead percentage for grants at universities -- we're still left
> >> > with $325/editor.
> >> >
> >> > ​As of January 2016, the English WP had 3,492 editors that the
> >> Foundation
> >> calls "very active," but that's only 100 edits a month. [1] The core
> >> workforce is considerably smaller, and they're the ones who keep the
> place
> >> running by tidying and writing/rewriting articles, creating and
> >> maintaining
> >> various processes and policies, creating templates, and so on.
> >>
> >> The Foundation could pay that number of workers, especially if it found
> >> imaginative ways to do it.
> >>
> >> For example, it could set up a department that accepts contracts from
> >> individuals and groups who want certain articles to be written or
> >> rewritten. Instead of paying a PR company, those people would pay the
> >> Foundation. The Foundation would maintain a list of excellent editors
> and
> >> would offer the contract to the most appropriate, taking a percentage of
> >> the fee for itself.
> >>
> >> The brief would specify that any article produced must adhere to the
> core
> >> content policies, so there would be no whitewashing, but there would be
> an
> >> effort to be fair. As things stand, unpaid editors have to clean up PR
> >> efforts anyway, so they might as well get paid to produce something
> decent
> >> from the start. It might only take a few ethical companies to sign up
> for
> >> the thing to take off.
> >>
> >> Sarah
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> [1] https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/SummaryEN.htm
> >> ___
> >> 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,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we too rigid?

[Dan Andreescu]

Now, I agree with Oliver's points but I disagree they apply to the entire
organization, and I have proof.  I also objectively think there's much more
reason for optimism than pessimism.  I'm open to being proven wrong or told
that I have an Authority Voice and I just don't understand, I really am, I
think if someone like me who's thought about this extensively doesn't get
it we have a real problem and my optimism should check its privilege.

*how we treat people, **what empathy we have, and* *how we value empathy*.
Disclosure: I was treated very poorly in my past work life.  I was forced
to work an average of 70 hours per week for 32 months, without overtime for
most of it, and was denied any vacation during that time (a superior
punched me in the chest at one particular low point).  In a different
situation I had to organize a strike to obtain overtime payment for my 30+
hours and my friend's 50+ hours of *continuous* work with *no sleep*.  My
point is, when I got this opportunity to work at WMF, I was extremely clear
that I was looking for a place where I was treated decently.  My first few
months here were rocky, I got unknowingly tangled up in some political
struggles.  But over time, I'm really proud of what my team has
accomplished and the fun, empathetic, distributed, and fair way we run
things.  We take turns presenting at quarterly reviews, try to achieve
consensus, consider each others' welfare, it's really great.  So I'm trying
to say that we're proof it's possible to have this kind of environment at
WMF.  I admit I've never thought about this beyond the now comfortable
walls of my team, but I am really deeply sad now that I have poked my head
outside.  The fact that so many people I feel really close to are
leaving... it just feels like a big opportunity lost.  We could have made
this place amazing to work at, together.  Instead we seem to be conquered
individually by enemies that some of us have defeated.

how we pay attention to *organisational hiring*.  We're bad at this.  We
get lucky sometimes, and sometimes we get lucky to hire *amazing* people
like Nuria who really know what they're doing and help us hire well.  So we
need to get better, and we do that by paying really close attention to
those who obviously know better.

*how we promote*.  I'm against promotions personally, I don't want or need
the recognition, power, or change in work type.  But some people do, and I
don't for the *life* of me understand why this is such a taboo touchy scary
topic full of drama and elevated emotion.  My 2c: if you want a promotion -
make a case for it.  Say, I've been here for this and this time, I feel
like I add this and this value, if I was promoted, I feel like this would
align better with my opinion of myself and the value I provide while also
benefiting the organization in such and such way.  You'll get public
support if the argument makes sense, and you'll get private hopefully
sensitive messages if not.  And, if you get something else, like
intimidation, pain, reprimand, etc. then I *personally* have your back.
And I'll call on the many friends I have that share my feelings on this.
There's a way to be appropriate, transparent, and fair here.  And a way to
drown out biased voices through the wisdom of our especially wise crowd.
Use that, don't fight your battles in silence and complain about the
results of problems that the rest of us don't even have a chance to help
with.

Full disclosure, Oliver, I spoke up on your behalf several times, and I
thought you received fairer treatment as a result, but I now consider
myself an idiot because we should have had this conversation in the open.
It's sad to lose you, but I'm very happy for you and your next adventures,
and thankful for this last gift you give us, the opportunity to have this
conversation.





On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Andrew Bogott 
wrote:

> Thanks for this email, Oliver, it's fantastic!  Since I'm one of the
> people who says 'flat' and 'flatter' a lot, I feel compelled to respond,
> though I run the risk of painting an already-perfect lily.
>
> One of the first essays we read in the Flat Org group was 'The Tyranny of
> Structurelessness'[1] which makes a similar point to Oliver's, and I think
> it's one that everyone is wise to remember. The question that I seek an
> answer to is not "How can we smash hierarchy?"  It is, rather,  "How can an
> institution be less reliant on the competence and benevolence of a small
> number of people, and less vulnerable to malice or incompetence on the part
> of a small number of people?"  In my experience, traditional top-down
> management systems are highly vulnerable because they're great at
> magnifying whims and mistakes.
>
> I'm pretty sure that it's possible to have structure without having a
> rigid power-based hierarchy.  To some extent, that's what democracy is, or
> at least what it seeks to be.  It's definitely what Wikipedia seeks to be.
> I hope that 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we too rigid?

[Dan Andreescu]

That's funny, there's also an active reading group looking into flatter
organizational structures.  I think we're maybe ready for a more official
lack of hierarchy, or at least a more solid acknowledgement that it's
flexibility that makes us strong and it should be cherished.

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 10:01 PM, Dario Taraborelli <
dtarabore...@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Brion,
>
> there was a very constructive, heartfelt session on models of bottom-up
> open innovation at this year's WMF All Hands. You can find extensive notes
> from this session on the Office Wiki ("Embracing skunkworks") which I
> encourage you to read and that I'd love to share publicly in a more
> readable format at some point.
>
> There are obvious tradeoffs between allowing more flexibility on the one
> hand and making sure we have a reasonable budget plan, accountability to
> donors and stakeholders and appropriate resource allocation on the other
> hand, but I believe this model would work much better than the current one,
> at least for projects that are not core initiatives.
>
> Skunkworks is what got us revision scoring, EventLogging, countless
> initiatives by TechOps and innovative MediaWiki extensions.
>
> Dario
>
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 6:14 PM, Yuri Astrakhan <yastrak...@wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Does it make sense to have an "Incubator team" ("Bell Labs" if you will),
> > whose core competency is to nurture small projects? When projects are
> > mature and need to switch into maintenance mode, they move under the
> > umbrella of a different team.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 5:06 AM, Brion Vibber <bvib...@wikimedia.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Feb 23, 2016 5:52 PM, "Dan Andreescu" <dandree...@wikimedia.org>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > but also, some projects that were not so useful, sure.  But we learn,
> > > move
> > > > on, we're not the first group of people to make mistakes : )
> > >
> > > Yep... High-tech organizations call it "failing fast".
> > >
> > > -- Brion
> > >
> > > > ___
> > > > 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,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > ___
> > 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,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> *Dario Taraborelli  *Head of Research, Wikimedia Foundation
> wikimediafoundation.org • nitens.org • @readermeter
> <http://twitter.com/readermeter>
> ___
> 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we too rigid?

[Dan Andreescu]

>
> If I remember correctly, I think that's how the Content Translation project
> started -- it was someone's personal project, which got more people and
> attention because it's a great idea and showed real success.


and Event Logging, and the Graph extension, and Mediawiki Vagrant , and ...
and ... Wikipedia!!

but also, some projects that were not so useful, sure.  But we learn, move
on, we're not the first group of people to make mistakes : )
___
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] Are we too rigid?

[Dan Andreescu]

Well, I see nothing in the rule-book [1] that says we have to be rigid.
Sure a lot of our work aligns with Reading, Editing, Discovery, and
Infrastructure.  But some of our work needs bits and pieces from each
vertical, and even if managers and "hierarchists" [2] moan and groan, it
doesn't make the need for that work go away.

I'll give you one example.  This graph that Yuri shared earlier [3] has a
dark secret if you click Edit twice.  The data for that graph is
copy-pasted into the graph in a most unsightly way.  So now it lives in
both wikitext format in the table below and eye-piercing JSON format inside
the graph.  Obviously, this data should live somewhere as a first class
citizen, and be used from both the table and the graph.  Yuri, me, Dario,
and a *bunch* of community members have been talking about the fact that we
need this for at least 2 years.

So why hasn't it happened?  Well, it's because people moaned and groaned
and it didn't fit into our structure.

So let's do it.  Starting now, I am no longer going to be rigidly defined
by my title [4].  I will dedicate some (not all) of my time to helping make
this structured data a first class citizen so we can use it on wikis and
stop turning people's eyeballs to mush with our weird JSON.  I know there's
community desire and support for this, it makes sense, and we're all trying
to work on it in our spare time and at 3am on Sunday the last day of the
hackathon.  Not a great way for a complicated feature to make it out to our
dear community!

Much love, and hopefully inspiration for others to find and do useful
projects not necessarily defined by their title.

Dan

p.s. this email was written with a smile and light-hearted attitude


[1] There is no rule-book :)
[2] hierarchists: people who love hierarchy
[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_paintings#Interactive_graph
[4] I am a "Front End Javascript UX/UI Engineer, Analytics"  *whatever*
that means... : )

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 7:53 PM, Yuri Astrakhan 
wrote:

> Something in Oliver's departure email caught my eye:
>
>
> *  "Because we are scared and in pain and hindered by structural biases and
> hierarchy, we are worse at our jobs." (quoted with Oliver's permission)*
>
> And that got me thinking. WMF, an organization that was built with the open
> and community-driven principles - why have we became the classic example of
> a corporate multi-level hierarchy? Should we mimic a living organism rather
> than a human-built pyramid?
>
> This may sound naive and wishful, but could we have a more flat and
> flexible team structure, where instead of having large teams with
> sub-teams, we would have small self-forming teams "by interest".  For
> example, someone decides to dedicate their 20% to building support for
> storing 3D models in wiki. Their efforts are noticed, the community shows
> its support, and WMF reacts by increasing project resourcing. Or the
> opposite - the community questions the need of a project, and neither the
> team nor WMF can convincingly justify it - the project resources are
> gradually reduced.
>
> An organism reacts to the change of its environment by redistributing
> resources to the more problematic areas. Would small, flexible, and more
> focused teams achieve that better?
> ___
> 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] Timeline of recent events at the Wikimedia Foundation

[Dan Andreescu]

Thank you!  For providing context to those that don't have it, structure to
those who do, and evidence of our values of collaboration, openness, and
empiricism.  Remarkable thing to accomplish with a timeline : )

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:

> Yes, very nicely done indeed. I very much like that layout.
>
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 5:20 AM, GorillaWarfare <
> gorillawarfarewikipe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Recent discussion of the Knowledge Engine/Wikimedia Discovery project,
> > issues with senior leadership, lack of transparency, and the like has
> been
> > fairly well spread across several Wikimedia projects and mailing lists,
> as
> > well as on Facebook, in the media, and in other venues.
> >
> > I just published an attempt to aggregate some of the events that I think
> > are particularly informative given what's been going on:
> > http://mollywhite.net/wikimedia-timeline/
> >
> > I hope it's helpful, and please feel free to suggest changes if it's
> > incomplete.
> >
> > – Molly (GorillaWarfare)
> > ___
> > 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,
> 
>
___
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] Access to pageviews (was: An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT)

[Dan Andreescu]

>
> I have followed that process, been subscribed to
> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T44259 which I just reread
> and thus rather surprised by your comment.  I have never
> seen any technical reason mentioned in the bug.  It would
> have been very helpful, because someone might have come up
> with a fix in the two years when it was "on our roadmap" un-
> til you overcame them.
>

It wasn't my intention to dig up this history, just to point out that the
real story is always more complex.  That applies to whatever explanation I
give here, as well.  It's from my perspective, and the nuance is endless.
Anyway, I'm more than happy to try and shed light, hopefully this helps for
future work we do together.

The technical challenge was, basically, moving off of our udp2log based
logging infrastructure to Kafka.  I think it's fair to say that the
Analytics team didn't have the full trust and confidence of WMF until Toby
started turning that around.  We were submitted to some painful agile
coaching and were not allowed to implement the correct solution (Kafka)
fully, we were working with a patchwork system that still had single points
of failure and data loss.  Once we gained that trust, it still took while
to sort out how to tune Kafka so it reliably received traffic logs from all
of our caching centers, and let us know when it had loss or duplication of
data.  This work was in really good shape, if memory serves, by the end of
summer, 2014.  I incorrectly summarized that solely as a technical
challenge, it was a pretty tricky technical challenge combined with an
organizational one.  For the latter, if it helps, Sue and Erik both
acknowledged responsibility and things were much smoother after that.  (I
always had tremendous respect for the two of them, but that acknowledgement
was pretty amazing, and unique in my 12 years of experience).

At that point, October 2014, some of us, myself included, wanted to start
work on the pageview API.  We didn't get push-back as much as a strong push
to focus on Event Logging instead.  The Event Logging system, developed by
Ori, was also experiencing some pretty serious growing pains.  Outages were
becoming very frequent due to the increased traffic and lack of automated
monitoring and management.  Over the next few months we improved
performance and upgraded it to use Kafka as well, and solved those
problems.  Looking back, that's still a bittersweet choice for me.  This
work on Event Logging was absolutely key to the experiments that led to
Visual Editor's successful roll-out in 2015.  As one of many examples, this
dashboard would not have been possible without a stable Event Logging
platform: https://edit-analysis.wmflabs.org/compare/.  And, perhaps this
was Toby's strategic vision that I didn't see at the time, and very
important for us to keep our newly gained trust and independence within
WMF.  But, of course, it meant we had to delay the pageview API yet again.
That's the 6 month delay I mentioned.  And we didn't leave the community
hanging, we made the higher quality raw data available with mobile traffic
in this new dataset: http://dumps.wikimedia.org/other/pagecounts-all-sites/
as well as gave Henrik some support with stats.grok.se

Some of these things are mentioned on the epic T44259
, but some I didn't even truly
understand at the time, and some might have not been constructive to
mention.  I'm personally all ears at this point.  What of this should we
have noted on the task?  Like I said above, there's lots of detail, but at
some point it would feel like I'm a news reporter instead of an engineer :)
 Also, I'm not sure I would have seen it the same way.  Even a few months
ago when we released the pageview API I was still a bit bitter that the
Event Logging work was prioritized, and now I think that was me being
short-sighted to some extent.

Instead, I read for example Toby's comment at Magnus's blog
> (http://magnusmanske.de/wordpress/?p=173#comment-290):
>
> | […]
>
> | We’ve been prioritizing and working on these projects as our
> | resources allow and it’s important to understand that the
> | team has not been idle.  While we’ve done a less than stel-
> | lar job in communicating our progress to the community, in-
> | formation on what we’ve been doing is available via our
> | planning pages on mediawiki.  In the future, we will be more
> | proactive in communicating with the community regarding our
> | goals and projects.
>
> as meaning that there were no technical obstacles, but lim-
> ited resources that were directed to other projects (and ap-
> parently none that matched the popularity of a pageviews
> API).


Both can be true, and are true.  The challenge was great, from what I
understand what we accomplished took Twitter orders of magnitude more money
and people, a fact which makes me look at my teammates with complete awe
(they're amazing).  And, as I explained above, we also had to prioritize
other work.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

[Dan Andreescu]

>
> Again, I do not know who is right and who is wrong here, we have excellent
> examples of WMF staff work all the time through (let me name Maggie Dennis
> as an example of someone who is doing excellent work as both WMF staffer
> and a project volunteer, and there are more examples), but things
> definitely went suboptimal in that period. Volunteers can any moment, you
> know, walk away, and without them, WMF projects would die.
>

Allow me to give one specific limited example that touches on some of the
themes you raised here, Yaroslav.  My main point is that from the outside,
correlation of what happened during Sue's and Lila's leadership might seem
to imply causation, but I think the reality is much more complicated.

The pageview API, which is now being integrated into the Graph extension,
stats tools, iOS app, and generally making a lot of people happy, has a
long history.  Various members of the community have been requesting this
feature with increasing fervor for over a decade.  I started at WMF in 2012
and within 1 year I learned enough to be completely convinced that this was
one of the most worthwhile projects we could embark on.  However, at this
point, we *could not* expose any kind of remotely useful data via a
pageview API, for technical reasons.  We overcame those reasons in October
2014, at which point it took us about 6 months to prioritize the project to
actually do it.

My point is, Sue's support for this project wouldn't have mattered, it
wasn't technically possible during her tenure.  Sue did give us support for
the infrastructure groundwork, and that was key.  And Lila's support for
it, once we could do it, was not directly gained, we prioritized it
internally on my team with no interaction with Lila.  She saw it was our
goal and didn't reject it, but we spent literally a few minutes talking
about it that whole year.

In 2013, I was told by members of the community that us saying "it's not
possible to build a Pageview API" was considered "laughing at the
community" as you put it, Yaroslav.  But I hope, if nothing else, we've
proven that we never laughed, we tried our hardest and fought with some big
challenges to make it happen.  And none of it really had anything to do
with our ED.  So in this case, establishing causation all the way to the ED
would probably be impossible.  Logic tells me that this is probably true in
a lot of cases where now, in this dark time, we would want to look past
that complexity and establish causation that might not be there.

I am not defending or attacking Lila.  I am simply saying that, just
because we are in this position of questioning our leadership, it does not
mean we have to try and neatly package everything that happened under Sue
and everything that happened under Lila and try to compare.

The current questioning of leadership is a conversation about very specific
issues, of which the board is aware, and which WMF staff, despite all the
craziness, has had the restraint and humanity to not mention publicly.  I
certainly wish the level of discourse here would be less violent, because
we have to look at ourselves in the mirror when this is resolved and build
our future together.
___
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] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

[Dan Andreescu]

>
> People will leave despite how much they love a place, its mission, and its
> volunteers at the point it becomes too painful for them to stay. And no one
> can make that decision for them. While the support of one's colleagues goes
> a very long way, it is necessary but not sufficient.  I have been watching,
> even in pain and at a distance, the enormous toll it takes for people to go
> in day after day and keep doing their work when they have felt unsupported
> and unheard by the leadership, the board, and the movement, and uncertain
> of the strategy of the organization - and even worse, characterized as
> being the wrong people on the bus, so to speak - that this turnover is
> "normal" and part of leadership transition. This is not normal.
>

I sincerely apologize for minimizing that pain, it was not my intention but
I can see how what I wrote can be seen this way.  This is not normal, and
even if it was normal, it would still be awful.

Dysfunction at the top does matter. It sets the tone for what is
> permissible in the organization. It is part of the leadership obligation to
> create an organizational and systemic environment in which people thrive,
> and feel aligned to the mission and the values of the organization. When
> that is absent, the resulting toxicity is downright unfair to ask people to
> continually endure.
>

I again apologize, this time for not expanding on what I meant by *really*
matter.  The dysfunction of course *matters*.  It hurts a lot of people,
people I love, and that's why I can't just sit by idly.

I think I was trying to say that we can get past this.  That we're bigger
than this.  That our united voice is stronger than the dysfunction, by far.
___
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] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

[Dan Andreescu]

>
> This is happening in spite of -- not thanks to -- dysfunction at the top.
> If you don't believe me, all you have to do is wait: an exodus of people
> from Engineering won't be long now.


I hope you're wrong, Ori.  I hope people have the presence of mind, like
you say - despite the dysfunction at the top, to stay and talk things out
among each other.  And to realize that the dysfunction at the top does not
*really* matter.  People screw up, but this is a movement.  And this
movement, as you point out, has not screwed up.

I hope we talk, fix the problems, and grow stronger in our connection and
commitment to the amazing community we serve.

If anyone is feeling despair, please talk to me first, we have all the
reason in the world to channel our effort in a positive direction.  Just to
be clear, I admire Ori for his intelligence and for writing this email, I
just hope he's wrong that people will leave this place that I love so much.
___
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] Simple English please! was The conversation is happening elsewhere :(

[Dan Andreescu]

At our all-hands meeting this year, Risker [1] gave a moving talk in which
she pointed out that the Wikimedia movement is a part of the open knowledge
movement.  She showed us a picture of Pando, which is a remarkable organism
as you can see for yourself in that article.  And she said that the ancient
open knowledge movement is like this ancient group of trees that has
survived everything.  And that we are proud to be a part of that movement.
For many of us, it was a reminder that we are connected to something almost
invincible and it gave us hope.  That hope and strength was what I was
tapping into with my message, my apologies for not foot-noting.

[1] https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Risker

On Wednesday, February 17, 2016, Michel Vuijlsteke 
wrote:

> Aspen grove: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Pando_(tree)
>
> On 17 February 2016 at 10:14, Anders Wennersten  >
> wrote:
>
> > I second this opinion, please remember we are many not having English as
> > our mother language
> >
> > Also besides being all lost in the discussion of Knight grant
> application,
> > I do not understand a word from the poem of Yates, neither do I
> understand
> > the meaning of Aspen grove
> >
> > Please, please go back to simple English in this list to enable many to
> > take part
> >
> > Andes
> >
> > Den 2016-02-17 kl. 09:57, skrev Andrea Zanni:
> >
> >> Thanks Asaf,
> >> I didn't know about that group.
> >>
> >> May I also mention that the conversation is also becoming *exhausting*,
> >> being in English and at very high level?
> >> I know we can't do nothing about it, but it's worth noting, IMHO, that
> the
> >> more we go on the fewer people with incredible stamina, analytic skills
> >> and
> >> English proficiency will follow and engage.
> >> Not really inclusive for Wikimedia.
> >> I, for one, find it very hard to follow everything and participate.
> >>
> >> Aubrey
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 2:02 AM, Adam Wight  > wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks for the note!  Fwiw, I can't read that without a login.  Feel
> free
> >>> to urge the owners to make the thread public, if base crook even
> supports
> >>> such a thing.
> >>> On Feb 16, 2016 4:47 PM, "Asaf Bartov"  > wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Dear colleagues,
> 
>  These are difficult and confusing times.  Many of you are puzzled or
>  receiving partial and possibly contradictory bits and pieces of news.
> 
>  As a service to the community, I feel I must point out that
>  significantly
>  more conversation is taking place -- for whatever reason -- on the
> 
> >>> (public)
> >>>
>  Wikipedia Weekly facebook group[1].
> 
>  Without endorsing that choice of venue (the issues with Facebook are
> 
> >>> fairly
> >>>
>  well-known), it does appear that if you want significantly more
>  information, you should head on over there and read through the last
> 
> >>> couple
> >>>
>  of weeks' posts. (much information is in the comments)
> 
>  (if you are inspired to collect and preserve useful information from
> 
> >>> there
> >>>
>  on Meta, that would be best.)
> 
>  In solidarity,
> 
>  Asaf
> 
>  [1] https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediaweekly/
> 
>  --
>   Asaf Bartov
>   Wikimedia Foundation 
> 
>  Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
>  the
>  sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
>  https://donate.wikimedia.org
>  ___
>  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
> ,
>  
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> 
> >>> ___
> >>> 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,
> >>> 
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> >>>
> >>> ___
> >> 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,
> >> 
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> >>
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Another goodbye

[Dan Andreescu]

Asaf, and everyone else, really, I guess the time for silence is over.

I think that, just because Siko feels this way, now, about this wmf, and about 
this moment, doesn't mean that the next moment will maintain, integral, this 
same truth. It is the rest of us that get to craft the next moment. It is both 
with our skills and effort that we get to craft it.

I intend to bring love and respect into our next moment. Lila and our 
leadership have failed to bring us peace right now in this moment, but we will 
make peace and we will fix our problems.

Because we are not a tree, we are part of an ancient Aspen Grove.

  Original Message  
From: Asaf Bartov
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 18:17
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Reply To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Another goodbye

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. 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.
>

" [...]
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."
-- W. B. Yeats

-- 
Asaf Bartov
Wikimedia Foundation 

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
https://donate.wikimedia.org
___
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,