Good points worth repeating, though, jytdog. We're learning as we go here. COI is notoriously difficult to anticipate and manage. None of us, that I'm aware of, thought about - or at least discussed - the implications of his Google role when he ran for the board, and when it became too onerous to manage, Denny had the wisdom to step away.
He's an enormous asset to this movement; as I said, we're lucky to have him, and I'm very grateful for all he's contributed. Anthony Cole On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 4:44 PM, jytdog <jyt...@gmail.com> wrote: > This is kind of frustrating. Lila (speaking for the board) in her "Why we > changed > < > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Lila_Tretikov%27s_statement_on_Why_we%27ve_changed > >" > message, identified falling page views (creating a threat of falling > donation revenue) caused by folks like Google repurposing our content as an > "existential challenge". I am not sure I agree with that, but the WMF > Board and the former ED said that. (Jimmy confirmed that on his Talk page, > too) > > The key thing about Denny's COI issues as they unfolded, is that he was > surprised and frustrated about the problems managing his COI ended up > causing - so much so that he quit. That stuff actually happened. Debating > what his COI was or whether it mattered is really beside the point... and > all murky because whatever management plan was worked out - whatever areas > actually were identified as problematic - we do not know, as that plan > wasn't made public. > > Going forward, there should be a) a clear disclosure of relevant outside > interests and b) a pre-agreed COI management plan where those interests > conflict with a Trustee's obligations, before Trustees formally step into > the role. What happened with Denny doesn't have to happen again. That > seems to be the key issue looking forward. > > I'm repeating myself, and will stop now. > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 2:28 AM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I agree with all of that, MZ. As to your questions: > > > > "Shouldn't we be applauding Google and others for helping us share our > > knowledge with the world?" > > > > Yes. > > > > "What size do you think the Wikimedia Foundation should be in terms of > > yearly > > budget and number of full-time employees? How much bigger or smaller > should > > the Wikimedia Foundation be than other Wikimedia chapters?" > > > > It depends on what we want them to do. > > > > "...are you sure that we're all agreed that this [Google impacting > > Wikipedia's > > page views and the ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers] is > > problematic?" > > > > I'm less concerned than many, and I'm sure others are unconcerned. > > > > "If Google causes page views to go down and our sites are directly hit > > less frequently, > > that actually saves us money, doesn't it?" > > > > If our page views drop by 50% and this halves our fundraising capacity, I > > doubt that would be offset by the saved hosting costs. But I'm no expert > on > > these things. > > > > > > Anthony Cole > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:46 AM, MZMcBride <z...@mzmcbride.com> wrote: > > > > > Anthony Cole wrote: > > > >Google's "info boxes" and their answers at the top of their results, > > we're > > > >all agreed now, I think, are impacting Wikipedia's page views and, > > > >consequently, our ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers. > > > > > > Google and others have a direct interest in their data being accurate > and > > > reliable. We already see that Google has a "report a correction" > feature > > > for some of its services. It's in both Wikimedia's interest and > re-users' > > > interest for the underlying data source to be update-to-date and > correct. > > > > > > Our mission is to spread free educational content to the world and we > > make > > > our data available for re-use for this purpose. Shouldn't we be > > applauding > > > Google and others for helping us share our knowledge with the world? > > > > > > As far as threats to direct-to-user fund-raising go, I'd put > > > organizational instability ahead of Google at the moment. The Wikimedia > > > Foundation has repeatedly been in the news lately for ongoing > management > > > issues, both in its executive team and in its board of trustees. > > > > > > What size do you think the Wikimedia Foundation should be in terms of > > > yearly budget and number of full-time employees? How much bigger or > > > smaller should the Wikimedia Foundation be than other Wikimedia > chapters? > > > > > > Even if we accepted your premise that Google was impacting Wikipedia's > > > page views and the ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers > > > (citations needed, to be sure), are you sure that we're all agreed that > > > this is problematic? If others re-using our content has a side effect > > > of reducing donations to Wikimedia Foundation Inc., donations which are > > > received through questionable and increasingly obnoxious on-site > > > advertisements, you will not find universal agreement that this donor > > > reduction would be terrible. As others have argued previously, small > and > > > recurring donations are a means of providing accountability for the > > > entities entrusted with these monetary donations. If potential donors > no > > > longer trust the Wikimedia Foundation to manage and distribute this > > > money, no longer donating financially is practical and wise. > > > > > > If Google causes page views to go down and our sites are directly hit > > less > > > frequently, that actually saves us money, doesn't it? We're > theoretically > > > then off-loading some of our hosting costs to Google, Facebook, and > > > others who are downloading and re-uploading our data to the Web, > exactly > > > as we mandated that anyone be able to do. With multiple copies of the > > data > > > on the Web, we're better ensuring that the content lives on in > > perpetuity. > > > > > > > > > MZMcBride > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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> > _______________________________________________ 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>
