Mailing List Archive

On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 16:41, Pronoein <pronoein@gmail.com> wrote:

> Le 01/03/2011 18:31, Michael Snow a écrit :
> > On 3/1/2011 12:57 PM, Pronoein wrote:
> >> If there is such a minority of ethical concerns, it could be one of the
> >> reasons that volunteers are leaving the boat.
> > Based on the one survey of former contributors that has been conducted
> > (see
> > http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Former_Contributors_Survey_Results),
> > this doesn't figure highly enough to demonstrate the kind of significant
> > minority you suggest. Rather, the concerns of those surveyed are
> > overwhelmingly about how rulebound, overly complex, and unfriendly their
> > work in the community seemed to be. Perhaps somebody would care to go
> > back through the full survey responses and see if they can identify
> > comments that fit the "I was being exploited" line you're pushing here.
>
> Michael, I wouldn't underestimate the "I'm being exploited" feeling for
people either leaving, or failing to join up. In Wikipedia's early years, we
were exploiting ourselves, as it were. But the more of a corporate structure
the Foundation assumes, the greater the sense that we're working for
something in which we have no input. There will be a tipping point that
differs for each individual, and they may not even express it in those
terms.

Sarah
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Snow <wikipedia@frontier.com>
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Tue, Mar 1, 2011 3:49 pm
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia "Storyteller" job opening


On 3/1/2011 2:41 PM, Pronoein wrote:

> Thank you for your answer Michael. However:
> «Note that this survey was aimed at less experienced editors. »
>
> I remember for example that many administrators quit during the sexual
> content controversy because of the decision of Jimbo. Those people were
> driven by a vision of a certain type of governance and felt betrayed or
> disappointed.

I acknowledge the limitations of the survey, and as always would be
thrilled if we had more and better data. But since you were connecting
your thesis to a broad systemic trend, I considered it more useful to
look at evidence of systemic trends, not anecdotal reactions to a single
incident. In terms of volunteer motivation, I'd have to think being
"driven by a vision of a certain type of governance" has to rank pretty
low, considering that our mission has nothing to do with promoting any
particular vision in that field. A survey of former administrators or
something like that might be informative, certainly, if somebody is
available to drive that. My guess is that compared with other former
volunteers, their responses would have more similarity than difference.

--Michael Snow
-----------------------------

I think you two are talking at cross purposes here.
It's not that volunteers are motivated to contribute *based* on the governance model.
It's that they decide to *quit* based on the governance model.

The police are your friends until they screw with you. Then they are not.
Can a person who has been screwed with, ever be reconciled again to the project?

The project has situations encoded into it, which don't go away simply because they are ignored.

W



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

________________________________
From: Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb@yahoo.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Tue, March 1, 2011 4:46:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia "Storyteller" job opening






________________________________
From: MZMcBride <z@mzmcbride.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Tue, March 1, 2011 3:24:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia "Storyteller" job opening

Zack Exley wrote:
> But there is one important purpose of that job that may be a bit hidden in
> between the lines: For this position, I'm looking for someone who can help
> free us from dependence on "The Jimmy Letter" in fundraising.

I think part of my confusion (maybe the biggest chunk of it) comes from
terminology and naming. I guess you're not really trying to hire a
"storyteller," you're trying to hire a "public relations (fundraising)"
person. One title is obviously a bit more poetic, but also a lot more
confusing, I think.

The other aspect to this that's confusing to me is the underlying purpose of
the "Community Department." Best as I can tell, it's largely focused on
fundraising. Is there a description of the current "Community Department"
that clarifies what it does (other than fundraising)? I'm not saying that
Wikimedia shouldn't have a team devoted to fundraising, but I don't really
understand why it's named the way it is. Is there something wrong with it
being named the "Fundraising Department"? I can't imagine I'm the only one
confused about this.


It makes sense to me that there would be a lot of overlap on the ground
delivering the two messages "We are a worthwhile project and you can join us and

contribute on our websites" and "We are a worthwhile project and you can donate

some money to the supporting Foundation".


Ambiguity is only a bad thing when someone knows exactly what they want and they

choose to be unclear about it rather than when is someone aware of a general
need while being somewhat open-minded about how might be filled. This situation

strikes me as the latter, advertising for a writer to develop public relations
material for fundraising would probably bring in a much more narrow set of
applicants and would also make it harder to get the new employee to take the
other duties that are desired seriously. I don't know how much hiring you have
done, but it is not uncommon for people to get their minds set as to what their
"job" is early on and getting them to put a lot of effort into things they
believe are "not what they were hired to do" is difficult. So if you want a new

employee to have a wide range of duties, you should advertise describing a more
open-ended position. People that have narrow mindsets are less likely to apply
for vague jobs, and everyone wins because good hiring is all about fit. Narrow
and well-settled duties = detailed description of opening. Wide-ranging and
uncertain duties = ambiguous description of opening.

Birgitte SB


Also you have to remember that the purpose of
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings/Storyteller is not to explain
the job to curious community members. The only purpose that should be
considered in writing a job opening is to attract people who may be a good fit
for the job and inspire them to apply, while repelling people who would be a bad
fit for the job. The target audience of the job opening is job seekers. The only
useful measure to judge if a job opening was "good" is whether it resulted in
lots of applicants that you would like to find out more about and few applicants
that are an obviously poor fit. Wasting your time processing the applications of
obviously unsuitable people is nearly as bad as not producing an interview pool
filled with equally great applications. And the former has become the more
likely scenario these past few years. So if you personally find that a job
opening turns you off, it may just be working quite well. A good job opening
should turn off a fair number of people.

Birgitte SB




_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 1 March 2011 15:54, SlimVirgin <slimvirgin@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 16:41, Pronoein <pronoein@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Le 01/03/2011 18:31, Michael Snow a écrit :
>> > On 3/1/2011 12:57 PM, Pronoein wrote:
>> >> If there is such a minority of ethical concerns, it could be one of the
>> >> reasons that volunteers are leaving the boat.
>> > Based on the one survey of former contributors that has been conducted
>> > (see
>> > http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Former_Contributors_Survey_Results),
>> > this doesn't figure highly enough to demonstrate the kind of significant
>> > minority you suggest. Rather, the concerns of those surveyed are
>> > overwhelmingly about how rulebound, overly complex, and unfriendly their
>> > work in the community seemed to be. Perhaps somebody would care to go
>> > back through the full survey responses and see if they can identify
>> > comments that fit the "I was being exploited" line you're pushing here.
>>
>> Michael, I wouldn't underestimate the "I'm being exploited" feeling for
> people either leaving, or failing to join up. In Wikipedia's early years, we
> were exploiting ourselves, as it were. But the more of a corporate structure
> the Foundation assumes, the greater the sense that we're working for
> something in which we have no input. There will be a tipping point that
> differs for each individual, and they may not even express it in those
> terms.

Ah, Sarah, I don't think that's particularly fair. Bear in mind we've
just published a strategic plan that 1,000+ Wikimedians helped create.
I'm not denying that some Wikimedians may feel alienated from the
Wikimedia Foundation: I'm sure it is true for some. But "something in
which we have no input" is, IMO, not a fair characterization.

Thanks,
Sue



>
> Sarah
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 3/1/2011 2:46 PM, Birgitte SB wrote:
> Ambiguity is only a bad thing when someone knows exactly what they want and they
> choose to be unclear about it rather than when is someone aware of a general
> need while being somewhat open-minded about how might be filled. This situation
> strikes me as the latter, advertising for a writer to develop public relations
> material for fundraising would probably bring in a much more narrow set of
> applicants and would also make it harder to get the new employee to take the
> other duties that are desired seriously. I don't know how much hiring you have
> done, but it is not uncommon for people to get their minds set as to what their
> "job" is early on and getting them to put a lot of effort into things they
> believe are "not what they were hired to do" is difficult. So if you want a new
> employee to have a wide range of duties, you should advertise describing a more
> open-ended position. People that have narrow mindsets are less likely to apply
> for vague jobs, and everyone wins because good hiring is all about fit. Narrow
> and well-settled duties = detailed description of opening. Wide-ranging and
> uncertain duties = ambiguous description of opening.
This explanation is quite insightful, I think. The challenge described
is a significant piece of why the Wikimedia Foundation has developed a
somewhat non-standard approach to its organizational structure and
allocation of staff responsibilities. Practically every conversation
I've had with Sue about this, while hiring for a number of different
positions, has touched on how unusual a combination of background,
skills, and personality is needed for someone to be the right fit for
us, and how adaptable both we and the candidates have to be during the
hiring process in how we think about the position.

--Michael Snow

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 2 March 2011 00:00, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Also you have to remember that the purpose of
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings/Storyteller is not to explain
> the job to curious community members.

Maybe but it's the only information we have (openess not being the
foundation's strong point) and it's no secret that the community
contains people with a lot of experience in reading job adverts,


>The only purpose that should be
> considered in writing a job opening is to attract people who may be a good fit
> for the job and inspire them to apply, while repelling people who would be a bad
> fit for the job. The target audience of the job opening is job seekers. The only
> useful measure to judge if a job opening was "good" is whether it resulted in
> lots of applicants that you would like to find out more about and few applicants
> that are an obviously poor fit. Wasting your time processing the applications of
> obviously unsuitable people is nearly as bad as not producing an interview pool
> filled with equally great applications.  And the former has become the more
> likely scenario these past few years.  So if you personally find that a job
> opening turns you off, it may just be working quite well. A good job opening
> should turn off a fair number of people.

However this person is meant to be working with the community. I would
suggest if the advert for a position turns off those who that position
is meant to be working with then you have a problem. Obvious exception
would be the likes of prison officers but I would suggest that that is
not a model we wish to explore.

--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

> On 3/1/2011 2:46 PM, Birgitte SB wrote:
>> Ambiguity is only a bad thing when someone knows exactly what they want and
>> they
>> choose to be unclear about it rather than when is someone aware of a general
>> need while being somewhat open-minded about how might be filled. This
>> situation
>> strikes me as the latter, advertising for a writer to develop public
>> relations
>> material for fundraising would probably bring in a much more narrow set of
>> applicants and would also make it harder to get the new employee to take the
>> other duties that are desired seriously. I don't know how much hiring you
>> have
>> done, but it is not uncommon for people to get their minds set as to what
>> their
>> "job" is early on and getting them to put a lot of effort into things they
>> believe are "not what they were hired to do" is difficult. So if you want a
>> new
>> employee to have a wide range of duties, you should advertise describing a
>> more
>> open-ended position. People that have narrow mindsets are less likely to
>> apply
>> for vague jobs, and everyone wins because good hiring is all about fit.
>> Narrow
>> and well-settled duties = detailed description of opening. Wide-ranging and
>> uncertain duties = ambiguous description of opening.

on 3/1/11 7:08 PM, Michael Snow at wikipedia@frontier.com wrote:

> This explanation is quite insightful, I think. The challenge described
> is a significant piece of why the Wikimedia Foundation has developed a
> somewhat non-standard approach to its organizational structure and
> allocation of staff responsibilities. Practically every conversation
> I've had with Sue about this, while hiring for a number of different
> positions, has touched on how unusual a combination of background,
> skills, and personality is needed for someone to be the right fit for
> us, and how adaptable both we and the candidates have to be during the
> hiring process in how we think about the position.
>
Michael, do you, and the rest of the Foundation staff, have any idea how
detached - yes, estranged - you are becoming from the Community that is at
the heart of this Project?

Marc Riddell


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 18:06, Sue Gardner <sgardner@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> On 1 March 2011 15:54, SlimVirgin <slimvirgin@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 16:41, Pronoein <pronoein@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Le 01/03/2011 18:31, Michael Snow a écrit :
> >> > On 3/1/2011 12:57 PM, Pronoein wrote:
> >> >> If there is such a minority of ethical concerns, it could be one of
> the
> >> >> reasons that volunteers are leaving the boat.
> >> > Based on the one survey of former contributors that has been conducted
> >> > (see
> >> > http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Former_Contributors_Survey_Results
> ),
> >> > this doesn't figure highly enough to demonstrate the kind of
> significant
> >> > minority you suggest. Rather, the concerns of those surveyed are
> >> > overwhelmingly about how rulebound, overly complex, and unfriendly
> their
> >> > work in the community seemed to be. Perhaps somebody would care to go
> >> > back through the full survey responses and see if they can identify
> >> > comments that fit the "I was being exploited" line you're pushing
> here.
> >>
> >> Michael, I wouldn't underestimate the "I'm being exploited" feeling for
> > people either leaving, or failing to join up. In Wikipedia's early years,
> we
> > were exploiting ourselves, as it were. But the more of a corporate
> structure
> > the Foundation assumes, the greater the sense that we're working for
> > something in which we have no input. There will be a tipping point that
> > differs for each individual, and they may not even express it in those
> > terms.
>
> Ah, Sarah, I don't think that's particularly fair. Bear in mind we've
> just published a strategic plan that 1,000+ Wikimedians helped create.
> I'm not denying that some Wikimedians may feel alienated from the
> Wikimedia Foundation: I'm sure it is true for some. But "something in
> which we have no input" is, IMO, not a fair characterization.
>
> Thanks,
> Sue
>
>
I accept that, Sue, but it's a matter of perception. I can see a lot of
effort on the Foundation's part to reach out to new communities, but a
similar "in-reach" program to keep current editors feeling invested would
help a lot.

Every time one of these new jobs is announced it does add to the feeling
(rightly or wrongly) of corporate expansion that we're not part of.

Sarah
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Stories are absolutely essential to any non-profit's ability to
persuade new people to support or join its cause. Sometimes we tell
our stories well, sometimes we tell them poorly. Telling a story well
is a very specific skillset that few people possess. Even for those
who are good writers (and of course there are many in Wikimedia), it
takes a lot of conscious effort to construct a narrative in a way
that's accessible and appealing to someone who's not already on the
inside.

We've talked about this issue at length in the past. Back in October
2007, I tried to call attention to the significance of storytelling
specifically in fundraising:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-October/thread.html#33431

In that fundraiser, we made some first humble efforts at storytelling,
and we've more systematically collected and compiled stories since
then. But just putting stories on a page, like this one:

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Stories2/en

Is not going to persuade anyone to support us. As Zack said, in the
context of fundraising, it's all about distilling essential points
effectively. In the context of other movement work, such as public
outreach, it's about connecting with our target audience by choosing
meaningful examples that resonate (how do you talk to educators, to
scientists, to students). People have made attempts at telling
success stories of public outreach here, for example:

http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Success_stories

But all these stories would benefit from a more skillful approach to
telling them. The structure of a story is one of the most fundamental
ways in which human beings understand the world, and we all have a
regrettable tendency to underestimate that significance. As I have in
the past, I'd really encourage you to watch Andy Goodman's talk in
full:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-289257716014946841

He gives plenty of examples of non-profits that are terrible at
telling their own story, which can have disastrous consequences.
There's absolutely nothing morally questionable about telling a story
effectively -- if anything it's morally pernicious to tell an
important story poorly. To have a staff position dedicated to this is
a wonderful thing, and if we find someone really good for this job,
the benefits will become obvious really, really quickly.

--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 5:52 AM, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86@comcast.net>wrote:

>
> > On 3/1/2011 2:46 PM, Birgitte SB wrote:
> >> Ambiguity is only a bad thing when someone knows exactly what they want
> and
> >> they
> >> choose to be unclear about it rather than when is someone aware of a
> general
> >> need while being somewhat open-minded about how might be filled. This
> >> situation
> >> strikes me as the latter, advertising for a writer to develop public
> >> relations
> >> material for fundraising would probably bring in a much more narrow set
> of
> >> applicants and would also make it harder to get the new employee to take
> the
> >> other duties that are desired seriously. I don't know how much hiring
> you
> >> have
> >> done, but it is not uncommon for people to get their minds set as to
> what
> >> their
> >> "job" is early on and getting them to put a lot of effort into things
> they
> >> believe are "not what they were hired to do" is difficult. So if you
> want a
> >> new
> >> employee to have a wide range of duties, you should advertise describing
> a
> >> more
> >> open-ended position. People that have narrow mindsets are less likely to
> >> apply
> >> for vague jobs, and everyone wins because good hiring is all about fit.
> >> Narrow
> >> and well-settled duties = detailed description of opening. Wide-ranging
> and
> >> uncertain duties = ambiguous description of opening.
>
> on 3/1/11 7:08 PM, Michael Snow at wikipedia@frontier.com wrote:
>
> > This explanation is quite insightful, I think. The challenge described
> > is a significant piece of why the Wikimedia Foundation has developed a
> > somewhat non-standard approach to its organizational structure and
> > allocation of staff responsibilities. Practically every conversation
> > I've had with Sue about this, while hiring for a number of different
> > positions, has touched on how unusual a combination of background,
> > skills, and personality is needed for someone to be the right fit for
> > us, and how adaptable both we and the candidates have to be during the
> > hiring process in how we think about the position.
> >
> Michael, do you, and the rest of the Foundation staff, have any idea how
> detached - yes, estranged - you are becoming from the Community that is at
> the heart of this Project?
>
> Marc Riddell
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

Wikimedia Foundation seems to be turning into another non-profit bent on
social outreach. The internal structure appears to be mutating into
something very corporate, from the constant direction of
consultants/analysts to expansion into emerging markets. They all seem to
resemble any other corporation trying to expand, overlooking that fact that
the actual product is governed and maintained by an active community which
is responsible for most of the content.

One look at the current staff page points to the flawed vision of the
internal structure, with titles like chief talent and culture officer, which
sounds more like a job from a futuristic science fiction or even a cult, a
successful one of course. The fundraising part of the staff seems to be
under the community department, communications seems to be under global
development. There seems to be only one person in the finance and
administration department.

Chief propaganda officer doesn't seem to be far behind, unless you prefer
raconteur which is more or less the same title.


Jason
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 6:23 AM, Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Stories are absolutely essential to any non-profit's ability to
> persuade new people to support or join its cause. Sometimes we tell
> our stories well, sometimes we tell them poorly. Telling a story well
> is a very specific skillset that few people possess. Even for those
> who are good writers (and of course there are many in Wikimedia), it
> takes a lot of conscious effort to construct a narrative in a way
> that's accessible and appealing to someone who's not already on the
> inside.
>
> We've talked about this issue at length in the past. Back in October
> 2007, I tried to call attention to the significance of storytelling
> specifically in fundraising:
>
>
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-October/thread.html#33431
>
> In that fundraiser, we made some first humble efforts at storytelling,
> and we've more systematically collected and compiled stories since
> then. But just putting stories on a page, like this one:
>
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Stories2/en
>
> Is not going to persuade anyone to support us. As Zack said, in the
> context of fundraising, it's all about distilling essential points
> effectively. In the context of other movement work, such as public
> outreach, it's about connecting with our target audience by choosing
> meaningful examples that resonate (how do you talk to educators, to
> scientists, to students). People have made attempts at telling
> success stories of public outreach here, for example:
>
> http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Success_stories
>
> But all these stories would benefit from a more skillful approach to
> telling them. The structure of a story is one of the most fundamental
> ways in which human beings understand the world, and we all have a
> regrettable tendency to underestimate that significance. As I have in
> the past, I'd really encourage you to watch Andy Goodman's talk in
> full:
>
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-289257716014946841
>
> He gives plenty of examples of non-profits that are terrible at
> telling their own story, which can have disastrous consequences.
> There's absolutely nothing morally questionable about telling a story
> effectively -- if anything it's morally pernicious to tell an
> important story poorly. To have a staff position dedicated to this is
> a wonderful thing, and if we find someone really good for this job,
> the benefits will become obvious really, really quickly.
>
> --
> Erik Möller
> Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
>
> Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

That seems rather funny coming from an organization which is having an
internal identity crisis. When an organization seems inept at communicating
with its own stakeholders, the priority is instead shifting towards
developing the outside narrative. This brings me back to quote what Mark
Ridell said above, "do you, and the rest of the Foundation staff, have any
idea how detached - yes, estranged - you are becoming from the
Community....."

I would suggest as a business analyst addressing the gaping holes in the
organization before hiring a "storyteller" to paint over the rough parts and
provide a depiction of what is "...beautiful about a movement of
Wikimedians..." some of those are probably reading this, start by listening
to them.

Jason
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 3/1/2011 2:46 PM, Birgitte SB wrote:
>>> Ambiguity is only a bad thing when someone knows exactly what they want and
>>> they
>>> choose to be unclear about it rather than when is someone aware of a general
>>> need while being somewhat open-minded about how might be filled.  This
>>> situation
>>> strikes me as the latter, advertising for a writer to develop public
>>> relations
>>> material for fundraising would probably bring in a much more narrow set of
>>> applicants and would also make it harder to get the new employee to take the
>>> other duties that are desired seriously.  I don't know how much hiring you
>>> have
>>> done, but it is not uncommon for people to get their minds set as to what
>>> their
>>> "job" is early on and getting them to put a lot of effort into things they
>>> believe are "not what they were hired to do" is difficult.  So if you want a
>>> new
>>> employee to have a wide range of duties, you should advertise describing a
>>> more
>>> open-ended position. People that have narrow mindsets are less likely to
>>> apply
>>> for vague jobs, and everyone wins because good hiring is all about fit.
>>> Narrow
>>> and well-settled duties = detailed description of opening.  Wide-ranging and
>>> uncertain duties = ambiguous description of opening.
>
> on 3/1/11 7:08 PM, Michael Snow at wikipedia@frontier.com wrote:
>
>> This explanation is quite insightful, I think. The challenge described
>> is a significant piece of why the Wikimedia Foundation has developed a
>> somewhat non-standard approach to its organizational structure and
>> allocation of staff responsibilities. Practically every conversation
>> I've had with Sue about this, while hiring for a number of different
>> positions, has touched on how unusual a combination of background,
>> skills, and personality is needed for someone to be the right fit for
>> us, and how adaptable both we and the candidates have to be during the
>> hiring process in how we think about the position.
>>
> Michael, do you, and the rest of the Foundation staff, have any idea how
> detached - yes, estranged - you are becoming from the Community that is at
> the heart of this Project?
>
> Marc Riddell


Michael isn't staff; he's the former chair of the Wikimedia Foundation
Board, and is speaking as a (very) long-time and respected community
member.

-- phoebe

--
* I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers
<at> gmail.com *

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 2 March 2011 00:53, Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Stories are absolutely essential to any non-profit's ability to
> persuade new people to support or join its cause. Sometimes we tell
> our stories well, sometimes we tell them poorly. Telling a story well
> is a very specific skillset that few people possess. Even for those
> who are good writers (and of course there are many in Wikimedia), it
> takes a lot of conscious effort to construct a narrative in a way
> that's accessible and appealing to someone who's not already on the
> inside.

Erik wikipedians do know their history. The English term is
propaganda. Please use it. If you feel completely unable to use it
"public relations" is the closest to an acceptable alturnative.


> We've talked about this issue at length in the past. Back in October
> 2007, I tried to call attention to the significance of storytelling
> specifically in fundraising:
>
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-October/thread.html#33431
>
> In that fundraiser, we made some first humble efforts at storytelling,
> and we've more systematically collected and compiled stories since
> then. But just putting stories on a page, like this one:
>
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Stories2/en
>
> Is not going to persuade anyone to support us.

Well lets face it. Your problem is not that you don't have a
propaganda line it's that the old one (bare bones foundation
struggling on a minimal budget) is no longer remotely credible.

So you are now looking for someone to create new propaganda lines that
allows for greater foundation growth with a larger budget.

Now it's possible that that could be a lot of fun. Spreading twitter
like propaganda about how we are helping with whatever moderately good
news story there is this week (hey no journalist is going to go to the
effort to prove it is false). Trying to get pro wikipedia statements
out of random role models that kind of thing (although if a football
WAG ever tuns up in a donate to wikipedia T-shit there is going to be
trouble with a capital Z).

However it is understandable that people are going to be concerned
about what this means with regards to the direction the foundation is
taking.

> As Zack said, in the
> context of fundraising, it's all about distilling essential points
> effectively. In the context of other movement work, such as public
> outreach, it's about connecting with our target audience by choosing
> meaningful examples that resonate (how do you talk to educators, to
> scientists, to students).

Which I seem to recall is a role that has largely been left to the
chapters. Now thats a choice the foundation is free to make but it
does rather render your position inconsistent with events.

> People have made attempts at telling
> success stories of public outreach here, for example:
>
> http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Success_stories
>
> But all these stories would benefit from a more skillful approach to
> telling them. The structure of a story is one of the most fundamental
> ways in which human beings understand the world, and we all have a
> regrettable tendency to underestimate that significance. As I have in
> the past, I'd really encourage you to watch Andy Goodman's talk in
> full:
>
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-289257716014946841

Why? Have Edward Bernays works been banned or something?

> He gives plenty of examples of non-profits that are terrible at
> telling their own story, which can have disastrous consequences.
> There's absolutely nothing morally questionable about telling a story
> effectively -- if anything it's morally pernicious to tell an
> important story poorly.

Oh nice try. Great set of appeals to emotions and attempts to falsely
frame the debate. Just one tiny problem. We are wikipedians. Not only
do we tend not to see the world in terms of stories (See wikipedia's
house style sometime) but a big part of NPOV is shattering stories.

--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 3/1/2011 4:31 PM, SlimVirgin wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 18:06, Sue Gardner<sgardner@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>> On 1 March 2011 15:54, SlimVirgin<slimvirgin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Michael, I wouldn't underestimate the "I'm being exploited" feeling for
>>> people either leaving, or failing to join up. In Wikipedia's early years, we
>>> were exploiting ourselves, as it were. But the more of a corporate structure
>>> the Foundation assumes, the greater the sense that we're working for
>>> something in which we have no input. There will be a tipping point that
>>> differs for each individual, and they may not even express it in those
>>> terms.
>> Ah, Sarah, I don't think that's particularly fair. Bear in mind we've
>> just published a strategic plan that 1,000+ Wikimedians helped create.
>> I'm not denying that some Wikimedians may feel alienated from the
>> Wikimedia Foundation: I'm sure it is true for some. But "something in
>> which we have no input" is, IMO, not a fair characterization.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Sue
> I accept that, Sue, but it's a matter of perception. I can see a lot of
> effort on the Foundation's part to reach out to new communities, but a
> similar "in-reach" program to keep current editors feeling invested would
> help a lot.
I appreciate that, and would renew my suggestion to have some kind of
communications staff dedicated to internal relations, as distinct from
external.
> Every time one of these new jobs is announced it does add to the feeling
> (rightly or wrongly) of corporate expansion that we're not part of.
It's interesting that these feelings should attach to job openings in
particular. In contrast to how it was put earlier - "Nobody likes being
exploited, in particular volunteers" - actually, in my experience it is
people who work for pay that most resent being exploited, not people who
work for other reasons. While volunteers can feel that they have been
taken advantage of when their work is abused, in general employees are
much more sensitive to inadequate compensation for their labors,
overwork, or being underappreciated. Volunteer motivation is important
to understand, of course, although I'm not a big fan of "volunteer
management" as a phrase because our environment is geared more toward
self-organization and self-management. The foundation can try to
influence things to motivate people up to a point, but one of the
wonderful things about volunteers is that we supply our own motivation,
and largely regulate it as well. Here we happen to be touching on a
sensitive area, partly because balancing volunteer and staff effort is
one of the factors in motivation, but there's also a factor here that's
beyond the foundation's control, and where volunteers have to figure out
their own motivation.

I realize that economic conditions in much of the world are not the best
these days, and I sympathize with people who are personally affected. To
get to one of the points underlying this discussion, I would like to
offer some advice. Volunteers who happen to also be looking for paid
work should not focus on openings at the Wikimedia Foundation as their
solution, as it can't possibly hire all the diligent wiki editors who
might want to work there, no matter how successful the next fundraiser
is. For people looking to add volunteer work to boost their CV, I would
expect that Wikipedia is now widely-recognized enough to give about the
same benefit as volunteer work with various other well-known charities.
But if someone is really focused on working at the Wikimedia Foundation
specifically, then my advice is the same as it would be for anyone
targeting a specific employer - demonstrate that you have the skills and
experience that employer is looking for, or go get them, quite possibly
by going elsewhere first. Experience in our particular community may
figure as an advantage among similarly-qualified candidates, but it
doesn't substitute for having other qualifications that the foundation
needs for a position. Nor, as I expect current staff who started as
editors could confirm, is working for the foundation the solution to all
of your problems, just exchanging one set of challenges for another.

--Michael Snow

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Andrew Gray wrote:
> Here's one line of reasoning:
>
> a) Our fundraising was effective (it brought in money) but also pretty
> tedious for readers - it relied heavily on variants of one banner,
> with the side-effect that millions upon millions of people were forced
> to stare at one J. Wales for quite a while, only lightly alleviated by
> staring at someone else for a short time before reverting to the
> original.
>
> b) This was widely derided (see discussions passim), with people
> objecting to it for reasons including (in no particular order): i)
> undue focus on "figurehead" personality; ii) stylistic issues; iii)
> terminology (mostly of non-Wales banners, sometimes of letters); iv)
> sheer tedium of seeing the same thing for a month; etc. etc. ...
>
> c) ...but pretty much everything else we tried didn't work very well...
>
> d) ...even though, anecdotally, people liked seeing the other ones
> much more than they liked the routine banners.
>
> e) Running another fundraiser is probably inevitable.
>
> Given these points, it seems a good idea to try to ensure that when we
> next throw big banners up at a million people to ask them for money,
> we do so in a way that is less tedious and irritating. It seems a
> fairly good approach (anecdotally, at least) that people like the
> varied individual user banners; the problem is that there's something
> not quite working about them.
>
> Hiring someone to make them work - thus allowing us to do away with
> the All Wales, All The Time approach which was, to say the least, not
> universally loved - will hopefully mean the next donation campaign
> annoys fewer people. That doesn't seem too unreasonable, to me.
>
> (The actual job description did make my eyes roll a bit, though.
> "Storyteller", oh dear.)

Thank you very much for this post, Andrew. This post clarified the job role
in a very nice, clear way and I really appreciate you taking the time to
write it.

I'd also like to apologize to the list (or to any members of it) for being
excessively rude or stupid this afternoon. Some of the, er... cutesy wording
in the job opening left me with the wrong impression about this role and its
purpose. I still think there should be a broader discussion about whether
it's appropriate to rename the "Community Department," but that's largely
outside the scope of this thread.

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 6:39 PM, MZMcBride <z@mzmcbride.com> wrote:
> Andrew Gray wrote:
>> Here's one line of reasoning:
>>
>> a) Our fundraising was effective (it brought in money) but also pretty
>> tedious for readers - it relied heavily on variants of one banner,
>> with the side-effect that millions upon millions of people were forced
>> to stare at one J. Wales for quite a while, only lightly alleviated by
>> staring at someone else for a short time before reverting to the
>> original.
>>
>> b) This was widely derided (see discussions passim), with people
>> objecting to it for reasons including (in no particular order): i)
>> undue focus on "figurehead" personality; ii) stylistic issues; iii)
>> terminology (mostly of non-Wales banners, sometimes of letters); iv)
>> sheer tedium of seeing the same thing for a month; etc. etc. ...
>>
>> c) ...but pretty much everything else we tried didn't work very well...
>>
>> d) ...even though, anecdotally, people liked seeing the other ones
>> much more than they liked the routine banners.
>>
>> e) Running another fundraiser is probably inevitable.
>>
>> Given these points, it seems a good idea to try to ensure that when we
>> next throw big banners up at a million people to ask them for money,
>> we do so in a way that is less tedious and irritating. It seems a
>> fairly good approach (anecdotally, at least) that people like the
>> varied individual user banners; the problem is that there's something
>> not quite working about them.
>>
>> Hiring someone to make them work - thus allowing us to do away with
>> the All Wales, All The Time approach which was, to say the least, not
>> universally loved - will hopefully mean the next donation campaign
>> annoys fewer people. That doesn't seem too unreasonable, to me.
>>
>> (The actual job description did make my eyes roll a bit, though.
>> "Storyteller", oh dear.)
>
> Thank you very much for this post, Andrew. This post clarified the job role
> in a very nice, clear way and I really appreciate you taking the time to
> write it.

Agreed with MzM that (though I do not have any special insight into
this job and what it entails or is meant to entail in particular)
Andrew's post was good, clear, and made an excellent point. And I
think I am going to adopt the phrase "see discussions passim" whenever
applicable!

Model discourse, we can haz :)

-- phoebe

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 3:39 AM, MZMcBride <z@mzmcbride.com> wrote:
> Andrew Gray wrote:

>> (The actual job description did make my eyes roll a bit, though.
>> "Storyteller", oh dear.)
>
> Thank you very much for this post, Andrew. This post clarified the job role
> in a very nice, clear way and I really appreciate you taking the time to
> write it.
>
> I'd also like to apologize to the list (or to any members of it) for being
> excessively rude or stupid this afternoon. Some of the, er... cutesy wording
> in the job opening left me with the wrong impression about this role and its
> purpose.


That is (as is Andrew's eyes rolling), an extremely interesting
observation. So I looked at the other job openings to get an idea of
the "tone" employed.
Just for the fun of comparing, you might want to look at this job description:

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings/Fundraiser_Data_Analyst
Which tone really is _very different_ from the "Storyteller.

Without any pretence at thorough analysis, I guess job openings
(should) reflect both the person who puts them up _and_ the person you
want to have.
For something like statistical analysis, you probably are looking for
someone with less of a "dreaming" mind than for storytelling.

I guess what's interesting here is that you don't catch flies with
vinegar (is that an English expression?). So obviously, the tone
employed and the words chosen will try and catch the attention of a
particular type of person, with a particular mindset.

Birgitte pointed out in this thread that some people should feel
repelled by a job offer if it's not for them, and I agree with that.
It does make a good job offer to be able to "talk" to the people you
are targeting rather than those who are not fit for the job.

While I find the cutesy a bit too "emphatic" and to say the truth, too
"American" [1], I can understand where this is coming from and I do
believe that it will draw the right kind of people to the job.

It's all about how you speak. If you are looking for someone who
thinks square, you probably want to have a job offer that is square,
while if you're looking for someone who needs to let their creativity
and words loose, you probably want to have a job offer that does
exactly that.

It's all a matter of communication, really. As a very good example,
Andrew was able to rephrase the job offer so that it actually makes
sense to those of us who need facts and rational explanations.
Achieving that is a rare talent, actually :)



Delphine

[1] please forgive my generalisation here, words like "impressive"
and "exudes enthusiasm" are just not words you'd find in a job opening
even in the coolest, craziest, bestestestest company in France, for
example, no matter how creative the job opening may be. Let's say that
I am not convinced that this (over)use of words works efficiently in a
truly international environment.

--
@notafish

NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost.
Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org
Photos with simple eyes: notaphoto - http://photo.notafish.org

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 2 March 2011 01:26, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86@comcast.net> wrote:
>> on 3/1/11 7:08 PM, Michael Snow at wikipedia@frontier.com wrote:

>>> This explanation is quite insightful, I think. The challenge described

>> Michael, do you, and the rest of the Foundation staff, have any idea how
>> detached - yes, estranged - you are becoming from the Community that is at
>> the heart of this Project?

> Michael isn't staff; he's the former chair of the Wikimedia Foundation
> Board, and is speaking as a (very) long-time and respected community
> member.


But that doesn't fit Marc's narrative, so is not relevant. (The power
of stories!)


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 11:26 PM, David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:
> You appear to be generalising from your personal preferences to the
> world here. This is a common fallacy and a really bad idea in general.

I have heard numerous complains from other volunteers who thought that
WMF is spending its money irrationally. So I believe those "personal
preferences" are widespread enough.

--vvv

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Sue Gardner wrote:
> Ah, Sarah, I don't think that's particularly fair. Bear in mind we've
> just published a strategic plan that 1,000+ Wikimedians helped create.
> I'm not denying that some Wikimedians may feel alienated from the
> Wikimedia Foundation: I'm sure it is true for some. But "something in
> which we have no input" is, IMO, not a fair characterization.

This is an interesting comment given who actually authored the strategic
plan. It's my understanding that several people (Eugene, you, Erik, and
others) wrote different parts of the report, which were then compiled by
people from Bridgespan. Is that accurate?

Is there a record of who wrote which parts of the report? It would be
particularly interesting to see how much of it came from volunteers.

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 11:06 AM, MZMcBride <z@mzmcbride.com> wrote:

> Sue Gardner wrote:
> > Ah, Sarah, I don't think that's particularly fair. Bear in mind we've
> > just published a strategic plan that 1,000+ Wikimedians helped create.
> > I'm not denying that some Wikimedians may feel alienated from the
> > Wikimedia Foundation: I'm sure it is true for some. But "something in
> > which we have no input" is, IMO, not a fair characterization.
>
> This is an interesting comment given who actually authored the strategic
> plan. It's my understanding that several people (Eugene, you, Erik, and
> others) wrote different parts of the report, which were then compiled by
> people from Bridgespan. Is that accurate?
>
> Is there a record of who wrote which parts of the report? It would be
> particularly interesting to see how much of it came from volunteers.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
MZ,

She didn't say they sat down and banged out the plan on their IBM
Selectric. She said they helped create it. That's entirely accurate. It
grew from the work of the task forces, research around the proposals,
research in general…. all of those done by volunteers. While the final
wording may have been "smithed" by a relatively smaller set of people, the
first attempt was actually to have community members do that as well. It
didn't work well - either because it's a task that was poorly facilitated
(and if so, I'm to blame), or a task that was poorly defined, or simply a
task that the people who were there weren't interested in doing (and as
volunteers, that's their right and privilege), the writing had to be
assigned to a number of people.

I dislike this posts like this one, which (at least from one perspective)
engage in a game of rhetorical "gotcha".

pb
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Philippe Beaudette wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 11:06 AM, MZMcBride <z@mzmcbride.com> wrote:
>
>> Sue Gardner wrote:
>>> Ah, Sarah, I don't think that's particularly fair. Bear in mind we've
>>> just published a strategic plan that 1,000+ Wikimedians helped create.
>>> I'm not denying that some Wikimedians may feel alienated from the
>>> Wikimedia Foundation: I'm sure it is true for some. But "something in
>>> which we have no input" is, IMO, not a fair characterization.
>>
>> This is an interesting comment given who actually authored the strategic
>> plan. It's my understanding that several people (Eugene, you, Erik, and
>> others) wrote different parts of the report, which were then compiled by
>> people from Bridgespan. Is that accurate?
>>
>> Is there a record of who wrote which parts of the report? It would be
>> particularly interesting to see how much of it came from volunteers.
>>
> She didn't say they sat down and banged out the plan on their IBM
> Selectric. She said they helped create it. That's entirely accurate. It
> grew from the work of the task forces, research around the proposals,
> research in general... all of those done by volunteers. While the final
> wording may have been "smithed" by a relatively smaller set of people, the
> first attempt was actually to have community members do that as well. It
> didn't work well - either because it's a task that was poorly facilitated
> (and if so, I'm to blame), or a task that was poorly defined, or simply a
> task that the people who were there weren't interested in doing (and as
> volunteers, that's their right and privilege), the writing had to be
> assigned to a number of people.
>
> I dislike this posts like this one, which (at least from one perspective)
> engage in a game of rhetorical "gotcha".

So... that's a no? There's no record of who wrote what? I think people in
the community are interested to know how much of the strategic plan came
from various stakeholders, both the ideas and the actual pieces of the
report. If you feel that it's unfair to ask for attribution, I guess we'll
just have to agree to disagree.

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 3:54 PM, MZMcBride <z@mzmcbride.com> wrote:

> Philippe Beaudette wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 11:06 AM, MZMcBride <z@mzmcbride.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Sue Gardner wrote:
> >>> Ah, Sarah, I don't think that's particularly fair. Bear in mind we've
> >>> just published a strategic plan that 1,000+ Wikimedians helped create.
> >>> I'm not denying that some Wikimedians may feel alienated from the
> >>> Wikimedia Foundation: I'm sure it is true for some. But "something in
> >>> which we have no input" is, IMO, not a fair characterization.
> >>
> >> This is an interesting comment given who actually authored the strategic
> >> plan. It's my understanding that several people (Eugene, you, Erik, and
> >> others) wrote different parts of the report, which were then compiled by
> >> people from Bridgespan. Is that accurate?
> >>
> >> Is there a record of who wrote which parts of the report? It would be
> >> particularly interesting to see how much of it came from volunteers.
> >>
> > She didn't say they sat down and banged out the plan on their IBM
> > Selectric. She said they helped create it. That's entirely accurate.
> It
> > grew from the work of the task forces, research around the proposals,
> > research in general... all of those done by volunteers. While the final
> > wording may have been "smithed" by a relatively smaller set of people,
> the
> > first attempt was actually to have community members do that as well. It
> > didn't work well - either because it's a task that was poorly facilitated
> > (and if so, I'm to blame), or a task that was poorly defined, or simply a
> > task that the people who were there weren't interested in doing (and as
> > volunteers, that's their right and privilege), the writing had to be
> > assigned to a number of people.
> >
> > I dislike this posts like this one, which (at least from one perspective)
> > engage in a game of rhetorical "gotcha".
>
> So... that's a no? There's no record of who wrote what? I think people in
> the community are interested to know how much of the strategic plan came
> from various stakeholders, both the ideas and the actual pieces of the
> report. If you feel that it's unfair to ask for attribution, I guess we'll
> just have to agree to disagree.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
I don't think I actually answered that part of the question, because - as I
told you privately - I was gone from the project long before then. I
simply don't know.

But this is further rhetorical "gotcha" - you took my response to one part
of your post and tried to twist it to be a non-answer to the other part of
your post.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 6 March 2011 23:54, MZMcBride <z@mzmcbride.com> wrote:
> So... that's a no? There's no record of who wrote what? I think people in
> the community are interested to know how much of the strategic plan came
> from various stakeholders, both the ideas and the actual pieces of the
> report. If you feel that it's unfair to ask for attribution, I guess we'll
> just have to agree to disagree.

How cares who wrote what? What matters is who came up with what and
who thought it was a good idea. I don't know if that information is
available in any easily accessible way, but it will all be on the
strategy wiki if you wish to search for it.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Sue Gardner <sgardner@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> ...
> Ah, Sarah, I don't think that's particularly fair. Bear in mind we've
> just published a strategic plan that 1,000+ Wikimedians helped create.

On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com> wrote:
> How cares who wrote what? What matters is who came up with what and
> who thought it was a good idea. I don't know if that information is
> available in any easily accessible way, but it will all be on the
> strategy wiki if you wish to search for it.

I'm more than a bit disturbed to see my name in the Acknowledgements
at the back of the Wikimedia Strategic Plan, which is largely a
Wikimedia Foundation business plan.

In participating in strategy.wikimedia.org, I was contributing to the
strategic planning for the *movement*.
I don't think I edited any of the pages relating to this document.
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Plan/2010-2015_WMF_Business_Plan

Also, I looked for this "188 employees" figure in the strategy wiki
and couldn't see it anywhere.
Was there any attempt to have this document approved by the community?

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l