Mailing List Archive

[Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?
Just copying part of Andreas's comment from another thread:

"...can the board now please come to a decision on whether the Knight
Foundation grant letter and grant application documents will be posted on
Meta, and if not, provide an explanation to the community why they cannot
be made public?

"To recap, Jimmy Wales said over two weeks ago on his talk page[1] that in
his opinion the documentation should be posted on Meta, to clear the air
around this issue. However, nothing appears to have happened since then."

[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&diff=698861097&oldid=698860874

Anthony Cole
_______________________________________________
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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer? [ In reply to ]
Thanks, Anthony. As can be seen from the diff, the discussion at the time
went like this:

---o0o---

Given the history, but also the absolute bungling mess and total lack of
professionalism that the board has shown since these events, you will find,
Jimbo, that there is a significant proportion of the people who voted for
James who are unwilling to believe a single word of what the board
continues to try not to say. This comes on top of a long list of disasters
that others have summarized above. As for your claim to be a bigger
champion for transparency, please back it up with the details on the
restricted grant from the Knight foundation immediately. *Talk is cheap,
actions speak volumes.* MLauba (Talk) 18:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

What sort of details do you want? I'll have to talk to others to make sure
there are no contractural reasons not to do so, but in my opinion the grant
letter should be published on meta. *The Knight Grant is a red herring
here, so it would be best to clear the air around that completely as soon
as possible*.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

---o0o---

I have seen Jimmy Wales make statements like this many times, as a sort of
exercise in crowd control. It calms frayed tempers.

It introduces some reasonable-sounding explanation why people can't have
what they demand right now, along with a strongly worded, almost
over-the-top assurance that not only are they right to demand it, but that
Jimmy Wales actually wants the very same thing himself.

And then everybody goes away, and nothing happens.

So, what does it actually mean when Jimmy Wales says something like this to
the community in response to criticism?

Do people think this is good governance, secretly admire the Machiavellian
chutzpah, or what?

Andreas

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 9:53 PM, Anthony Cole <ahcoleecu@gmail.com> wrote:

> Just copying part of Andreas's comment from another thread:
>
> "...can the board now please come to a decision on whether the Knight
> Foundation grant letter and grant application documents will be posted on
> Meta, and if not, provide an explanation to the community why they cannot
> be made public?
>
> "To recap, Jimmy Wales said over two weeks ago on his talk page[1] that in
> his opinion the documentation should be posted on Meta, to clear the air
> around this issue. However, nothing appears to have happened since then."
>
> [1]
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&diff=698861097&oldid=698860874
>
> Anthony Cole
> _______________________________________________
> 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-request@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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer? [ In reply to ]
On 28 January 2016 at 16:12, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> So, what does it actually mean when Jimmy Wales says something like this to
> the community in response to criticism?
>
> Do people think this is good governance, secretly admire the Machiavellian
> chutzpah, or what?

Jimmy Wales has defended his use of *"Utter fucking bullshit"* when
abusing James Heilman.[1][2] In a hostile environment where "founders
rights" appear to mean that Wales can push his colleagues around like
a childish bully, in a way that anyone else would have their account
blocked from Wikimedia projects, we cannot expect to hold this WMF
trustee to account for their actions as we cannot even properly hold
him to account against the WMF terms of use.

In other charitable organisations, abusing volunteers or employees
with variations of "fuck" and being incapable of recognising that is a
problem, would make you entirely unsuitable to be a trustee. It's a
shame that the WMF board have no higher standards for civility or
leadership than this. It's an all time low.

Links:
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=701673700&oldid=701673178
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=701942197&oldid=701941999

Fae
--
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

_______________________________________________
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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer? [ In reply to ]
Since Jimmy is now also on the board for 'The Guardian', maybe its
about time he stepped down from the WMF board? And regarding James, it
honestly no longer matters why he was 'fired', its obvious the board
is filling up its stocks in google employees (lol) and it won't likely
change even after the VoNC on Geshuri and I think we all can expect
more 'ridiculous' hirings in the future as well..

Regarding the Knight grant application/letter, the question isn't why
the community needs a reason to see the application/letter, the
question is why the community cannot....it again goes back to the old
question..who is serving who?

On 1/29/16, Fæ <faewik@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 28 January 2016 at 16:12, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>> So, what does it actually mean when Jimmy Wales says something like this
>> to
>> the community in response to criticism?
>>
>> Do people think this is good governance, secretly admire the Machiavellian
>> chutzpah, or what?
>
> Jimmy Wales has defended his use of *"Utter fucking bullshit"* when
> abusing James Heilman.[1][2] In a hostile environment where "founders
> rights" appear to mean that Wales can push his colleagues around like
> a childish bully, in a way that anyone else would have their account
> blocked from Wikimedia projects, we cannot expect to hold this WMF
> trustee to account for their actions as we cannot even properly hold
> him to account against the WMF terms of use.
>
> In other charitable organisations, abusing volunteers or employees
> with variations of "fuck" and being incapable of recognising that is a
> problem, would make you entirely unsuitable to be a trustee. It's a
> shame that the WMF board have no higher standards for civility or
> leadership than this. It's an all time low.
>
> Links:
> 1.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=701673700&oldid=701673178
> 2.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=701942197&oldid=701941999
>
> Fae
> --
> faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>


--
Cometstyles

_______________________________________________
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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer? [ In reply to ]
My guess is that the first step here is to identify who would have access
to the Knight Foundation grant application and grant offer paperwork. It's
not immediately clear to me who to even ask about this.

I'm copying Wes Moran and Katherine Maher of the Wikimedia Foundation on
this reply, as he sent the initial wikimedia-l announcement e-mail about
this grant and she is listed as the contact in the press release:
<https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:Permalink/104437>.

Wes and Katherine: do you know what steps need to be taken in order to
release the documents surrounding this Knight Foundation grant? Or do you
know who at the Wikimedia Foundation would be the best/most appropriate
contact to figure this out? Geoff and the legal team? One of the
grants-related staff such as Janice? Any help would be appreciated!

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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer? [ In reply to ]
MZMcBride wrote:
>Wes and Katherine: do you know what steps need to be taken in order to
>release the documents surrounding this Knight Foundation grant? Or do you
>know who at the Wikimedia Foundation would be the best/most appropriate
>contact to figure this out? Geoff and the legal team? One of the
>grants-related staff such as Janice? Any help would be appreciated!

Remembering that similar questions about grant agreements have come
previously, I just dug through my e-mail archives and found a 2011 e-mail
from Lisa Gruwell. In the e-mail, she's very supportive of the idea of
putting grants documents on Meta-Wiki. Copying her as well on this thread
as she's still working with the Wikimedia Foundation, though it's not
clear to me whether her role has shifted to other focuses.

In case anyone is curious, here is Sue's response from October 2011:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2011-October/116339.html

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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer? [ In reply to ]
MZMcBride, that is an *excellent* find -- I had forgotten that it was
articulated as a formal policy. I have now updated my blog post on the
topic with a link to that email:
http://wikistrategies.net/grant-transparency/

Perhaps Lisa can tell us whether that policy was ever rescinded?

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 5:24 PM, MZMcBride <z@mzmcbride.com> wrote:

> MZMcBride wrote:
> >Wes and Katherine: do you know what steps need to be taken in order to
> >release the documents surrounding this Knight Foundation grant? Or do you
> >know who at the Wikimedia Foundation would be the best/most appropriate
> >contact to figure this out? Geoff and the legal team? One of the
> >grants-related staff such as Janice? Any help would be appreciated!
>
> Remembering that similar questions about grant agreements have come
> previously, I just dug through my e-mail archives and found a 2011 e-mail
> from Lisa Gruwell. In the e-mail, she's very supportive of the idea of
> putting grants documents on Meta-Wiki. Copying her as well on this thread
> as she's still working with the Wikimedia Foundation, though it's not
> clear to me whether her role has shifted to other focuses.
>
> In case anyone is curious, here is Sue's response from October 2011:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2011-October/116339.html
>
> 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-request@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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer? [ In reply to ]
Hi Anthony,

I know this request was for the Board, but I took time to explain as much
as I could about the context of this grant and the work it funds as well as
to answer as many questions as possible that I have seen. I realize many
people a curious about what it actually funds, so you will find the
statement of work cut and pasted there.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)#Knowledge_Engine_grant
<https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fmeta.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FUser_talk%3ALilaTretikov_%28WMF%29%23Knowledge_Engine_grant&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHbv_CPFd5d3dh7WKET5YlNSZvHdA>

Hope this answers some of your questions,
Lila



On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Anthony Cole <ahcoleecu@gmail.com> wrote:

> Just copying part of Andreas's comment from another thread:
>
> "...can the board now please come to a decision on whether the Knight
> Foundation grant letter and grant application documents will be posted on
> Meta, and if not, provide an explanation to the community why they cannot
> be made public?
>
> "To recap, Jimmy Wales said over two weeks ago on his talk page[1] that in
> his opinion the documentation should be posted on Meta, to clear the air
> around this issue. However, nothing appears to have happened since then."
>
> [1]
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&diff=698861097&oldid=698860874
>
> Anthony Cole
> _______________________________________________
> 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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>




--
Lila Tretikov
Wikimedia Foundation

*“Be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid.”*
_______________________________________________
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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer? [ In reply to ]
Lila, thank you for posting this. I have no technical background, so I only
have a limited understanding of how the Discovery project works. But as an
editor and reader I've been frustrated by the limitations of Wikipedia
search. Even things that I know are there, because I added them myself, are
regularly not returned. Sometimes for reasons I can't fathom; sometimes
because I've mistyped something.

It's the same with Siri on iPhone. I ask it something that I know is on
Wikipedia and it can't seem to find it. Or it will return a link to
articles in which certain terms appear. But people don't want to have to
look at whole articles.

We have this enormous and wonderful amount of knowledge to some extent
trapped inside Wikipedia. How do we unlock it? How do we teach computers
how to find and deliver it? In future, could Wikipedia reply to questions
on people's phones, instead of Siri?

This kind of research sounds very exciting, and the Foundation is
well-placed to do it.

Sarah


On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Lila Tretikov <lila@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Hi Anthony,
>
> I know this request was for the Board, but I took time to explain as much
> as I could about the context of this grant and the work it funds as well as
> to answer as many questions as possible that I have seen. I realize many
> people a curious about what it actually funds, so you will find the
> statement of work cut and pasted there.
>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)#Knowledge_Engine_grant
> <
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fmeta.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FUser_talk%3ALilaTretikov_%28WMF%29%23Knowledge_Engine_grant&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHbv_CPFd5d3dh7WKET5YlNSZvHdA
> >
>
> Hope this answers some of your questions,
> Lila
>
>
_______________________________________________
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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer? [ In reply to ]
Thank you, Sarah for an excellent question. Sometimes I compare Wikimedia
with an iceberg, only a small portion is visible.

When we started investigating this problem we found out that nearly 30% of
searches on Wikipedia return no results at all. That motivated us to dig
deeper.

Since then we've made our first improvements (by about 1 million searches
a day) , but we have a very long way to go...especially searching across
sites. Commons for example is a very tough one that we will need to help
one day.

I encourage you to read through, I tried to explain our thinking the best
I could, but I can always use help :)

Lila

sent from mobile. please excuse typos.
On Jan 29, 2016 3:50 PM, "SarahSV" <sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:

> Lila, thank you for posting this. I have no technical background, so I only
> have a limited understanding of how the Discovery project works. But as an
> editor and reader I've been frustrated by the limitations of Wikipedia
> search. Even things that I know are there, because I added them myself, are
> regularly not returned. Sometimes for reasons I can't fathom; sometimes
> because I've mistyped something.
>
> It's the same with Siri on iPhone. I ask it something that I know is on
> Wikipedia and it can't seem to find it. Or it will return a link to
> articles in which certain terms appear. But people don't want to have to
> look at whole articles.
>
> We have this enormous and wonderful amount of knowledge to some extent
> trapped inside Wikipedia. How do we unlock it? How do we teach computers
> how to find and deliver it? In future, could Wikipedia reply to questions
> on people's phones, instead of Siri?
>
> This kind of research sounds very exciting, and the Foundation is
> well-placed to do it.
>
> Sarah
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Lila Tretikov <lila@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi Anthony,
> >
> > I know this request was for the Board, but I took time to explain as much
> > as I could about the context of this grant and the work it funds as well
> as
> > to answer as many questions as possible that I have seen. I realize many
> > people a curious about what it actually funds, so you will find the
> > statement of work cut and pasted there.
> >
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)#Knowledge_Engine_grant
> > <
> >
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fmeta.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FUser_talk%3ALilaTretikov_%28WMF%29%23Knowledge_Engine_grant&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHbv_CPFd5d3dh7WKET5YlNSZvHdA
> > >
> >
> > Hope this answers some of your questions,
> > Lila
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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-request@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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer? [ In reply to ]
Thank you Lila. That's very clear, and I think it's a worthwhile project,
exactly in line with our shared vision.

Anthony Cole


On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 8:05 AM, Lila Tretikov <lila@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Thank you, Sarah for an excellent question. Sometimes I compare Wikimedia
> with an iceberg, only a small portion is visible.
>
> When we started investigating this problem we found out that nearly 30% of
> searches on Wikipedia return no results at all. That motivated us to dig
> deeper.
>
> Since then we've made our first improvements (by about 1 million searches
> a day) , but we have a very long way to go...especially searching across
> sites. Commons for example is a very tough one that we will need to help
> one day.
>
> I encourage you to read through, I tried to explain our thinking the best
> I could, but I can always use help :)
>
> Lila
>
> sent from mobile. please excuse typos.
> On Jan 29, 2016 3:50 PM, "SarahSV" <sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Lila, thank you for posting this. I have no technical background, so I
> only
> > have a limited understanding of how the Discovery project works. But as
> an
> > editor and reader I've been frustrated by the limitations of Wikipedia
> > search. Even things that I know are there, because I added them myself,
> are
> > regularly not returned. Sometimes for reasons I can't fathom; sometimes
> > because I've mistyped something.
> >
> > It's the same with Siri on iPhone. I ask it something that I know is on
> > Wikipedia and it can't seem to find it. Or it will return a link to
> > articles in which certain terms appear. But people don't want to have to
> > look at whole articles.
> >
> > We have this enormous and wonderful amount of knowledge to some extent
> > trapped inside Wikipedia. How do we unlock it? How do we teach computers
> > how to find and deliver it? In future, could Wikipedia reply to questions
> > on people's phones, instead of Siri?
> >
> > This kind of research sounds very exciting, and the Foundation is
> > well-placed to do it.
> >
> > Sarah
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Lila Tretikov <lila@wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Anthony,
> > >
> > > I know this request was for the Board, but I took time to explain as
> much
> > > as I could about the context of this grant and the work it funds as
> well
> > as
> > > to answer as many questions as possible that I have seen. I realize
> many
> > > people a curious about what it actually funds, so you will find the
> > > statement of work cut and pasted there.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)#Knowledge_Engine_grant
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fmeta.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FUser_talk%3ALilaTretikov_%28WMF%29%23Knowledge_Engine_grant&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHbv_CPFd5d3dh7WKET5YlNSZvHdA
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hope this answers some of your questions,
> > > Lila
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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-request@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-request@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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer? [ In reply to ]
Hoi
Several WIkipedias extended their search with functionality by Magnus that
provides them info from Wikidata. It is why you find results from any
Wikipedia on the Tamil Wikipedia for one.

There is no reason why we cannot do this everywhere.
Thanks,
GerardM

On 30 January 2016 at 00:50, SarahSV <sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:

> Lila, thank you for posting this. I have no technical background, so I only
> have a limited understanding of how the Discovery project works. But as an
> editor and reader I've been frustrated by the limitations of Wikipedia
> search. Even things that I know are there, because I added them myself, are
> regularly not returned. Sometimes for reasons I can't fathom; sometimes
> because I've mistyped something.
>
> It's the same with Siri on iPhone. I ask it something that I know is on
> Wikipedia and it can't seem to find it. Or it will return a link to
> articles in which certain terms appear. But people don't want to have to
> look at whole articles.
>
> We have this enormous and wonderful amount of knowledge to some extent
> trapped inside Wikipedia. How do we unlock it? How do we teach computers
> how to find and deliver it? In future, could Wikipedia reply to questions
> on people's phones, instead of Siri?
>
> This kind of research sounds very exciting, and the Foundation is
> well-placed to do it.
>
> Sarah
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Lila Tretikov <lila@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi Anthony,
> >
> > I know this request was for the Board, but I took time to explain as much
> > as I could about the context of this grant and the work it funds as well
> as
> > to answer as many questions as possible that I have seen. I realize many
> > people a curious about what it actually funds, so you will find the
> > statement of work cut and pasted there.
> >
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)#Knowledge_Engine_grant
> > <
> >
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fmeta.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FUser_talk%3ALilaTretikov_%28WMF%29%23Knowledge_Engine_grant&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHbv_CPFd5d3dh7WKET5YlNSZvHdA
> > >
> >
> > Hope this answers some of your questions,
> > Lila
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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-request@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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer? [ In reply to ]
Lila Tretikov wrote:
>I know this request was for the Board, but I took time to explain as much
>as I could about the context of this grant and the work it funds as well
>as to answer as many questions as possible that I have seen. I realize
>many people a curious about what it actually funds, so you will find the
>statement of work cut and pasted there.
>
>https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Permalink/15294825

Thank you for this post, Lila. It provides a lot of helpful context and
understanding surrounding the Knight Foundation's recent restricted grant.
One part of this arrangement still confuses me. In the linked post, you
write, "With this grant we brought the idea to the funder and they
supported our work with this grant."

Why ask for and take the money? The Wikimedia Foundation can raise
$250,000 in a few days (maybe hours) by placing ads on a few large
Wikipedias soliciting donations. Why take on a restricted grant, with its
necessary reporting overhead and other administrative costs?

You also write:
---
Why should the community and staff support this decision of our board and
leadership?

I would hope that for staff, the answer to this question is clear.
---

This is very aggressive. I'm not sure this type of attitude is aligned
with an idealistic, non-profit educational organization.

For the general issue, you point out that the Wikimedia Foundation Board
of Trustees is required to approve large (over $100,000) restricted
grants. I think the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees (copied) should
modify its acceptance requirements to mandate that large restricted grants
have their grant agreements and other related paperwork publicly
published. This would not apply retroactively. Publishing the grant
paperwork fits in well well with our transparency principles and values.

For the specific issue, who can be contacted at the Knight Foundation to
ask about publishing the grant paperwork? Presumably the Knight Foundation
and the Wikimedia Foundation, having just partnered, share values. Is the
Knight Foundation okay with the full grant agreement being published?

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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer? [ In reply to ]
Hi Lila, et al

I have some one question for you.

I am having a very hard time wrapping my head around how the grant
information you posted lead to WMF BoT voting James Heilman of the board in
a vote of no-confidence.

Something just doesn't add up here.

Any chance you can publish the actual grant application from the WMF to the
Knight Foundation?

I am guessing that the devil will be in those details; details which thus
far the WMF has kept completely under wraps.

I look forward to you releasing the grant application at your earliest
convenience.

Warm regards,

Ruslan Takayev


On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 7:27 AM, Lila Tretikov <lila@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Hi Anthony,
>
> I know this request was for the Board, but I took time to explain as much
> as I could about the context of this grant and the work it funds as well as
> to answer as many questions as possible that I have seen. I realize many
> people a curious about what it actually funds, so you will find the
> statement of work cut and pasted there.
>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)#Knowledge_Engine_grant
> <
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fmeta.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FUser_talk%3ALilaTretikov_%28WMF%29%23Knowledge_Engine_grant&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHbv_CPFd5d3dh7WKET5YlNSZvHdA
> >
>
> Hope this answers some of your questions,
> Lila
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Anthony Cole <ahcoleecu@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Just copying part of Andreas's comment from another thread:
> >
> > "...can the board now please come to a decision on whether the Knight
> > Foundation grant letter and grant application documents will be posted on
> > Meta, and if not, provide an explanation to the community why they cannot
> > be made public?
> >
> > "To recap, Jimmy Wales said over two weeks ago on his talk page[1] that
> in
> > his opinion the documentation should be posted on Meta, to clear the air
> > around this issue. However, nothing appears to have happened since then."
> >
> > [1]
> >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&diff=698861097&oldid=698860874
> >
> > Anthony Cole
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Lila Tretikov
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> *“Be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid.”*
> _______________________________________________
> 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-request@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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer? [ In reply to ]
>
>
> I have some one question for you.
>
> I am having a very hard time wrapping my head around how the grant
> information you posted lead to WMF BoT voting James Heilman of the board in
> a vote of no-confidence.
>

Ruslan - what makes you think the two issues are connected?

I have heard nothing from the WMF that suggests that they are.

A few other people are trying to draw some link between the two, but the
burden of proof is on them not on Lila....

Regards,

Chris
_______________________________________________
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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer? [ In reply to ]
Chris, et al

Ruslan - what makes you think the two issues are connected?
>

James was pushing for greater transparency on the BoT. This is the one
major issue that arose during James on the board that wasn't transparent at
the time.

You can put 2 + 2 together from that.


> I have heard nothing from the WMF that suggests that they are.
>

We've heard sound bytes, but we haven't heard anything of substance from
the BoT on the issue of why James was ushered off the Board.

>
> A few other people are trying to draw some link between the two, but the
> burden of proof is on them not on Lila....
>

Lila could easily shut down these lines of questioning by publishing the
grant application, as was originally requested by others.

Warm regards,

Ruslan Takayev

On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 6:41 AM, Chris Keating <chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com>
wrote:

> >
> >
> > I have some one question for you.
> >
> > I am having a very hard time wrapping my head around how the grant
> > information you posted lead to WMF BoT voting James Heilman of the board
> in
> > a vote of no-confidence.
> >
>
> Ruslan - what makes you think the two issues are connected?
>
> I have heard nothing from the WMF that suggests that they are.
>
> A few other people are trying to draw some link between the two, but the
> burden of proof is on them not on Lila....
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris
> _______________________________________________
> 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-request@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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer? [ In reply to ]
On 07/02/16 09:41, Chris Keating wrote:
>>
>>
>> I have some one question for you.
>>
>> I am having a very hard time wrapping my head around how the grant
>> information you posted lead to WMF BoT voting James Heilman of the board in
>> a vote of no-confidence.
>>
>
> Ruslan - what makes you think the two issues are connected?
>
> I have heard nothing from the WMF that suggests that they are.
>
> A few other people are trying to draw some link between the two, but the
> burden of proof is on them not on Lila....

Maybe you missed this:

<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/James_Heilman_removal_FAQ#What_happened.3F>

In which James Heilman, by way of explaining why he was removed from
the board, complains of a lack of transparency, links to the
announcement of the Knight Foundation grant, and comments "many
details however are still missing."

-- Tim Starling


_______________________________________________
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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer? [ In reply to ]
More on this from James Heilman and others in the current Signpost issue.

From the editors: Help wanted
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/From_the_editors

In focus: The Knight Foundation grant: a timeline and an email to the board
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/In_focus

Op-ed: So, what’s a knowledge engine anyway?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/Op-ed

Special report: Board chair and new trustee speak with the ''Signpost''
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/Special_report

Traffic report: Bowled
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/Traffic_report

News and notes: Harassment survey 2015; Luis Villa to leave WMF; knowledge
engine background
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/News_and_notes

Featured content: This week's featured content
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/Featured_content

Arbitration report: Catching up on arbitration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/Arbitration_report


Single page view
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single/2016-02-03

PDF version
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03


https://www.facebook.com/wikisignpost / https://twitter.com/wikisignpost
--
Wikipedia Signpost Staff
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost

Andreas

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 6:17 AM, Tim Starling <tstarling@wikimedia.org>
wrote:

> On 07/02/16 09:41, Chris Keating wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> I have some one question for you.
> >>
> >> I am having a very hard time wrapping my head around how the grant
> >> information you posted lead to WMF BoT voting James Heilman of the
> board in
> >> a vote of no-confidence.
> >>
> >
> > Ruslan - what makes you think the two issues are connected?
> >
> > I have heard nothing from the WMF that suggests that they are.
> >
> > A few other people are trying to draw some link between the two, but the
> > burden of proof is on them not on Lila....
>
> Maybe you missed this:
>
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/James_Heilman_removal_FAQ#What_happened.3F
> >
>
> In which James Heilman, by way of explaining why he was removed from
> the board, complains of a lack of transparency, links to the
> announcement of the Knight Foundation grant, and comments "many
> details however are still missing."
>
> -- Tim Starling
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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-request@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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer? [ In reply to ]
Andreas, et al

James' now-released email is quite damning in many aspects.

I am very concerned that James was essentially bullied by way of threat
into voting in the affirmative by other members of the BoT. James, would
you care to name those Trustees who did this? Given the recent Harassment
Survey results, it should be clear that there is NO room for harassment on
WMF projects, and those who threatened/bullied you should stand down
immediately.

Lila also has a lot to answer for in not making the BoT aware of what the
Knight Foundation grant was all about beforehand. Lila, any chance you can
explain why?

I can feel a further rift and a vote of no confidence in both the BoT and
WMF management coming on.

Warm regards,

Ruslan Takayev

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 4:47 PM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466@gmail.com> wrote:

> More on this from James Heilman and others in the current Signpost issue.
>
> From the editors: Help wanted
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/From_the_editors
>
> In focus: The Knight Foundation grant: a timeline and an email to the board
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/In_focus
>
> Op-ed: So, what’s a knowledge engine anyway?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/Op-ed
>
> Special report: Board chair and new trustee speak with the ''Signpost''
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/Special_report
>
> Traffic report: Bowled
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/Traffic_report
>
> News and notes: Harassment survey 2015; Luis Villa to leave WMF; knowledge
> engine background
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/News_and_notes
>
> Featured content: This week's featured content
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/Featured_content
>
> Arbitration report: Catching up on arbitration
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/Arbitration_report
>
>
> Single page view
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single/2016-02-03
>
> PDF version
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03
>
>
> https://www.facebook.com/wikisignpost / https://twitter.com/wikisignpost
> --
> Wikipedia Signpost Staff
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost
>
> Andreas
>
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 6:17 AM, Tim Starling <tstarling@wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
>
> > On 07/02/16 09:41, Chris Keating wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I have some one question for you.
> > >>
> > >> I am having a very hard time wrapping my head around how the grant
> > >> information you posted lead to WMF BoT voting James Heilman of the
> > board in
> > >> a vote of no-confidence.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Ruslan - what makes you think the two issues are connected?
> > >
> > > I have heard nothing from the WMF that suggests that they are.
> > >
> > > A few other people are trying to draw some link between the two, but
> the
> > > burden of proof is on them not on Lila....
> >
> > Maybe you missed this:
> >
> > <
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/James_Heilman_removal_FAQ#What_happened.3F
> > >
> >
> > In which James Heilman, by way of explaining why he was removed from
> > the board, complains of a lack of transparency, links to the
> > announcement of the Knight Foundation grant, and comments "many
> > details however are still missing."
> >
> > -- Tim Starling
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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-request@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-request@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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer? [ In reply to ]
My impression of this whole situation with the Knight Foundation is that
the WMF's strong tendency toward closed-door and closed-loop processes are
hurting WMF more than helping it. If WMF had been transparent with the
community about this situation in the first place and a consultation with
the community had happened as negotiations were underway with Knight, I am
wondering if a mutually agreeable solution could have been created at that
time. Now we're in the midst of a lot of skepticism, suspicion, and
political difficulties.

Perhaps after the experiences of the past few months WMF governance will
re-align itself with the value of openness.

Hope springs eternal,

Pine
_______________________________________________
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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer? [ In reply to ]
Hi All-

The funder has agreed to share the Knowledge Engine grant agreement. Here
are the links to that document and other relevant communication about the
Discovery team's work:

1) Knowledge Engine Grant Agreement
<https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:Knowledge_engine_grant_agreement.pdf>
2) Statement from Lila on her talk page and discussion
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)#Knowledge_Engine_grant>
3) Discovery FAQ <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Discovery/FAQ>

Thank you,
Lisa Gruwell

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 1:03 AM, Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com> wrote:

> My impression of this whole situation with the Knight Foundation is that
> the WMF's strong tendency toward closed-door and closed-loop processes are
> hurting WMF more than helping it. If WMF had been transparent with the
> community about this situation in the first place and a consultation with
> the community had happened as negotiations were underway with Knight, I am
> wondering if a mutually agreeable solution could have been created at that
> time. Now we're in the midst of a lot of skepticism, suspicion, and
> political difficulties.
>
> Perhaps after the experiences of the past few months WMF governance will
> re-align itself with the value of openness.
>
> Hope springs eternal,
>
> Pine
> _______________________________________________
> 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-request@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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer? [ In reply to ]
hi Pine,


On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 4:03 AM, Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com> wrote:

> My impression of this whole situation with the Knight Foundation is that
> the WMF's strong tendency toward closed-door and closed-loop processes are
> hurting WMF more than helping it. If WMF had been transparent with the
> community about this situation in the first place and a consultation with
> the community had happened as negotiations were underway with Knight, I am
> wondering if a mutually agreeable solution could have been created at that
> time. Now we're in the midst of a lot of skepticism, suspicion, and
> political difficulties.
>

I am not certain if it would even make sense for the WMF to engage the
community every time it applies for an exploratory grant in such amount
(roughly 1/300th of its budget). Also, after some consultation internally,
my understanding is that in practice it will often not be sensible to
insist on publishing grant applications, basically because many donors are
just not as progressive as we would like them to be, and we do not want to
decrease our chances for a grant in the future (donors may not be
comfortable releasing this, and in the same time they will not want to be
singled out in public as the only ones who refused).

Having stated that, I am happy to acknowledge that in this particular case
(of a great, open-minded donor, with whom we have a good and long
relationship) it is reasonable (and possible) to release this info, also to
cut the wild speculations.

Lisa - awesome job, many thanks for making this happen!

best,

dj
_______________________________________________
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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer? [ In reply to ]
Lisa, thank you.

I am getting the sense from the available information about this grant that
the Knight Foundation is well intentioned. My concerns here, and I think
that the concerns from other community members, are primarily related to
WMF's handling of this situation. I for one would be happy to see
improvements to internal search on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons that
would benefit our readers as well as our community members.

On WMF's side, since WMF is exploring the question "Would users go to
Wikipedia if it were an open channel beyond an encyclopedia?" (quote from
page 2 of the grant document), it seems to me that potential re-scoping of
Wikipedia would merit a conversation with the community. Looking at page 10
of the grant, the scope of the Knowledge Engine project appears to be
aligned with Wikimedia values, but it looks to me like the scope and
methods of implementing the Knowledge Project should have been discussed
with the community.

Dariuz, regarding your statement that

> after some consultation internally, my understanding is that in practice
it will often
> not be sensible to insist on publishing grant applications, basically
because many
> donors are just not as progressive as we would like them to be, and we do
not
> want to decrease our chances for a grant in the future (donors may not be
> comfortable releasing this, and in the same time they will not want to be
singled
> out in public as the only ones who refused).

I would respond by saying that openness is a value in the Wikimedia
movement and that our values should not be for sale at any price. Policy
and practice should be that documents for all restricted grants received by
WMF will be published on Commons and that the community will be notified of
all restricted grants that are being contemplated by WMF. If a potential
donor is uncomfortable with that, then they can donate unrestricted funds
anonymously, and those funds must be spent only on programs that are
explicitly authorized under WMF's published annual plans or sent to the
reserve or the endowment. Again I will say that I hope that our value of
openness is not for sale at any price.

Pine
_______________________________________________
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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer? [ In reply to ]
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I would respond by saying that openness is a value in the Wikimedia
> movement and that our values should not be for sale at any price. Policy
> and practice should be that documents for all restricted grants received by
> WMF will be published on Commons and that the community will be notified of
> all restricted grants that are being contemplated by WMF. If a potential
> donor is uncomfortable with that, then they can donate unrestricted funds
> anonymously, and those funds must be spent only on programs that are
> explicitly authorized under WMF's published annual plans or sent to the
> reserve or the endowment. Again I will say that I hope that our value of
> openness is not for sale at any price.
>

You twist my argument as I was proposing to put our values for sale. I
don't think it is even borderline close to ASG, or other norms typical for
Wikimedia space, and I don't think it is a fair reflection of what I wrote.

I believe that it may be impractical to require all grant applications,
especially of smaller amount, to be made public, if it impacts our ability
to gather funds. It is a decision that we should make after listening to
professionals in this area (who have sat with the big donors on hundreds of
occasions, and also know our movement inside-out), not just being driven by
a natural tendency that we want to know more.

Transparency is important, but it should not be reduced to the community
having access to all documents if it may impair our work. It is also
transparency of process (understanding HOW a decision is made, not
necessarily seeing all documents), and also the reasoning (explaining WHY
either WMF or the Board believe or do something). In both areas there is a
scope for improvement and I am a full supporter of such improvements.

And yet, the bigger picture is that we have been literally flooded with
information requests and comments over the last two months, and we have
spent most of our time on that. I understand the context and I'd say it is
understandable in the circumstances and fine. But at some point the Board
also needs to focus on what it is for as well: setting the vision, thinking
about the wider horizon.

If we are to survive the next 10 years as the top 10 website, we should
focus externally more, and start building more stuff that our readers care
about. I totally agree that WMF has failed on many occasions here, and we,
the community, were right (when I recall the first deployment of the VE I
grit my teeth). But ultimately we need to be really able to move on, to be
able to move forward.

dj




>
>


________________________________________________________________________________
*Please, note, that this email will expire at some point. Bookmark
dariusz.jemielniak@fulbrightmail.org
<dariusz.jemielniak@fulbrightmail.org> as a more permanent contact
address. *
_______________________________________________
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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer? [ In reply to ]
Dariusz,

Thank you for engaging on this. I believe the important thing now is to
understand what happened specifically with the Knowledge Engine grant; but
you make a claim about a more general policy that I think should be
addressed. (I will address KE issues separately.)

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj@alk.edu.pl>
wrote:

> I believe that it may be impractical to require all grant applications,
> especially of smaller amount, to be made public, if it impacts our ability
> to gather funds.


Did you notice MZMcBride's recent link, demonstrating that then-Executive
Director Sue Gardner asserted exactly the opposite, explicitly as policy?
To my knowledge, there has not been any new policy articulated to change
that; so even though it was 2011, I would understand this to still be WMF
policy.[1]

I am also curious about the characterization of a $250k grant as "smaller."
While there are certainly much larger grants, it seems to me that it being
over the $100k threshold that subjects it to the WMF Gift Policy would
naturally classify it as "larger." Certainly, when I worked in grant
fund-raising for WMF it was unthinkable that we would ever accept a
restricted grant for less than $100k; this was a firmly held principle. But
perhaps that is another policy that has been changed (or forgotten?)


> It is a decision that we should make after listening to
> professionals in this area (who have sat with the big donors on hundreds of
> occasions, and also know our movement inside-out), not just being driven by
> a natural tendency that we want to know more.
>

Many professionals who are deeply involved in the Wikimedia and open
knowledge movements have already commented on this topic in great detail.
There is strong consensus around the value of transparency; while there may
be an opposing view (and while there are certainly some pieces of
information that should not be published), I have yet to hear a generally
anti-transparency view articulated. Have you?

I surveyed the views of the following individuals in my blog post last
month:
* Former WMF executive director Sue Gardner
* Former WMF deputy director Erik Moller
* WMF advisory board member (former?) Wayne Mackintosh
* Mozilla executive director Mark Surman
* Various members of the fund-raising and fund-disseminating departments of
WMF, past and present
http://wikistrategies.net/grant-transparency/

There is a strong trend toward transparency in the philanthropy world. WMF
has long been a guiding light in that trend in its grant-GIVING capacity,
and in certain instances has reflected those values around the grant it
receives as well.

If there is a new, contrary policy -- or even a contrary predilection,
beyond your own opinions as an individual trustee -- I think this is
something that should be publicly stated.

Transparency is important, but it should not be reduced to the community
> having access to all documents if it may impair our work.


I agree with this, but it is a straw man. Nobody could reasonably expect
ALL documents to be shared publicly (and if they have stated otherwise, I'm
confident that is merely a kind of shorthand). The important conversation
is about default positions; exceptions are always worth considering, and
often justified.


> It is also
> transparency of process (understanding HOW a decision is made, not
> necessarily seeing all documents), and also the reasoning (explaining WHY
> either WMF or the Board believe or do something). In both areas there is a
> scope for improvement and I am a full supporter of such improvements.
>

Strongly agree, and thank you for addressing this.

And yet, the bigger picture is that we have been literally flooded with
> information requests and comments over the last two months, and we have
> spent most of our time on that. I understand the context and I'd say it is
> understandable in the circumstances and fine.


Again, thank you for acknowledging. When mistakes are made, often a
consequence is that more work needs to be done.


> But at some point the Board also needs to focus on what it is for as well:
> setting the vision, thinking about the wider horizon.


I do not believe those activities are opposed to more clearly articulating
what has happened around the Knight grant. I believe those things overlap
strongly; the board need not turn its attention from one to the other. The
very core issue around the Knowledge Engine grant is that it seems to stray
widely from the common understanding of the vision and the wider horizon.


> If we are to survive the next 10 years as the top 10 website,


Desirable, but not an absolute requirement. Our vision statement doesn't
even require us to be a web site. There are many compromises that we should
not make in pursuit of this goal.

we should focus externally more,


Citation needed -- it seems there is very strong consensus lately that
there are major problems within the Wikimedia Foundation. I hope that
Trustees will not ignore these views, coming from a wide variety of
respectable sources, with mere counter-assertion.

and start building more stuff that our readers care
> about. I totally agree that WMF has failed on many occasions here, and we,
> the community, were right (when I recall the first deployment of the VE I
> grit my teeth).


Wonderful to hear you say that. But the beyond individual statements like
this, we have not heard from the organization about what kinds of mistakes
were made with VE (or with other software deployments). As Asaf recently
expressed [2] (earning much praise), it is highly valuable, when a mistake
is made, to acknowledge it in some detail, and in a way that respects the
depth of the mistake. Without such an expression, it is hard to have shared
confidence that lessons have been learned; and without learning, it is
indeed hard to move forward.

>

But ultimately we need to be really able to move on, to be
> able to move forward.
>

Agreed. I remain hopeful that the Wikimedia Board of Trustees and senior
management will take steps that will permit us to do so.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

[1]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2011-October/116339.html
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/So_you%27ve_made_a_mistake_and_it%27s_public.
..
_______________________________________________
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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

1 2 3  View All